Flow cytometry-based quantification of neutrophil extracellular traps shows an association with hypercoagulation in septic shock and hypocoagulation in postsurgical systemic inflammation—a proof-of-concept study

20Citations
Citations of this article
42Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

This proof-of-concept study aimed to evaluate a novel method of flow cytometry-based quantification of neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) in septic shock patients and to identify possible interactions between the number of free-circulating NETs and alterations of the coagulatory system. Patients suffering from septic shock, a matched control group (CTRL), and patients suffering from systemic inflammation after cardiac (CABG) or major abdominal surgery (MAS) were enrolled in this prospective proof-of-concept study. Compared to the matched controls, free-circulating NETs were significantly elevated in septic shock and postsurgical patients (data are presented in median (IQR)); septic shock: (2.7 (1.9–3.9); CABG: 2.7 (2.1–3.7); MAS: 2.7 (2.1–3.9); CTRL: 1.6 (1–2); CTRL vs. septic shock: p = 0.001; CTRL vs. CABG: p < 0.001; CTRL vs. MAS: p < 0.001). NETs correlated positively with FIBTEM mean clot firmness (MCF) in septic shock patients (r = 0.37, p < 0.01) while they correlated negatively in surgical patients (CABG: r = −0.28, p < 0.01; MAS: r = −0.25, p = 0.03). Flow-cytometric quantification of NETs showed a significant increase in free-circulating NETs under inflammatory conditions. Furthermore, this study hints to an association of the number of NETs with hypercoagulation in septic shock patients and hypocoagulation in surgery-induced inflammation.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Schneck, E., Mallek, F., Schiederich, J., Kramer, E., Markmann, M., Hecker, M., … Koch, C. (2020). Flow cytometry-based quantification of neutrophil extracellular traps shows an association with hypercoagulation in septic shock and hypocoagulation in postsurgical systemic inflammation—a proof-of-concept study. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9010174

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free