4.4 Review

Reliability of S100B in predicting severity of central nervous system injury

期刊

NEUROCRITICAL CARE
卷 6, 期 2, 页码 121-138

出版社

HUMANA PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1007/s12028-007-0008-x

关键词

S100B protein; biomarker for brain injury; clinical outcomes prediction; neuron specific enolase (NSE); glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP); secondary brain injury; assessment of CNS injury

向作者/读者索取更多资源

S100B is a protein biomarker that reflects CNS injury. It can be measured in the CSF or serum with readily available immunoassay kits. The excellent sensitivity of S100B has enabled it to confirm the existence of subtle brain injury in patients with mild head trauma, strokes, and after successful resuscitation from cardiopulmonary arrest. The extent of S100B elevation has been found to be useful in predicting clinical outcome after brain injury. Elevations of S100B above certain threshold levels might be able to reliably predict brain death or mortality. A normal S100B level reliably predicts the absence of significant CNS injury. The specificity of S100B levels as a reflection of CNS injury is compromised by the findings that extra-cranial injuries can lead to elevations in the absence of brain injury. This potential problem can most likely be avoided by measuring serial S100B levels along with other biomarkers and carefully noting peripheral injuries. Serum markers GFAP and NSE are both more specific for CNS injury and have little to no extra-cranial sources. Sustained elevations of S100B over 24 h along with elevations of GFAP and NSE can more reliably predict the extent of brain injury and clinical outcomes. In the future, S100B measurements might reliably predict secondary brain injury and enable physicians to initiate therapeutic interventions in a timelier manner. S100B levels have been shown to rise hours to days before changes in ICP, neurological examinations, and neuroimaging tests. S100B levels may also be used to monitor the efficacy of treatments.

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

4.4
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