切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

第五届中国出版政府奖音像电子网络出版物奖提名奖

中国科技核心期刊

中国科学引文数据库(CSCD)来源期刊

中华重症医学电子杂志 ›› 2019, Vol. 05 ›› Issue (03) : 225 -229. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2096-1537.2019.03.004

所属专题: 文献

临床研究

MCP-1和mHLA-DR检测对脓毒症患者病情危重程度及预后评估的临床意义
许志平1, 马红玲2, 陈双峰3, 吴铁军1,()   
  1. 1. 252000 山东省聊城市人民医院重症医学科
    2. 252000 山东省聊城市人民医院神经内科
    3. 252000 山东省聊城市人民医院中心实验室
  • 收稿日期:2017-10-27 出版日期:2019-08-28
  • 通信作者: 吴铁军
  • 基金资助:
    山东省科学技术发展计划项目(2012YD18024)

Clinical significance of the MCP-1 and the monocyte human leukocyte antigen-DR in patients with sepsis

Zhiping Xu1, Hongling Ma2, Shuangfeng Chen3, Tiejun Wu1,()   

  1. 1. Departmen of Intensive Care Unit, Liaocheng People′s Hospital, Liaocheng 252000, China
    2. Department of Neurology, Liaocheng People′s Hospital, Liaocheng 252000, China
    3. Central Laboratory, Liaocheng People′s Hospital, Liaocheng 252000, China
  • Received:2017-10-27 Published:2019-08-28
  • Corresponding author: Tiejun Wu
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Wu Tiejun, Email:
引用本文:

许志平, 马红玲, 陈双峰, 吴铁军. MCP-1和mHLA-DR检测对脓毒症患者病情危重程度及预后评估的临床意义[J]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2019, 05(03): 225-229.

Zhiping Xu, Hongling Ma, Shuangfeng Chen, Tiejun Wu. Clinical significance of the MCP-1 and the monocyte human leukocyte antigen-DR in patients with sepsis[J]. Chinese Journal of Critical Care & Intensive Care Medicine(Electronic Edition), 2019, 05(03): 225-229.

目的

探讨单核细胞趋化蛋白1(MCP-1)表达量和单核细胞人类白细胞抗原-DR(mHLA-DR)表达率对脓毒症患者病情危重程度及预后的临床意义。

方法

选取2014年12月至2016年2月在聊城市人民医院重症医学科就诊的脓毒症患者104例,根据预后分为生存组(63例)和死亡组(41例),所有患者发病后12 h内采集静脉血,收集评估脏器功能的指标,并进行序贯器官衰竭估计(SOFA)评分和急性生理与慢性健康状况评分系统Ⅱ(APACHEⅡ)评分,应用酶联免疫吸附测定法(ELISA)检测血清MCP-1的表达量,流式细胞仪检测外周血mHLA-DR的表达率,比较2组患者之间各项指标的差异,并分析其对病情危重程度及临床预后的评估价值及相关性。

结果

入组的脓毒症患者,死亡组血清MCP-1表达量较生存组明显升高[(187.65±60.73)pg/ml vs(90.83±31.58)pg/ml,t=-10.65,P<0.01],外周血mHLA-DR表达率较生存组明显降低[(29.41±8.78)% vs(54.70±12.21)%,t=11.47,P<0.05],SOFA评分较生存组明显升高[(11.76±3.92)分vs(9.17±4.39)分,t=-3.28,P<0.01],APACHEⅡ评分明显高于生存组[(25.76±6.27)分vs (18.83±4.65)分,t=-6.47,P<0.05]。血清MCP-1表达量评估脓毒症患者预后的受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线下面积(AUC)为0.950[95%可信区间(CI)=0.911~0.989,P<0.001],根据ROC曲线确定MCP-1评估脓毒症患者死亡的最佳阈值为115.48 pg/ml时,其诊断敏感度为90.2%,特异度为87.3%。mHLA-DR表达率的ROC的AUC为0.952(95%CI=0.915~0.990,P<0.001),根据ROC曲线确定mHLA-DR评估脓毒症患者生存的最佳阈值为39.3%时,其诊断敏感度为88.9%,特异度为87.8%。SOFA评分的ROC的AUC为0.690(95%CI=0.591~0.790,P<0.002),根据ROC曲线确定SOFA评分评估脓毒症患者死亡的最佳阈值为8.5分时,其诊断敏感度为80.5%,特异度为57.1%。APACHEⅡ评分的ROC的AUC为0.805(95%CI=0.711~0.898,P<0.001),根据ROC曲线确定APACHEⅡ评分评估脓毒症患者死亡的最佳阈值为22.5分时,其诊断敏感度为75.6%,特异度为76.2%。所有入组患者血清MCP-1表达量与mHLA-DR表达率呈负相关(r=-0.872,P<0.001)。

结论

MCP-1和mHLA-DR的表达水平可以反映脓毒症患者的病情危重程度,对评估预后具有一定的指导意义。

Objective

To investigate the clinical value of t MCP-1 and monocyte human leukocyte antigen-DR (mHLA-DR) in severity and the prognosis of sepsis patients.

