sEH activity is associated with mortality in patients with ARDS: a retrospective cohort study.

IF 1.9 4区医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Biomarkers in medicine Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-13 DOI:10.1080/17520363.2024.2377534

Dong Guangsu, Zhou Liang, Wang Bin, Liu Lei, Cao Peiyu

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: We hypothesized plasma sEH activity correlates with mortality in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients.Methods: Adult patients diagnosed with ARDS enrolled between 2017 and 2019 were included in this study.Results: A total of 337 adult patients met our inclusion criteria. Among them, 107 patients died within 28 days. The plasma sEH activity was higher in nonsurvivors relative to survivors. And a receiver operating characteristic curve with the area under the curve of 0.81 (95% confidence interval: 0.74-0.89) for the prediction of 28-day mortality was obtained. Its sensitivity and specificity were 72.5% and 74.6%, respectively.Conclusion: Elevated plasma sEH activity is associated with higher 28-day mortality in adult patients with ARDS.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

sEH 活性与 ARDS 患者死亡率的关系：一项回顾性队列研究。

目的：我们假设血浆 sEH 活性与急性呼吸窘迫综合征（ARDS）患者的死亡率相关。方法：纳入 2017 年至 2019 年期间入院的确诊为 ARDS 的成人患者：本研究纳入了 2017 年至 2019 年期间入院的确诊为 ARDS 的成人患者。结果共有 337 名成年患者符合我们的纳入标准。其中，107 名患者在 28 天内死亡。非存活患者的血浆 sEH 活性高于存活患者。根据接收者操作特征曲线，预测 28 天内死亡率的曲线下面积为 0.81（95% 置信区间：0.74-0.89）。其敏感性和特异性分别为 72.5% 和 74.6%。结论血浆sEH活性升高与ARDS成人患者28天死亡率升高有关。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Biomarkers in medicine 医学-医学：研究与实验

CiteScore

3.80

自引率

4.50%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Biomarkers are physical, functional or biochemical indicators of physiological or disease processes. These key indicators can provide vital information in determining disease prognosis, in predicting of response to therapies, adverse events and drug interactions, and in establishing baseline risk. The explosion of interest in biomarker research is driving the development of new predictive, diagnostic and prognostic products in modern medical practice, and biomarkers are also playing an increasingly important role in the discovery and development of new drugs. For the full utility of biomarkers to be realized, we require greater understanding of disease mechanisms, and the interplay between disease mechanisms, therapeutic interventions and the proposed biomarkers. However, in attempting to evaluate the pros and cons of biomarkers systematically, we are moving into new, challenging territory. Biomarkers in Medicine (ISSN 1752-0363) is a peer-reviewed, rapid publication journal delivering commentary and analysis on the advances in our understanding of biomarkers and their potential and actual applications in medicine. The journal facilitates translation of our research knowledge into the clinic to increase the effectiveness of medical practice. As the scientific rationale and regulatory acceptance for biomarkers in medicine and in drug development become more fully established, Biomarkers in Medicine provides the platform for all players in this increasingly vital area to communicate and debate all issues relating to the potential utility and applications. Each issue includes a diversity of content to provide rounded coverage for the research professional. Articles include Guest Editorials, Interviews, Reviews, Research Articles, Perspectives, Priority Paper Evaluations, Special Reports, Case Reports, Conference Reports and Company Profiles. Review coverage is divided into themed sections according to area of therapeutic utility with some issues including themed sections on an area of topical interest. Biomarkers in Medicine provides a platform for commentary and debate for all professionals with an interest in the identification of biomarkers, elucidation of their role and formalization and approval of their application in modern medicine. The audience for Biomarkers in Medicine includes academic and industrial researchers, clinicians, pathologists, clinical chemists and regulatory professionals.