43
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Nociceptin/Orphanin FQ System Is Modulated in Patients Admitted to ICU with Sepsis and after Cardiopulmonary Bypass

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background And Objectives

          Nociceptin/Orphanin FQ (N/OFQ) is a non-classical endogenous opioid peptide that modulates immune function in vitro. Its importance in inflammation and human sepsis is unknown. The objectives of this study were to determine the relationship between N/OFQ, transcripts for its precursor (pre-pro-N/OFQ [ppNOC]) and receptor (NOP), inflammatory markers and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass and with sepsis.

          Methods

          A prospective observational cohort study of 82 patients admitted to Intensive Care (ICU) with sepsis and 40 patients undergoing cardiac surgery under cardiopulmonary bypass (as a model of systemic inflammation). Sixty three healthy volunteers, matched by age and sex to the patients with sepsis were also studied. Clinical and laboratory details were recorded. Polymorph ppNOC and NOP receptor mRNA were determined using quantitative PCR. Plasma N/OFQ was determined using ELISA and cytokines (TNF- α, IL-8, IL-10) measured using radioimmunoassay. Data from patients undergoing cardiac surgery were recorded before, 3 and 24 hours after cardiopulmonary bypass. ICU patients with sepsis were assessed on Days 1 and 2 of ICU admission, and after clinical recovery.

          Main Results

          Plasma N/OFQ concentrations increased (p<0.0001) on Days 1 and 2 of ICU admission with sepsis compared to matched recovery samples. Polymorph ppNOC (p= 0.019) and NOP mRNA (p<0.0001) decreased compared to healthy volunteers. TNF-α, IL-8 and IL-10 concentrations increased on Day 1 compared to matched recovery samples and volunteers (p<0.0001). Similar changes (increased plasma N/OFQ, [p=0.0058], decreased ppNOC [p<0.0001], increased IL-8 and IL-10 concentrations [both p<0.0001]) occurred after cardiac surgery but these were comparatively lower and of shorter duration.

          Conclusions

          The N/OFQ system is modulated in ICU patients with sepsis with similar but reduced changes after cardiac surgery under cardiopulmonary bypass. Further studies are required to clarify the role of the N/OFQ system in inflammation and sepsis, and the mechanisms involved.

          Related collections

          Most cited references36

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine Consensus Conference: definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis.

          (1992)
          To define the terms "sepsis" and "organ failure" in a precise manner. Review of the medical literature and the use of expert testimony at a consensus conference. American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) headquarters in Northbrook, IL. Leadership members of ACCP/Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM). An ACCP/SCCM Consensus Conference was held in August of 1991 with the goal of agreeing on a set of definitions that could be applied to patients with sepsis and its sequelae. New definitions were offered for some terms, while others were discarded. Broad definitions of sepsis and the systemic inflammatory response syndrome were proposed, along with detailed physiologic variables by which a patient could be categorized. Definitions for severe sepsis, septic shock, hypotension, and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome were also offered. The use of severity scoring methods were recommended when dealing with septic patients as an adjunctive tool to assess mortality. Appropriate methods and applications for the use and testing of new therapies were recommended. The use of these terms and techniques should assist clinicians and researchers who deal with sepsis and its sequelae.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Benchmarking the incidence and mortality of severe sepsis in the United States.

            In 1992, the first consensus definition of severe sepsis was published. Subsequent epidemiologic estimates were collected using administrative data, but ongoing discrepancies in the definition of severe sepsis produced large differences in estimates. We seek to describe the variations in incidence and mortality of severe sepsis in the United States using four methods of database abstraction. We hypothesized that different methodologies of capturing cases of severe sepsis would result in disparate estimates of incidence and mortality. Using a nationally representative sample, four previously published methods (Angus et al, Martin et al, Dombrovskiy et al, and Wang et al) were used to gather cases of severe sepsis over a 6-year period (2004-2009). In addition, the use of new International Statistical Classification of Diseases, 9th Edition (ICD-9), sepsis codes was compared with previous methods. Annual national incidence and in-hospital mortality of severe sepsis. The average annual incidence varied by as much as 3.5-fold depending on method used and ranged from 894,013 (300/100,000 population) to 3,110,630 (1,031/100,000) using the methods of Dombrovskiy et al and Wang et al, respectively. Average annual increase in the incidence of severe sepsis was similar (13.0% to 13.3%) across all methods. In-hospital mortality ranged from 14.7% to 29.9% using abstraction methods of Wang et al and Dombrovskiy et al. Using all methods, there was a decrease in in-hospital mortality across the 6-year period (35.2% to 25.6% [Dombrovskiy et al] and 17.8% to 12.1% [Wang et al]). Use of ICD-9 sepsis codes more than doubled over the 6-year period (158,722 - 489,632 [995.92 severe sepsis], 131,719 - 303,615 [785.52 septic shock]). There is substantial variability in incidence and mortality of severe sepsis depending on the method of database abstraction used. A uniform, consistent method is needed for use in national registries to facilitate accurate assessment of clinical interventions and outcome comparisons between hospitals and regions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008

