4.6 Article

VEGF levels in the alveolar compartment do not distinguish between ARDS and hydrostatic pulmonary oedema

期刊

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
卷 26, 期 1, 页码 101-105

出版社

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/09031936.05.00106604

关键词

acute pulmonary oedema; acute respiratory distress syndrome

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R25 CA113710, R25 CA113710-04] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [R37 HL051856, P50HL74005, HL62259, R01 HL062259, K08 HL070521, HL51856, HL70521, R01 HL051856, P50 HL074005] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although overexpression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) 165 in the lung causes pulmonary oedema, its role in human acute lung injury (ALI) is unclear. VEGF levels are reported to be lower in bronchoalveolar lavage from ALI patients compared with normals, but these studies did not include a comparably ill control group with noninflammatory pulmonary oedema. The current authors hypothesised that VEGF levels in pulmonary oedema fluid would be lower in ALI patients compared with control patients with severe hydrostatic pulmonary oedema. VEGF was measured in pulmonary oedema fluid and plasma from 56 patients with ALI and 46 controls with severe hydrostatic pulmonary oedema. Pulmonary oedema fluid levels of VEGF did not differ between patients with hydrostatic oedema (median 799 pg center dot mL(-1), interquartile range (IQR) 226-2,281) and ALI (median 507, IQR 0.8-1,031). Plasma levels were also the same (median 20.5 pg center dot mL(-1), IQR 0-152 versus 4.8, IQR 0-99.8). There was no association between plasma or oedema fluid VEGF levels and outcomes including mortality. Vascular endothelial growth factor levels in pulmonary oedema fluid were depressed both in acute lung injury and hydrostatic pulmonary oedema. The decrease in air space concentrations of vascular endothelial growth factor in acute lung injury may not be a function of the degree of lung injury, but rather may result from alveolar flooding.

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