收稿日期: 2025-03-24
网络出版日期: 2025-07-02
基金资助
河北省重点研发计划项目(22377727D);河北省自然科学基金项目(H2022105001)
The efficacy of plasma gasdermin D C⁃terminal fragment in the early diagnosis of sepsis
Received date: 2025-03-24
Online published: 2025-07-02
目的 探讨血浆焦孔素D C-末端片段(GSDMD-CT)作为新的血浆标志物在脓毒症早期诊断中的价值。 方法 收集2021年7月至2024年11月唐山市工人医院住院的患者样本245例,根据脓毒症、全身炎症反应综合征的诊断标准将患者分为脓毒症组(Sepsis组)、全身炎症反应综合征组(SIRS组),收集同期健康体检者样本作为健康对照组(HC组)。Sepsis组根据病原学感染类型进一步分为革兰阳性细菌亚组(Gram-positive组)、革兰阴性细菌亚组(Gram-negative组)、真菌亚组(Fungal组)。所有研究对象均进行GSDMD-CT、C-反应蛋白(CRP)、降钙素原(PCT)水平检测。利用非参数检验比较不同组间各指标的差异,通过绘制受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线,评价血浆GSDMD-CT对脓毒症的早期诊断价值,采用Spearman相关性分析患者血浆GSDMD-CT与CRP、PCT表达水平的相关性。 结果 血浆GSDMD-CT水平Sepsis组23.02(16.71,33.01) pg/mL、SIRS组16.52(11.26,22.22) pg/mL显著高于HC组7.02(4.42,11.43) pg/mL(U = -10.175、 -7.890,P < 0.001),Sepsis组GSDMD-CT水平高于SIRS组,差异有统计学意义(U=-2.941,P < 0.05)。Gram-positive组、Gram-negative组、Fungal组血浆GSDMD-CT水平分别为23.01(17.16,27.51) pg/mL、23.41(16.78,35.50) pg/mL、16.29(14.53,56.27) pg/mL,3个亚组与HC组相比GSDMD-CT水平升高(P < 0.05),而3个亚组之间GSDMD-CT水平差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。血浆GSDMD-CT诊断脓毒症曲线下面积(AUC)为0.881(95%CI: 0.833 ~ 0.929),约登指数(YI)0.695,敏感度(sensitivity)、特异度(specificity)分别为85.0%、84.5%。采用Spearman相关性分析GSDMD-CT与CRP、PCT表达水平的相关性,发现GSDMD-CT与CRP的表达呈弱相关(r = 0.32,P < 0.001),与PCT的表达呈正相关(r = 0.65,P < 0.001)。 结论 血浆GSDMD-CT在脓毒症中具有一定的诊断价值,其有可能成为脓毒症早期诊断的一个新的生物标志物。
关键词: 脓毒症; 生物标志物; 血浆焦孔素D C-末端片段; 诊断; 相关性
吕月贤 , 毕秀 , 刘颖 , 崔淑静 , 赵立新 , 高歌 , 王建霞 , 李娟 , 李军 . 血浆焦孔素D C-末端片段在脓毒症早期诊断中的价值[J]. 实用医学杂志, 2025 , 41(12) : 1899 -1906 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-5725.2025.12.019
Objective To assess the effectiveness of the Gasdermin D C-terminal fragment (GSDMD-CT) as a novel plasma biomarker for the clinical diagnosis of sepsis. Methods Between July 2021 and November 2024, 245 patients from Tangshan Gongren Hospital were enrolled in this study. In accordance with the diagnostic criteria for sepsis and the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), patient samples were classified into the sepsis group and the SIRS group. Meanwhile, healthy individuals were selected as the healthy control (HC) group. Sepsis patients were further categorized into the Gram-positive bacterial group, the Gram-negative bacterial group, and the fungal group based on the type of pathogen infection. The levels of GSDMD-CT, C-reactive protein (CRP), and procalcitonin (PCT) were measured in all subjects. Nonparametric tests were employed to compare the differences in various indices among different groups. The diagnostic value of GSDMD-CT in sepsis was evaluated by constructing the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Spearman's correlation analysis was used to examine the relationships among GSDMD-CT, CRP, and PCT. Results The plasma GSDMD-CT levels in the sepsis group 23.02(16.71, 33.01) pg/mL and in the SIRS group 16.52(11.26, 22.22) pg/mL were significantly higher than those in the healthy control group 7.02(4.42, 11.43) pg/mL (U = -10.175, -7.890, P < 0.001). Moreover, the plasma GSDMD-CT levels in the sepsis group were significantly higher than those in the SIRS group (U = -2.941, P < 0.05). In the Gram-positive bacterial group, the Gram-negative bacterial group, and the fungal group, the GSDMD-CT levels were 23.01(17.16,27.51)pg/mL, 23.41(16.78,35.50) pg/mL, and 16.29 (14.53,56.27) pg/mL, respectively. When compared with the healthy control group, the GSDMD-CT levels in these three groups were all significantly higher (P < 0.05). However, there were no significant differences in GSDMD-CT levels among these three groups (P > 0.05). The area under the curve (AUC) of plasma GSDMD-CT for diagnosing sepsis was 0.881 (95% confidence interval: 0.833 ~ 0.929), with a Youden index (YI) of 0.695, a sensitivity of 85.0%, and a specificity of 84.5%. Spearman correlation analysis indicated a weak correlation between GSDMD-CT and C-reactive protein (CRP) (r = 0.32, P < 0.001) and a positive correlation between GSDMD-CT and procalcitonin (PCT) (r = 0.65, P < 0.001). Conclusion GSDMD-CT exhibits significant clinical value in the diagnosis of sepsis and holds great potential as a biomarker in the diagnostic process of sepsis.
Key words: sepsis; biomarkers; GSDMD-CT; diagnose; correlation
| 1 | EVANS L, RHODES A, ALHAZZANI W, et al. Executive Summary: Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for the Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock[J].Crit Care Med, 2021, 49(11): 1974-1982. |
| 2 | 蔡兴, 马兴龙, 周长健, 等. 巨噬细胞糖酵解在脓毒症中的研究进展[J]. 实用医学杂志, 2024, 40(19): 2783-2788. |
| 3 | RUDD K E, JOHNSON S C, AGESA K M, et al. Global, regional, and national sepsis incidence and mortality, 1990-2017: Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study[J]. Lancet. 2020, 395(10219): 200-211. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(19)32989-7 |
| 4 | SRZIC I, NESEK ADAM V, TUNJIC PEJAK D. Sepsis defnition: What′s new in the treatment guidelines[J]. Acta Clin Croat, 2022, 61():67-72. doi:10.20471/acc.2022.61.s1.11 |
| 5 | 王仙琦, 张斌, 张琪, 等.基于单细胞测序分析脓毒症早期血小板数量和功能变化[J].实用医学杂志, 2024, 40(9): 1218-1224. |
| 6 | EVANS L, RHODES A, ALHAZZANI W, et al.Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021[J]. Intensive Care Med, 2021, 47(11): 1181-1247. |
| 7 | HE R R, YUE G L, DONG M L, et al. SepsisBiomarkers: Advancements and Clinical Applications-A Narrative Review[J]. Int J Mol Sci, 2024, 25(16): 9010. doi:10.3390/ijms25169010 |
| 8 | PIERRAKOS C, VELISSARIS D, BISDORF M, et al. Biomarkers of Sepsis: Time for a Reappraisal[J]. Crit Care, 2020, 24(1): 287. doi:10.1186/s13054-020-02993-5 |
| 9 | MEIER M A, BRANCHE A, NEESER O L, et al. Procalcitonin-guided antibiotic treatment in patients with positive blood cultures: A patient-level meta-analysis of randomized trials[J]. Clin Infect Dis, 2019, 69(3):388-396. doi:10.1093/cid/ciy917 |
| 10 | PóVOA P, COELHO L, DAL-PIZZOL F, et al. How to use biomarkers of infection or sepsis at the bedside: Guide to clinicians[J]. Intensive Care Med, 2023, 49(2): 142-153. doi:10.1007/s00134-022-06956-y |
| 11 | HENNING D J, HALL M K, WATSJOLD B K, et al. Interleukin-6 improves infection identification when added to physician judgment during evaluation of potentially septic patients[J]. Am J Emerg Med, 2020, 38(5): 947-952. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2019.158361 |
| 12 | 谭扬扬, 杨旭凯, 蔡高平, 等.血清淀粉样蛋白A对成人脓毒症诊断价值的Meta分析[J].中国急救医学, 2022,40(1):35-40. |
| 13 | RAO Z, ZHU Y, YANG P, et al. Pyroptosis in inflammatory diseases and cancer[J]. Theranostics, 2022, 12(9): 4310-4329. doi:10.7150/thno.71086 |
| 14 | QI X, LUO Y, XIAO M, et al. Mechanisms of alveolar type 2 epithelial cell death during acute lung injury[J]. Stem Cells, 2023, 41(12): 1113-1132. doi:10.1093/stmcls/sxad074 |
