4.6 Article

Predictive value of monocyte histocompatibility leukocyte antigen-DR expression and plasma interleukin-4 and-10 levels in critically ill patients with sepsis

期刊

SHOCK
卷 20, 期 1, 页码 1-4

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.shk.0000068322.08268.b4

关键词

outcome; monocytic deactivation; cytokines; anti-inflammatory

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It has been suggested that excessive activation of the anti-inflammatory pathways in sepsis may lead to poor outcome of patients with sepsis. The aim of this study was to test the value of histocompatibility leukocyte antigen (HLA)-DR-expression on blood monocytes and plasma levels of interleukin (IL)-4 and -10 in prediction of hospital mortality in patients with sepsis. Sixty-one critically ill patients with sepsis were prospectively enrolled to this study in two university hospital intensive care units. Survivors (n = 41) and nonsurvivors (n = 20) differed significantly in HLA-DR expression at admission: survivors' median 84% (interquartile range 64%-98%) versus nonsurvivors' median 62% (interquartile range 47%-83%, P = 0.025 by Mann-Whitney test). Similarly, the analysis revealed statistically significant differences between survivors and nonsurvivors in admission plasma IL-10 levels and in admission Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scores, but not in IL-4 levels. The areas under receiver operating curves (AUC) showed that both monocyte HLA-DR expression and plasma IL-4 level showed poor discriminative power in prediction of hospital mortality (AUC < 0.70). Only IL-10 levels on days 1 and 2 showed reasonable predictive power (AUCs 0.706 and 0.725, respectively). The highest AUC values were those of APACHE-II (0.786) and admission SOFA score (0.763). In conclusion, APACHE II and SOFA scores on admission showed better discriminatory power than HLA-DR expression and IL-10 and IL-4 levels in prediction of hospital mortality in critically ill patients with sepsis.

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