Evidence Hub

Comparative analysis of compartment-specific immunothrombotic biomarker profiles in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and serum of patients with pneumonia-related acute respiratory distress syndrome: A preliminary cross-sectional study

Xiaolong Zong, Xue-Chao Wang, Ya-Ru Liu, Xiao Wang, Duanyang Li, Zhiqing Zhou, ZhenYu Li

Journal of Investigative Medicine, 2024

40 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Immunothrombosis has emerged as a potential mechanistic link underlying the development and progression of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but understanding its specific profile in patients, both locally and systemically, is limited. The objective of this study was to characterize and compare the immunothrombotic signatures in patients diagnosed with pneumonia-related ARDS (p-ARDS) at both the pulmonary and systemic levels and to evaluate their clinical relevance. The study included 23 consecutive patients diagnosed with p-ARDS admitted to the intensive care unit at a tertiary university hospital from July 2022 to May 2023, alongside 40 concurrently hospitalized patients with common pneumonia as controls. Paired bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) and serum samples were collected from the participants for the analysis of 15 biomarkers to assess and quantify the pulmonary and systemic immunothrombotic signatures. The study results revealed significant pulmonary inflammation and systemic endothelial injury in p-ARDS patients compared to pneumonia controls. These observations were maintained after adjustment for severity of illness (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores). In terms of clinical relevance, inflammatory biomarkers (interleukin [IL]-6, IL-8) in BALF were found to correlate with PaO2/FiO2 ratio, while serum levels of a disintegrin and metalloproteinase with thrombospondin type 1 motif 13 (ADAMTS-13) and thrombomodulin showed…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 40 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free