4.6 Article

High C-reactive protein and low cholesterol levels are prognostic markers of survival in severe sepsis

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ANESTHESIA
卷 19, 期 3, 页码 186-191

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2006.10.008

关键词

C-reactive protein; cholesterol; prognostic factor; severe sepsis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study Objective: To evaluate serum C-reactive protein and cholesterol as a prognostic factor for Survival in patients with severe sepsis. Design: Prospective study. Setting: University hospital. Patients: The study population consisted of 96 patients (age range, 18-75 years; median, 56 years; men/women ratio, 40:56) in whom severe sepsis was diagnosed. Interventions: Patients' serum levels of C-reactive protein and cholesterol were measured upon admission to an intensive care unit, two days later, and on the day of discharge from the intensive care unit or on the day of death. Measurements and Main Results: Cholesterol levels were significantly lower among the nonsurviving patients (day 1, 92.2 +/- 25.1 mg/dL; day 2, 92.1 +/- 21.7 mg/dL; death/discharge day, 92.2 +/- 21.7 mg/dL) than surviving patients (day 1, 175.1 +/- 38.6 mg/dL [P < 0.001]; day 2, 173.0 +/- 39.3 mg/dL [P < 0.001]; death/discharge day, 171.8 +/- 39.6 mg/dL [P = 0.010]). Median C-reactive protein levels were significantly higher among the nonsurvivors (day 1, 32 mg/dL [range, 20.5-64.5 rng/dL]; day 2, 33 mg/dL [range, 22-74.5 mg/dL]; death/discharge day, 30 rng/dL [range, 22-57 mg/dL]) than survivors (day 1, 10 rng/dL [range, 6-14 mg/dL]; day 2, 9 mg/dL [range, 5-10 mg/dL]; death/discharge day, 6 mg/dL [range, 3-9 mg/dL]; P < 0.001). Conclusion: Serum C-reactive protein and cholesterol are a predictor of survival in patients with severe sepsis. Low cholesterol and high C-reactive protein levels appear as a valuable tool for individual risk assessment in severe sepsis patients and for stratification of high-risk patients in future intervention trials. (C) 2007 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

4.6
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