4.8 Article

Lipidomic signatures align with inflammatory patterns and outcomes in critical illness

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-34420-4

关键词

-

资金

  1. US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command [W81XWH-12-2-0023]
  2. National Institutes of Health [R35-GM-127027, U01HL137159, R01LM012087]
  3. Xiangya Medical School, Changsha, China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Alterations in lipid metabolism and circulating lipid species have been reported in patients with acute critical illness. Here the authors show that selective rise in systemic phosphatidylethanolamine levels is a common feature of critical illness that associates with worse clinical outcomes.
Alterations in lipid metabolism have the potential to be markers as well as drivers of pathobiology of acute critical illness. Here, we took advantage of the temporal precision offered by trauma as a common cause of critical illness to identify the dynamic patterns in the circulating lipidome in critically ill humans. The major findings include an early loss of all classes of circulating lipids followed by a delayed and selective lipogenesis in patients destined to remain critically ill. The previously reported survival benefit of early thawed plasma administration was associated with preserved lipid levels that related to favorable changes in coagulation and inflammation biomarkers in causal modelling. Phosphatidylethanolamines (PE) were elevated in patients with persistent critical illness and PE levels were prognostic for worse outcomes not only in trauma but also severe COVID-19 patients. Here we show selective rise in systemic PE as a common prognostic feature of critical illness. Alterations in lipid metabolism and circulating lipid species have been reported in patients with acute critical illness. Here the authors show that selective rise in systemic phosphatidylethanolamine levels is a common feature of critical illness that associates with worse clinical outcomes.

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

4.8
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