↓ Skip to main content

Translational evidence for two distinct patterns of neuroaxonal injury in sepsis: a longitudinal, prospective translational study

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
23 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Translational evidence for two distinct patterns of neuroaxonal injury in sepsis: a longitudinal, prospective translational study
Published in
Critical Care, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13054-017-1850-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Johannes Ehler, Lucinda K. Barrett, Valerie Taylor, Michael Groves, Francesco Scaravilli, Matthias Wittstock, Stephan Kolbaske, Annette Grossmann, Jörg Henschel, Martin Gloger, Tarek Sharshar, Fabrice Chretien, Francoise Gray, Gabriele Nöldge-Schomburg, Mervyn Singer, Martin Sauer, Axel Petzold

Abstract

Brain homeostasis deteriorates in sepsis, giving rise to a mostly reversible sepsis-associated encephalopathy (SAE). Some survivors experience chronic cognitive dysfunction thought to be caused by permanent brain injury. In this study, we investigated neuroaxonal pathology in sepsis. We conducted a longitudinal, prospective translational study involving (1) experimental sepsis in an animal model; (2) postmortem studies of brain from patients with sepsis; and (3) a prospective, longitudinal human sepsis cohort study at university laboratory and intensive care units (ICUs). Thirteen ICU patients with septic shock, five ICU patients who died as a result of sepsis, fourteen fluid-resuscitated Wistar rats with fecal peritonitis, eleven sham-operated rats, and three human and four rat control subjects were included. Immunohistologic and protein biomarker analysis were performed on rat brain tissue at baseline and 24, 48, and 72 h after sepsis induction and in sham-treated rats. Immunohistochemistry was performed on human brain tissue from sepsis nonsurvivors and in control patients without sepsis. The clinical diagnostics of SAE comprised longitudinal clinical data collection and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and electroencephalographic assessments. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS software (version 9.4; SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Because of non-Gaussian distribution, the nonparametric Wilcoxon test general linear models and the Spearman correlation coefficient were used. In postmortem rat and human brain samples, neurofilament phosphoform, β-amyloid precursor protein, β-tubulin, and H&E stains distinguished scattered ischemic lesions from diffuse neuroaxonal injury in septic animals, which were absent in controls. These two patterns of neuroaxonal damage were consistently found in septic but not control human postmortem brains. In experimental sepsis, the time from sepsis onset correlated with tissue neurofilament levels (R = 0.53, p = 0.045) but not glial fibrillary acidic protein. Of 13 patients with sepsis who had clinical features of SAE, MRI detected diffuse axonal injury in 9 and ischemia in 3 patients. Ischemic and diffuse neuroaxonal injury to the brain in experimental sepsis, human postmortem brains, and in vivo MRI suggest these two distinct lesion types to be relevant. Future studies should be focused on body fluid biomarkers to detect and monitor brain injury in sepsis. The relationship of neurofilament levels with time from sepsis onset may be of prognostic value. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02442986 . Registered on May 13, 2015.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 86 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 16%
Researcher 12 14%
Student > Master 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Other 17 20%
Unknown 22 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 44%
Neuroscience 9 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 24 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 October 2017.
All research outputs
#3,010,346
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,514
of 6,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,159
of 338,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#42
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,555 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 338,323 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.