Method

104 patients with sepsis were selected. Patients were classified into two groups (survival group (63 cases) and non-survival group (41 cases). Venous blood was collected in all patients within 12 hours after admission, and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score and acute physiology and chronic health evaluation Ⅱ (APACHEⅡ) score were documented. Serum MCP-1 was detected by ELISA method and peripheral blood mHLA-DR by flow cytometer. We compared the differences between the two groups, and drew the receiver-operating characteristic curve (ROC) to investigate the clinical value of different indicators for the prognosis of sepsis patients. And we further analyzed the relationship between the MCP-1 and the mHLA-DR.

Result

For all the enrolled sepsis patients, the expression of serum MCP-1 in non-survival group was significantly higher than in survival group [(187.65±60.73) pg/ml vs (90.83±31.58) pg/ml, t=-10.65, P<0.01]. The level of the mHLA-DR in survival group was higher than non-survival group [(54.70±12.21) % vs (29.41±8.78)% t=11.47, P<0.05]. The SOFA score in non-survival group was higher than in survival group [(11.76±3.92) vs (9.17±4.39), t=-3.28, P<0.01]. The APACHEⅡ score in non-survival group was significantly higher than in survival group [(25.76±6.27) vs (18.83±4.65), t=-6.47, P<0.05]. The MCP-1 death area under the curve (AUC) was 0.950 (P<0.001, 95%CI: 0.911-0.989), and the cut-off point was 115.48pg/ml, the sensitivity was 90.2%, the specificity was 87.3%. The mHLA-DR survival area under the curve (AUC) was 0.952 (P<0.001, 95%CI: 0.915-0.990), and the cut-off point was 39.3%, the sensitivity was 88.9%, the specificity was 87.8%. The SOFA score death area under the curve (AUC) was 0.690 (P<0.002, 95%CI: 0.591-0, 790), and the cut-off point was 8.5 points, the sensitivity was 80.5%, the specificity was 57.1%. The APACHEⅡ score death area under the curve (AUC) was 0.805 (P<0.001, 95%CI: 0.711-0.898), and the cut-off point was 22.5 points, the sensitivity was 75.6%, the specificity was 76.2%. The MCP-1 expression was negatively correlated with the mHLA-DR level (r=-0.872, P<0.01).

Conclusion

The expression of serum MCP-1 and peripheral blood mHLA-DR in sepsis patients can reflect the degree of disease, and help assess patients′ prognosis.

