4.4 Article

Altered Gut Flora Are Associated with Septic Complications and Death in Critically Ill Patients with Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome

期刊

DIGESTIVE DISEASES AND SCIENCES
卷 56, 期 4, 页码 1171-1177

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-010-1418-8

关键词

Gut; Flora; Probiotics; Sepsis; Classification and regression trees; ICU

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gut under severe insult is considered to have an important role in promoting infection and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome from the viewpoint of altered intestinal epithelium, immune system and commensal bacteria. There are few reports, however, about the relationship between gut flora and septic complications. We analyzed gut flora in patients with systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and evaluated key bacteria and their cutoff values for infectious complications and mortality by using classification and regression trees (CART). Eighty-one SIRS patients with a serum C-reactive protein level higher than 10 mg/dL treated in the intensive care unit (ICU) for more than 2 days were included for the study. We quantitatively evaluated nine types of bacteria in fecal samples by plate or tube technique. Two hundred seventy-one samples were analyzed using CART and logistic regression. The dominant factors for complication of enteritis were the minimum number of total obligate anaerobes and the maximum number of Staphylococcus and Enterococcus. The dominant factors for complication of bacteremia were the minimum numbers of total obligate anaerobes and total facultative anaerobes. The dominant factors for mortality were the numbers of total obligate anaerobes and total facultative anaerobes and age. A decrease in total obligate anaerobes and an increase in pathogenic bacteria in the gut are associated with septic complications and mortality in patients with SIRS. The altered gut flora may be a potential prognostic marker in SIRS patients.

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

4.4
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