4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Bacterial translocation secondary to small intestinal mucosal ischemia during cardiopulmonary bypass. Measurement by diamine oxidase and peptidoglycan

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CARDIO-THORACIC SURGERY
卷 25, 期 2, 页码 275-280

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2003.11.008

关键词

cardiopulmonary bypass; ischemia of small intestinal mucosa; diamine oxidase; peptidoglycan; bacterial translocation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To demonstrate that small intestinal mucosal ischemia occurs during cardiopulmonary bypass by measuring serum diamine oxidase activity, an index of small intestinal mucosal ischemia, in perioerative patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery with and without cardiopulmonary bypass. Methods: Twelve successive patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting with cardiopulmonary bypass (Group I) were compared to 10 patients who underwent off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (Group II). Serum diamine oxidase activity, blood lactate concentration, and serum peptidoglycan concentration were measured perioperatively. Results: Serum diamine oxidase activity rose after the start of cardiopulmonary bypass and continued to rise throughout cardiopulmonary bypass in Group I, while activity was unchanged in Group II. The serum lactate concentration mirrored the change in the diamine oxidase activity in both groups. The peptidoglycan concentration in Group I rose after the start of cardiopulmonary bypass and returned to near normal concentrations after surgery. Conclusions: The parallel rise in diamine oxidase activity and the serum lactate concentration in Group I implies that ischemic injury to the mucosa of the small intestine occurs during cardiopulmonary bypass, and the rise in the serum peptidoglycan concentration indicates that bacteremia did occur. Thus, cardiopulmonary bypass causes hypoperfusion of small intestinal mucosa and consequently bacterial translocation. (C) 2003 Elsevier B.V. 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