4.6 Article

The role of resistin and myeloperoxidase in severe sepsis and septic shock: Results from the ALBIOS trial

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/eci.13333

关键词

myeloperoxidase; neutrophils; prognosis; resistin; septic shock; severe sepsis

资金

  1. Ministero della Salute [2754291, RF-2011-02348] Funding Source: Medline
  2. Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco, Ministero della Salute [FARM6JS3R5] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Inflammatory biomarkers are useful in detecting patients with sepsis. The prognostic role of resistin and myeloperoxidase (MPO) has been investigated in sepsis. Materials and Methods Plasma resistin and MPO were measured on days 1, 2 and 7 in 957 patients enrolled in the Albumin Italian Outcome Sepsis (ALBIOS) trial. The association between resistin and MPO levels on day 1, 2 and 7 and 90-day mortality was assessed. Results Plasma resistin and MPO concentrations were higher at day 1 and decreased until day 7. Both biomarkers were positively correlated with each other and with physiological parameters. Higher levels of resistin and MPO on day 1 were associated with the development of new organ failures. Patients experiencing death at 90 days showed higher levels of resistin and MPO compared with survivors. At day 1, only MPO in the 4th quartile (Q4), but not resistin, was found to predict 90-day death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.55 vs Q1). At day 2, resistin in the Q3 and Q4 predicted a > 40% increase in mortality as also did MPO in the Q4. On day 7, Q4 resistin was able to predict 90-day mortality, while all quartiles of MPO were not. Conclusions High levels of MPO, but not of resistin, on day 1 were able to predict 90-day mortality. These findings may either suggest that early hyper-activation of neutrophils is detrimental in patients with sepsis or reflect the burden of the inflammatory process caused by sepsis. Further studies are warranted to deepen these aspects (ALBIOS ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00707122).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据