4.5 Review

Persistent inflammation and recovery after intensive care: A systematic review

期刊

JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE
卷 33, 期 -, 页码 192-199

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2016.01.011

关键词

Intensive care; Critical illness; Rehabilitation; Inflammation; Recovery; Quality of life

资金

  1. Chief Scientist Office [CZH/4/531] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. Chief Scientist Office [CZH/4/531] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Physical weakness is common after critical illness; however, it is not clear how best to treat it. Inflammation characterizes critical illness, is associated with loss of muscle mass during critical illness, and potentially modifies post-intensive care unit (ICU) recovery. We sought to identify published reports on the prevalence of systemic inflammation after critical illness and its association with physical recovery. Methods: This is a systematic review of the literature from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CPCI-SSH, and CPCI-5 from January 1932 to December 2011. Results: From 7433 references, 207 full -text articles were reviewed, 57 were eligible, and 22 were included. Inflammation was present in most patients at ICU discharge according to C-reactive protein concentration (range, 70%-100%), procalcitonin (range, 89%-100%), tumor necrosis factor alpha (100%), and systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria (range, 92%-95%). Fewer patients had elevated myeloperoxidase concentrations (range, 0%-56%). At hospital discharge, 9 (90%) of 10 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients had elevated C-reactive protein. No studies tested the association between inflammation and physical recovery. Conclusions: Inflammation is present in most patients at ICU discharge, but little is known or has been investigated about persistent inflammation after this time point. No studies have explored the relationship between persistent inflammation and physical recovery. Further research is proposed. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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