4.7 Article

Influence of Advanced Organ Support (ADVOS) on Cytokine Levels in Patients with Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure (ACLF)

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 11, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11102782

关键词

liver dialysis; cirrhosis; liver failure; hyperinflammation; extracorporeal liver support systems; albumin dialysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, we found that ADVOS treatment did not significantly affect cytokine levels in patients with ACLF, even when stratified for different dialysis times. These results suggest that ADVOS treatment has limited impact on cytokine regulation in patients with ACLF.
Background: ADVanced Organ Support (ADVOS) is a novel type of extracorporeal albumin dialysis that supports multiorgan function in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF). No data exist on whether ADVOS affects inflammatory cytokine levels, which play a relevant role in ACLF. Aim: Our aim was to quantify cytokine levels both before and after a single ADVOS treatment in patients with ACLF at a regular dialysis ward. Methods and results: In this prospective study, 15 patients (60% men) with ACLF and an indication for renal replacement therapy were included. Patient liver function was severely compromised, reflected by a median CLIF-consortium ACLF score of 38 (IQR 35; 40). Blood samples were directly taken before and after ADVOS dialysis. The concentration of cytokines for IL-1 beta, IFN-alpha 2, IFN-gamma, TNF-alpha, MCP-1, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-12p70, IL-17A, IL-18, IL-23, IL-33 were quantified via a cytometric bead array. We found no significant (p > 0.05) change in cytokine levels, even when patients were stratified for dialysis time (<480 min versus >= 480 min). The relevance of the assessed cytokines in contributing to systemic inflammation in ACLF was demonstrated by Ingenuity pathway analysis (R). Conclusion: Concentrations of pathomechanistically relevant cytokines remained unchanged both before and after ADVOS treatment in patients with ACLF.

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

4.7
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