4.3 Article

Positive Epstein-Barr virus detection and mortality in respiratory failure patients admitted to the intensive care unit

期刊

CLINICAL RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
卷 11, 期 6, 页码 895-900

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/crj.12433

关键词

Epstein; Barr virus; immune function; intensive care unit; prognosis; respiratory failure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundEpstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection may induce immune suppression in several ways, which may influence the proper host response to other pathogens and lead to a bad outcome of critically ill patients. MethodsThis was a single-center, retrospective, observational study. All patients admitted to an ICU because of respiratory failure were included. EBV detection from lower respiratory tract (LRT) and serum samples were routinely performed. ResultsTwenty-eight consecutive cases who were admitted to the ICU at high-risk for an infection or clinical signs of an infection were included in our study. Among the 28 patients, 15 were LRT-positive for EBV (53.6%), and 8 were seropositive for EBV (28.6%). Among the LRT EBV-positive patients, pneumonia was the main indication for ICU admission (93.3%), and in LRT EBV-negative patients, acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD) was another indication for ICU admission (46.2%). The CD3+ T cell count (especially the CD3+CD8+ T cell count) was lower than the normal range in LRT- and serum EBV-positive patients; these count were in the normal range in EBV-negative patients. The ICU mortality was 32.1% for all patients. The mortality rate was significantly higher in patients who were seropositive for EBV than seronegative patients (62.5% vs 20.0%). No differences were shown between any outcome parameters for LRT EBV-positive and -negative patients. ConclusionsThis study showed that EBV DNA is detected in LRT and serum samples of a significant number of ICU patients with respiratory failure, and seropositivity for EBV was associated with mortality. This finding maybe correlated with a low CD3+CD8+ T cell count.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据