              Objective To provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines, “Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock,” published in 2004. Design Modified Delphi method with a consensus conference of 55 international experts, several subsequent meetings of subgroups and key individuals, teleconferences, and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee. This process was conducted independently of any industry funding. Methods We used the GRADE system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations. A strong recommendation [1] indicates that an intervention's desirable effects clearly outweigh its undesirable effects (risk, burden, cost), or clearly do not. Weak recommendations [2] indicate that the tradeoff between desirable and undesirable effects is less clear. The grade of strong or weak is considered of greater clinical importance than a difference in letter level of quality of evidence. In areas without complete agreement, a formal process of resolution was developed and applied. Recommendations are grouped into those directly targeting severe sepsis, recommendations targeting general care of the critically ill patient that are considered high priority in severe sepsis, and pediatric considerations. Results Key recommendations, listed by category, include: early goal-directed resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition (1C); blood cultures prior to antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm potential source of infection (1C); administration of broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy within 1 hr of diagnosis of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1D); reassessment of antibiotic therapy with microbiology and clinical data to narrow coverage, when appropriate (1C); a usual 7–10 days of antibiotic therapy guided by clinical response (1D); source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method (1C); administration of either crystalloid or colloid fluid resuscitation (1B); fluid challenge to restore mean circulating filling pressure (1C); reduction in rate of fluid administration with rising filing pressures and no improvement in tissue perfusion (1D); vasopressor preference for norepinephrine or dopamine to maintain an initial target of mean arterial pressure ≥ 65 mm Hg (1C); dobutamine inotropic therapy when cardiac output remains low despite fluid resuscitation and combined inotropic/vasopressor therapy (1C); stress-dose steroid therapy given only in septic shock after blood pressure is identified to be poorly responsive to fluid and vasopressor therapy (2C); recombinant activated protein C in patients with severe sepsis and clinical assessment of high risk for death (2B except 2C for post-operative patients). In the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage, target a hemoglobin of 7–9 g/dL (1B); a low tidal volume (1B) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure strategy (1C) for acute lung injury (ALI)/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure in acute lung injury (1C); head of bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); avoiding routine use of pulmonary artery catheters in ALI/ARDS (1A); to decrease days of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay, a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ALI/ARDS who are not in shock (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation/analgesia (1B); using either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation with daily interruptions or lightening (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers, if at all possible (1B); institution of glycemic control (1B) targeting a blood glucose < 150 mg/dL after initial stabilization ( 2C ); equivalency of continuous veno-veno hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1A); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper GI bleeding using H2 blockers (1A) or proton pump inhibitors (1B); and consideration of limitation of support where appropriate (1D). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: greater use of physical examination therapeutic end points (2C); dopamine as the first drug of choice for hypotension (2C); steroids only in children with suspected or proven adrenal insufficiency (2C); a recommendation against the use of recombinant activated protein C in children (1B). Conclusion There was strong agreement among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best current care of patients with severe sepsis. Evidenced-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the first step toward improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, USA )
                1932-6203
                2013
                4 October 2013
                : 8
                : 10
                : e76682
                Affiliations
                [1]Division of Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Management, Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester, United Kingdom
                UNIFESP Federal University of São Paulo, Brazil
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: JPT is an editor and an editorial board member of the British Journal of Anaesthesia. DGL is a member of the executive team and a board member of the British Journal of Anaesthesia. DGL holds a consultancy with Grunenthal GmbH. The other authors have declared that no competing interests exist. This does not alter the authors' adherence to all the PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

                Conceived and designed the experiments: JPT DGL ASG. Performed the experiments: ASG DGL NL JM. Analyzed the data: JPT ASG JM DGL. Wrote the manuscript: JPT DGL ASG JM. Patient recruitment and data collection: ASG NL SB. Final approval of submitted manuscript: JPT ASG NL JM SB DGL.

                Article
                PONE-D-13-28616
                10.1371/journal.pone.0076682
                3790749
                24124588
                b23ab553-af3c-492d-b972-6c7d5815439f
                Copyright @ 2013

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 11 July 2013
                : 29 August 2013
                Funding
                This work has been funded by grants from Anaesthesia/AAGBI Small Project Grants 2008 (£13,300) and the Anaesthesia/AAGBI Small Project Grants 2009 (£13,800), both administrated by and under the auspices of the National Institue of Academic Anaesthesia ( http://www.niaa.org.uk/). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article