4.5 Article

Does soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-1 play any role in the pathogenesis of septic shock?

期刊

CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL IMMUNOLOGY
卷 142, 期 1, 页码 62-67

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2249.2005.02887.X

关键词

sepsis; septic shock; sTREM-1; survival

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In order to define the significance of soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-1 (sTREM-1) upon progression from sepsis or severe sepsis to septic shock a prospective study was designed with 90 enrolled patients with septic syndrome due to ventilator-associated pneumonia. Blood was sampled on seven consecutive days upon initiation of symptoms and concentrations of tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF alpha), interleukin-6 (IL-6), IL-8 and sTREM-1 were estimated in serum by an enzymeimmunoassay. No differences in concentrations of TNF alpha, IL-6 and IL-8 were found between patients with sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock on the first day of presentation of symptoms. Patients presenting with septic shock had concentrations of sTREM-1 significantly higher than both patients with sepsis and severe sepsis on the first day; no difference was found between patients with sepsis and severe sepsis. A positive correlation was detected between sTREM-1 and the white blood cell count. Serum levels of sTREM-1 were significantly lower in patients where VAP resolved compared to those where VAP did not resolve; similar findings were noted between patients who eventually survived and those who died. IL-6 followed the kinetics of sTREM-1 in correlation to patients's prognosis; levels of TNF alpha and IL-8 were unrelated to prognosis. It is concluded that sTREM-1 is particularly increased upon evolution from sepsis or severe sepsis to septic shock. Its sustained increase is an indication of poor outcome. The underlined pathophysiological role of sTREM-1 for the transition from sepsis or severe sepsis to septic shock might constitute a novel target for immunomodulatory therapy.

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