4.6 Article

Transient Bacteremia Promotes Catheter-Related Central Venous Thrombosis through Neutrophil Extracellular Traps

期刊

THROMBOSIS AND HAEMOSTASIS
卷 122, 期 7, 页码 1198-1208

出版社

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/a-1695-8612

关键词

transient bacteremia; neutrophil extracellular traps; Staphylococcus aureus; catheter-related central venous thrombosis

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan [MOST 108-2314-B-002-088-MY3, MOST 108-2320-B-038-057-MY3, MOST 110-2320B-002-064]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) could be detected in the fibrin sheaths from dialysis patients without clinical manifestations of infection. Bacteria, particularly Staphylococcus aureus, were found embedded in NETs in the fibrin sheaths. In rat models, transient bacteremia of S. aureus induced the formation of NETs in enlarged fibrin sheaths, and treatment with DNase I reduced both NET and fibrin sheath formation.
Formation of intravenous catheter-related thrombosis leads to central venous stenosis in patients requiring renal replacement therapy or chemotherapy infusion, yet the triggers or mechanisms remain unclear, especially in patients without symptoms of infection. In this study, we found that neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) could be detected in the fibrin sheaths from dialysis patients without clinical manifestations of infection. Confocal microscopy revealed bacteria imbedded in NETs in the fibrin sheaths. Thirty-nine of 50 (78%) fibrin sheath specimens contained bacteria detectable by 16S ribosomal RNA genome typing with a predominance of Staphylococcus aureus (69%). In rat models, transient bacteremia of S. aureus induced NETs in enlarged fibrin sheaths, and treatment with DNase I alone significantly reduced both NET and fibrin sheath formation surrounding the catheter. Therefore, transient bacteremia could be a silent trigger that induces NET-related immunothrombosis enhancing catheter-related central venous stenosis.

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