4.4 Article

Plasma mtDNA Analysis Aids in Predicting Pancreatic Necrosis in Acute Pancreatitis Patients: A Pilot Study

期刊

DIGESTIVE DISEASES AND SCIENCES
卷 63, 期 11, 页码 2975-2982

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-018-5227-9

关键词

Mitochondrial DNA; Acute pancreatitis; Acute pancreatic necrosis; C-reactive protein

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81200030]
  2. Jiangsu Planned Projects for Postdoctoral Research Funds [1402002A]
  3. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2016T1015]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundSpecific plasma biomarkers in predicting pancreatic necrosis (PNec) are needed in treating acute pancreatitis (AP).AimsTo investigate the prognostic value of plasma mitochondrial DNA fragments (mtDNA) in patient with AP for PNec.MethodsAP patients with symptoms onset within 72h were prospectively enrolled from June 2015 through June 2017 and were assessed for PNec using contrast-enhanced CT scan. Plasma mtDNA concentration (specific mitochondrial gene ND1) was measured using qRT-PCR.ResultsOf the 74 AP patients included, significant higher median level of plasma mtDNA was found in severe AP patients than in mild AP patients and healthy controls, but not in moderately severe AP patients. Patients with PNec had higher level of plasma mtDNA than those without PNec (774.2 [IQR 397.6-2205.0] vs. 169.5 [IQR 73.6-683.4] pg/ml, P<0.05). The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (ROC-AUC) of mtDNA for predicting PNec was higher than that of CRP (0.813 [95% CI 0.705-0.895] vs. 0.678 [95% CI 0.558-0.783]). Using a cutoff value of 302.5pg/ml, the sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing PNec were 90.9 and 68.3%, respectively. Finally, plasma mtDNA levels decreased significantly after continuous renal replacement therapy (717.7 [IQR 307.00-1370.00] vs. 237.5 [IQR 117.20-464.80] pg/ml, P<0.01).ConclusionsElevated plasma mtDNA content in AP patients may be used as a more accurate early predictor of PNec in contrast to traditional CRP.

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