↓ Skip to main content

Circulating stem cells, HIF-1, and SDF-1 in septic abdominal surgical patients: randomized controlled study protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 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
Circulating stem cells, HIF-1, and SDF-1 in septic abdominal surgical patients: randomized controlled study protocol
Published in
Trials, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13063-018-2556-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Antonella Cotoia, Lucia Mirabella, Sabrina Altamura, Rachele Villani, Flavia Marchese, Giuseppe Ferrara, Karim Mariano, Tullo Livio, Gilda Cinnella

Abstract

Sepsis caused by complicated intra-abdominal infection is associated with high mortality. Loss of endothelial barrier integrity, inflammation, and impaired cellular oxygen have been shown to be primary contributors to sepsis. To date, little is known regarding the pathway for the mobilization of endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) from the bone marrow in sepsis whereas stromal-cell-derived factor 1a (SDF-1a) and hypoxia inducible factor 1 (HIF-1) seem to have a role in the EPC response to hypoxic microenvironments. The aims of the study are: (a) to determine the time course of the levels of circulating EPCs (CD133/CD34), SDF-1a, and HIF-1 in septic patients undergoing major abdominal surgery (group S), (b) to investigate the relationship between CD133/CD34, HIF-1, and SDF-1a, and (c) to investigate the relationship of these factors with the outcome of group S patients treated with standard conventional therapy alone (CT) or with the addition of extracorporeal hemoperfusion therapy (HCT). Patients undergoing major abdominal surgery will be allocated into groups: postoperative non-septic patients in an emergency surgical ward (group C) and postoperative septic patients in an intensive care unit (group S). The latter will be randomized to receive CT alone (S1) or with HCT (S2). Healthy volunteers (group H) will be recruited at University Hospital Foggia. Peripheral blood (PB) samples will be collected preoperatively (T0), at 24 h (T1), 72 h (T2), 7 (T3), and 10 (T4) postoperative days in groups S and C, and at T0 in group H. The CD34/133 cells and HIF-1 counts will be determined by flow cytometer analysis. The concentration of SDF-1a in plasma will be calculated by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay analysis (ELISA). This prospective randomized clinical trial is designed to investigate circulating stem cells, levels of HIF-1 and SDF-1a, and their interrelationship in septic postoperative abdominal surgical patients treated with CT alone or with HCT. The rationale is that an integrated understanding of the role of hypoxia-related factors and EPCs in PB of septic patients could indicate which molecular processes need to be regulated to recover the innate immunity homeostasis. Understanding the function of EPCs in sepsis may provide innovative diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to improve the prognosis of this syndrome. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02589535 . Registered on 28 October 2015.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 17%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Master 5 9%
Lecturer 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 17 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 17%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Engineering 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 17 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 23 March 2019.
All research outputs
#4,874,408
of 25,988,468 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#593
of 1,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,457
of 353,919 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,988,468 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,868 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 353,919 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them