Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25510299›Full record

ArticleIntensive care medicine2015

Evaluation of endothelial damage in sepsis-related ARDS using circulating endothelial cells.

Mouhamed Djahoum Moussa, Cristina Santonocito, David Fagnoul, Katia Donadello, Olivier Pradier, Pascale Gaussem, Daniel De Backer, Jean-Louis Vincent

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Intensive care medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. S100A8/A9Cell death & disease · 2024
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Are circulating endothelial cells the next target for transcriptome-level pathway analysis in ARDS?American journal of physiology. Lung cellular and molecular physiology · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Short-term protective effect of octreotide on the lungs of rats with experimentally induced sepsis.Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Circulating endothelial cells in COVID-19.American journal of hematology · 2020
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Mouhamed Djahoum MoussaDepartment of Intensive Care, Erasme University Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), 808 Route de Lennik, 1070, Brussels, Belgium.
Cristina Santonocito
David Fagnoul
Katia Donadello
Olivier Pradier
Pascale Gaussem
Daniel De Backer
Jean-Louis Vincent
Université Libre de Bruxelles · BEAssistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeEndothelial 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.

methodsARDS 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.

resultsThe 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].

conclusionThe 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.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAPACHEBiomarkersEchocardiographyEndothelial CellsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisRespiratory Distress SyndromeSepsisSeverity of Illness IndexBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID25510299
OpenAlexW2027312036

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.