表1 脓毒血症患者生存组与死亡组之间各项指标的比较(±s
图1 MCP-1、SOFA评分、APACHEⅡ评分对脓毒症患者死亡评估的ROC曲线
图2 mHLA-DR对脓毒症患者生存评估的ROC曲线
图3 脓毒症患者血清MCP-1表达量与外周血mHLA-DR表达率的相关性分析
1
中华医学会重症医学分会. 中国严重脓毒症/脓毒性休克治疗指南(2014) [J]. 全科医学临床与教育, 2015, 54(4): 401-426.
2
Levy MM, Fink MP, Marshall JC, et al. 2001 SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS International Sepsis Definitions Conference [J]. Crit Care Med, 2003, 31(4): 1250-1256.
3
Boomer JS, Green JM, Hotchkiss RS. The changing immune system in sepsis: Is individualized immuno-modulatory therapy the answer? [J]. Virulence, 2014, 5(1): 45-56.
4
徐学超,吴艳,冯爱平. 单核细胞趋化蛋白1与细胞凋亡 [J]. 医学综述, 2011, 17(21): 3225-3227.
5
Monneret G, Lepape A, Voirin N, et al. Persisting low monocyte human leukocyte antigen-DR expression predicts mortality in septic shock [J]. Intensive Care Med, 2006, 32 (8): 1175-1183.
6
曹钧,宋烈昌. 单核细胞趋化蛋白-1与炎性疾病的研究现状 [J]. 第一军医大学学报, 2001, 21(12):84-87.
7
Wang T, Dai H, Wan N, et al. The role for monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 in the generation and function of memory CD8 + T cells [J]. J Immunol, 2008, 180(5): 2886-2893.
8
Volk HD, Reinke P, Krausch D, et al. Monocyte deactivation--rationale for a new therapeutic strategy in sepsis [J]. Intensive Care Med, 1996, 22(Suppl 4): S474-S481.
9
Schnabel RB, Baumert J, Barbalic M, et al. Duffy antigen receptor for chemokines (Darc) polymorphism regulates circulating concentrations of monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 and other inflammatory mediators [J]. Blood, 2010, 115(26): 5289-5299.
10
Bossink AW, Paemen L, Jansen PM, et al. Plasma levels of the chemokines monocyte chemotactic proteins-1 and -2 are elevated in human sepsis [J]. Blood, 1995, 86(10): 3841-3847.
11
Zhu T, Liao X, Feng T, et al. Plasma monocyte chemoattractant protein 1 as a predictive marker for sepsis prognosis: a prospective cohort study [J]. Tohoku J Exp Med, 2017, 241(2): 139-147.
12
Souza HP, Lima-Salgado T, da Cruz Neto LM. Toll-like receptors in sepsis: a tale still being told [J]. Endocr Metab Immune Disord Drug Targets, 2010, 10(3): 285-291.
13
林洪远,郭旭生,姚咏明, 等. CD14单核细胞人类白细胞抗原-DR预测脓毒症预后及指导免疫调理治疗的初步临床研究 [J]. 中华危重病急救医学, 2003, 15 (3): 135-138.
14
Schefold JC. Measurement of monocytic HLA-DR (mHLA-DR) expression in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock: assessment of immune organ failure [J]. Intensive Care Med, 2010, 36(11): 1810-1812.
15
Gouel-Chéron A, Allaouchiche B, Floccard B, et al. Early daily mHLA-DR monitoring predicts forthcoming sepsis in severe trauma patients [J]. Intensive Care Med, 2015, 41(12): 2229-2230.
16
Shankar-Hari M, Phillips GS, Levy ML, et al. Developing a new definition and assessing new clinical criteria for septic shock: for the third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3) [J]. JAMA, 2016, 315(8): 775-787.
17
Finkelsztein EJ, Jones DS, Ma KC, et al. Comparison of qSOFA and SIRS for predicting adverse outcomes of patients with suspicion of sepsis outside the intensive care unit [J]. Crit Care, 2017, 21(1): 73.
18
Innocenti F, Tozzi C, Donnini C, et al. SOFA score in septic patients: incremental prognostic value over age, comorbidities, and parameters of sepsis severity [J]. Intern Emerg Med, 2018, 13(3): 405-412.
[1] 孟建标, 张庚, 焦燕娜. 脓毒症合并心功能障碍患者早期肠道微生态改变的探讨[J]. 中华危重症医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 16(04): 279-285.
[2] 陈宇, 冯芳, 张露, 刘健. 基于生物信息学分析筛选脓毒症心肌病关键致病基因[J]. 中华危重症医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 16(04): 286-291.
[3] 韩媛媛, 热孜亚·萨贝提, 冒智捷, 穆福娜依·艾尔肯, 陆晨, 桑晓红, 阿尔曼·木拉提, 张丽. 组合式血液净化治疗对脓毒症患者血清炎症因子水平和临床预后的影响[J]. 中华危重症医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 16(04): 272-278.
[4] 作者. 脓毒症与脓毒性休克[J]. 中华危重症医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 16(03): 0-.
[5] 莫小乔, 胡喆莹, 廖冬花, 谢天. 脓毒症继发急性肾损伤患者死亡风险预测模型构建及评估[J]. 中华危重症医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 16(03): 198-206.
[6] 张晓燕, 肖东琼, 高沪, 陈琳, 唐发娟, 李熙鸿. 转录因子12过表达对脓毒症相关性脑病大鼠大脑皮质的保护作用及其机制[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 19(05): 540-549.
[7] 魏徐, 张鸽, 伍金林. 新生儿脓毒症相关性凝血病的监测和治疗[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 19(04): 379-386.
[8] 姚咏明. 如何精准评估烧伤脓毒症患者免疫状态[J]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2023, 18(06): 552-552.
[9] 窦上文, 邓欢, 刘邦锋, 岳高远志, 朱华财, 刘永达. 术前复查尿培养在预测微通道经皮肾镜取石术相关感染并发症中的作用[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 361-366.
[10] 李伟, 卓剑, 黄川, 黄有攀. Lac、HO-1、sRAGE、CRP/ALB表达及脓毒症并发ARDS危险因素分析[J]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2023, 16(04): 514-516.
[11] 苗软昕, 乔晞. Toll样受体在脓毒症性急性肾损伤中的作用[J]. 中华肾病研究电子杂志, 2023, 12(04): 210-214.
[12] 李世明, 黄蔚, 刘玲. HMGB1介导脓毒症相关凝血功能障碍的作用机制及其治疗进展[J]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2023, 09(03): 269-273.
[13] 高超, 巢杰, 邱海波. T-bet:脓毒症免疫失衡中Th17细胞的新型调节分子[J]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2023, 09(03): 280-285.
[14] 谭睿, 王晶, 於江泉, 郑瑞强. 脓毒症中高密度脂蛋白、载脂蛋白A-I和血清淀粉样蛋白A的作用研究进展[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 749-753.
[15] 蔡荇, 郑瑞强. 肝素结合蛋白在脓毒症中的应用及研究进展[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 487-490.
阅读次数
全文


摘要