4.7 Article

Endocrine and metabolic responses in children with meningoccocal sepsis: Striking differences between survivors and nonsurvivors

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
卷 85, 期 10, 页码 3746-3753

出版社

ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.1210/jc.85.10.3746

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To get insight in the endocrine and metabolic responses in children with meningococcal sepsis 26 children were studied the first 48 h after admission. On admission there was a significant difference in cortisol/ACTH levels between nonsurvivors (n = 8) and survivors (n = 18). Nonsurvivors showed an inadequate cortisol stress response in combination to very high ACTH levels, whereas survivors showed a normal stress response with significantly higher cortisol levels (0.62 us. 0.89 mu mol/L) in combination with moderately increased ACTH levels (1234 vs. 231 ng/L). Furthermore, there was a significant difference between nonsurvivors and survivors regarding pediatric risk of mortality score (31 us. 17), TSH (0.97 vs. 0.29 mE/L), T-3 (0.53 us. 0.38 nmol/L), reverse T-3 (rT(3)) (0.75 us. 1.44 nmol/L), C-reactive protein (34 us. 78 mg/L), nonesterified fatty acids (0.32 us. 0.95 mmol/L), and lactate (7.3 us. 3.2 mmol/L). In those who survived, the most important changes within 48 h were seen in a normalization of cortisol and ACTH levels, but without a circadian rhythm; a decrease of rT(3) and an increase in the T-3/rT(3) ratio; and a decrease in the levels of the nonesterified free fatty acids and an unaltered high urinary nitrogen excretion. At this moment, it is yet unknown whether the hormonal abnormalities are determining factors in the outcome of acute meningococcal sepsis or merely represent secondary effects. Understanding the metabolic and endocrine alterations is required to design possible therapeutic approaches. The striking difference between nonsurvivors and survivors calls for reconsideration of corticosteroid treatment in children with meningococcal 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

4.7
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