4.2 Article

Circulating glycosaminoglycan species in septic shock

期刊

ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA
卷 58, 期 1, 页码 36-43

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/aas.12223

关键词

-

资金

  1. Lund University Hospital
  2. Skane County Council's Research and Development Foundation
  3. Berger foundation
  4. Bergwall foundation
  5. Lundgren foundation
  6. Crafoord foundation
  7. Vascular Wall programme within Lund University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundGlycosaminoglycans (GAGs) are negatively charged polysaccharides present, e.g., on the luminal face of the blood vessels as heparan sulphate (HS) and hyaluronic acid (HA), in the interstitium as HA, and in neutrofils and plasma as chondroitin sulphate (CS) and HA. Total plasma levels of GAG are increased in human septic shock, but the origin and pathophysiological implications are unclear. In order to determine the source of circulating GAG in sepsis, we compared plasma levels of HS, HA, CS and keratan sulphate (KS) in patients with septic shock and controls. MethodsHS and KS were measured with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, and HA and CS disaccharides with liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry in plasma obtained from patients admitted to intensive care fulfilling criteria for septic shock as well as from matched control patients scheduled for neurosurgery. ResultsMedian levels of HS and HA were fourfold increased in septic shock and were higher in patients that did not survive 90 days (threefold and fivefold for HS and HA, respectively). Median CS levels were unaltered, while KS levels were slightly decreased in sepsis patients. HS and HA levels correlated with levels of interleukin-6 and interleukin-10. Except for HA, GAG levels did not correlate to liver or kidney sequential organ function score. ConclusionMedian plasma level of HS and HA is increased in septic shock patients, are higher in patients that do not survive, and correlates with inflammatory activation and failing circulation. The increased levels could be due to vascular damage.

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

4.2
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