| 15 | SHAO R, LOU X, XUE J, et al. Review: The role of GSDMD in sepsis[J]. Inflamm Res, 2022, 71(10-11): 1191-1202. doi:10.1007/s00011-022-01624-9 |
| 16 | NONG Y, WEI X, YU D. Infammatory mechanisms and intervention strategies for sepsis-induced myocardial dysfunction[J]. Immun Infamm Dis, 2023, 11(5): e860. doi:10.1002/iid3.860 |
| 17 | LEVY M M, FINK M P, MARSHALL J C, et al.2001SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS International Sepsis Definitions Conference[J]. Intensive Care Med, 2003, 31(4): 1250-1256. doi:10.1097/01.ccm.0000050454.01978.3b |
| 18 | 曹钰, 柴艳芬, 邓颖, 等. 中国脓毒症/脓毒性休克急诊治疗指南(2018)[J]. 感染、炎症、修复, 2019, 20(1): 3-22. |
| 19 | XU D, JIANG J, LIU Y, et al.TIMP2 protects against sepsis-associated acute kidney injury by cAMP/NLRP3 axis-mediated pyroptosis[J]. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol, 2024, 326(5): C1353-C1366. doi:10.1152/ajpcell.00577.2023 |
| 20 | 周旻, 杨磊, 卓玉珍, 等. 凉血活血方对脓毒症急性肾损伤小鼠肠道菌群及 NLRP3/caspase-1/GSDMD 焦亡通路的影响[J]. 中华危重病急救医学, 2023, 35(3): 250-255. |
| 21 | QUIRANT-SáNCHEZ B, PLANS-GALVáN O, LUCAS E, et al. HLA-DR Expression on Monocytes and Sepsis Index Are Useful in Predicting Sepsis[J]. Biomedicines, 2023, 11(7): 1836. doi:10.3390/biomedicines11071836 |
| 22 | ZAKI H A, BENSLIMAN S, BASHIR K, et al. Accuracy of Procalcitonin for Diagnosing Sepsis in Adult Patients Admitted to the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis[J]. Syst Rev, 2024, 13(1): 37. doi:10.1186/s13643-023-02432-w |
| 23 | SPROSTON N R, ASHWORTH J J. Role of C-reactive protein at sites of infammation and infection[J]. Front Immunol, 2018, 13(9):754. |
| 24 | VON DACH E, ALBRICH W C, BRUNEL A S, et al. Efect of Creactive protein-guided antibiotic treatment duration, 7-daytreatment, or 14-day treatment on 30-day clinical failure rate in patients with uncomplicated gram-negative bacteremia: A randomized clinical trial[J]. JAMA, 2020, 323(21):2160-2169. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.6348 |
| 25 | TAN M, LU Y, JIANG H, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of procalcitonin and C-reactive protein for sepsis:A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. J Cell Biochem, 2019, 120(4): 5852-5859. doi:10.1002/jcb.27870 |
| 26 | LI Z, HE L, LI S, et al. Combination of Procalcitonin and C-reactive Protein Levels in the Early Diagnosis of Bacterial Co-infections in Children with H1N1 Influenza[J]. Influenza Other Respir Viruses, 2019, 13(2): 184-190. doi:10.1111/irv.12621 |
| 27 | PARLATO M, PHILIPPART F, ROUQUETTE A, et al. Circulating Biomarkers May Be Unable to Detect Infection at the Early Phase of Sepsis in ICU Patients: TheCAPTAIN Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study[J]. Intensive Care Med, 2018, 44(7): 1061-1070. doi:10.1007/s00134-018-5228-3 |
| 28 | XIA S, ZHANG Z, MAGUPALLI V G, et al. Gasdermin D Pore Structure Reveals Preferential Release of Mature Interleukin-1[J]. Nature, 2021, 593(7860):607-611. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03478-3 |
| 29 | DAI Z, LIU W C, CHEN X Y, et al. Gasdermin D-Mediated Pyroptosis: Mechanisms, Diseases, and Inhibitor[J]. Front Immunol, 2023,14:1178662. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2023.1178662 |
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |