PURPOSE: Endothelial cell activation and dysfunction are involved in the pathophysiology of ARDS. Circulating endothelial cells (CECs) may be a useful marker of endothelial dysfunction and damage but have been poorly studied in ARDS. We hypothesized that the CEC count may be elevated in patients with sepsis-related ARDS compared to those with sepsis without ARDS. METHODS: ARDS was defined according to the Berlin consensus definition. The study population included 17 patients with moderate or severe ARDS, 9 with mild ARDS, 13 with sepsis and no ARDS, 13 non-septic patients, and 12 healthy volunteers. Demographic, hemodynamic, and prognostic variables, including PaO(2)/FiO(2) ratio, 28-day survival, blood lactate, APACHE II, and SOFA score, were recorded. CECs were counted in arterial blood samples using the reference CD146 antibody-based immunomagnetic isolation and UEA1-FITC staining method. Measurements were performed 12-24 h after diagnosis of ARDS and repeated daily for 3 days. RESULTS: The median day-1 CEC count was significantly higher in patients with moderate or severe ARDS than in mild ARDS or septic-control patients [27.2 (18.3-49.4) vs. 17.4 (11-24.5) cells/ml (p < 0.034), and 18.4 (9.1-31) cells/ml (p < 0.035), respectively]. All septic patients (with or without ARDS) had higher day-1 CEC counts than the non-septic patients [19.6 (14.2-30.6) vs. 10.8 (5.7-13.2) cells/ml, p = 0.002]. CONCLUSION: The day-1 CEC count was significantly higher in ARDS patients than in other critically ill patients, and in moderate or severe ARDS patients compared to those with milder disease, making it a potentially useful marker of ARDS severity.
PURPOSE: Endothelial cell activation and dysfunction are involved in the pathophysiology of ARDS. Circulating endothelial cells (CECs) may be a useful marker of endothelial dysfunction and damage but have been poorly studied in ARDS. We hypothesized that the CEC count may be elevated in patients with sepsis-related ARDS compared to those with sepsis without ARDS. METHODS: ARDS was defined according to the Berlin consensus definition. The study population included 17 patients with moderate or severe ARDS, 9 with mild ARDS, 13 with sepsis and no ARDS, 13 non-septic patients, and 12 healthy volunteers. Demographic, hemodynamic, and prognostic variables, including PaO(2)/FiO(2) ratio, 28-day survival, blood lactate, APACHE II, and SOFA score, were recorded. CECs were counted in arterial blood samples using the reference CD146 antibody-based immunomagnetic isolation and UEA1-FITC staining method. Measurements were performed 12-24 h after diagnosis of ARDS and repeated daily for 3 days. RESULTS: The median day-1 CEC count was significantly higher in patients with moderate or severe ARDS than in mild ARDS or septic-control patients [27.2 (18.3-49.4) vs. 17.4 (11-24.5) cells/ml (p < 0.034), and 18.4 (9.1-31) cells/ml (p < 0.035), respectively]. All septic patients (with or without ARDS) had higher day-1 CEC counts than the non-septic patients [19.6 (14.2-30.6) vs. 10.8 (5.7-13.2) cells/ml, p = 0.002]. CONCLUSION: The day-1 CEC count was significantly higher in ARDS patients than in other critically ill patients, and in moderate or severe ARDS patients compared to those with milder disease, making it a potentially useful marker of ARDS severity.
Authors: Mervin C Yoder; Laura E Mead; Daniel Prater; Theresa R Krier; Karim N Mroueh; Fang Li; Rachel Krasich; Constance J Temm; Josef T Prchal; David A Ingram Journal: Blood Date: 2006-10-19 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Shi Ju Zhang; Hao Zhang; Ying Jie Wei; Wen Jun Su; Zhong Kai Liao; Mai Hou; Jian Ye Zhou; Sheng Shou Hu Journal: Cell Res Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 25.617
Authors: Douglas E Schlichting; Aaron B Waxman; Lee A O'Brien; Tiffany Wang; Chris C Naum; George J Rubeiz; Suzane L Um; Mark Williams; Sau-Chi Betty Yan Journal: Microvasc Res Date: 2010-12-03 Impact factor: 3.514
Authors: Sushma K Cribbs; Diane J Sutcliffe; William R Taylor; Mauricio Rojas; Kirk A Easley; Li Tang; Kenneth L Brigham; Greg S Martin Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Gordon D Rubenfeld; Ellen Caldwell; Eve Peabody; Jim Weaver; Diane P Martin; Margaret Neff; Eric J Stern; Leonard D Hudson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-10-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: V Marco Ranieri; Gordon D Rubenfeld; B Taylor Thompson; Niall D Ferguson; Ellen Caldwell; Eddy Fan; Luigi Camporota; Arthur S Slutsky Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-06-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Can Ince; Philip R Mayeux; Trung Nguyen; Hernando Gomez; John A Kellum; Gustavo A Ospina-Tascón; Glenn Hernandez; Patrick Murray; Daniel De Backer Journal: Shock Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Zhao Li; Mingzhu Yin; Haifeng Zhang; Weiming Ni; Richard W Pierce; Huanjiao Jenny Zhou; Wang Min Journal: Circ Res Date: 2020-01-08 Impact factor: 17.367
Authors: Alain Combes; Daniel Brodie; Nadia Aissaoui; Thomas Bein; Gilles Capellier; Heidi J Dalton; Jean-Luc Diehl; Stefan Kluge; Daniel F McAuley; Matthieu Schmidt; Arthur S Slutsky; Samir Jaber Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2022-08-09 Impact factor: 41.787
Authors: L Østergaard; A Granfeldt; N Secher; A Tietze; N K Iversen; M S Jensen; K K Andersen; K Nagenthiraja; P Gutiérrez-Lizardi; K Mouridsen; S N Jespersen; E K Tønnesen Journal: Acta Anaesthesiol Scand Date: 2015-07-07 Impact factor: 2.105
Authors: Diego Orbegozo Cortés; Lokmane Rahmania; Marian Irazabal; Carlos Santacruz; Vito Fontana; Daniel De Backer; Jacques Creteur; Jean-Louis Vincent Journal: Respir Res Date: 2016-05-17
Authors: Diego Orbegozo; Lokmane Rahmania; Marian Irazabal; Manuel Mendoza; Filippo Annoni; Daniel De Backer; Jacques Creteur; Jean-Louis Vincent Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2017-09-07 Impact factor: 6.925