Advances in Clinical Medicine
Vol. 14  No. 02 ( 2024 ), Article ID: 81767 , 6 pages
10.12677/ACM.2024.142594

生物标志物对急性创伤后脓毒血症患者 预后判断的研究进展

罗超,胡毅*

新疆医科大学第五附属医院,新疆 乌鲁木齐

收稿日期:2024年1月29日;录用日期:2024年2月23日;发布日期:2024年2月29日

摘要

急性创伤后脓毒血症是指机体创伤后继发感染病原体导致的全身炎症反应综合征,是在严重感染的基础上出现急性循环衰竭,危及生命。创伤后脓毒血症的早期诊断及对预后的评估至关重要。但由于创伤后脓毒血症缺乏特异性的临床表现及早期诊断指标,患者病情凶险且多变,其诊断和治疗是目前临床医生所面临的困惑之一。针对创伤后脓毒症,目前临床上仍缺乏特异性的用于诊断的生物标志物以及有效的治疗方法。因此,联合可靠的生物标志物以及评估生物标志物在脓毒症中的运用无疑有助于指导临床决策。本文综述了目前临床常用的生物标志物对急性创伤后脓毒血症患者治疗及预后判断的价值。

关键词

脓毒血症,生物标志物,急性创伤,预后判断

Research Progress of Biomarkers for Prognosis of Patients with Acute Post-Traumatic Sepsis

Chao Luo, Yi Hu*

The Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi Xinjiang

Received: Jan. 29th, 2024; accepted: Feb. 23rd, 2024; published: Feb. 29th, 2024

ABSTRACT

Acute post-traumatic sepsis refers to systemic inflammatory response syndrome caused by secondary infection of pathogens after trauma. Acute circulatory failure occurs on the basis of severe infection and is life-threatening. Early diagnosis and prognosis evaluation of post-traumatic sepsis are very important. However, due to the lack of specific clinical manifestations and early diagnostic indicators of post-traumatic sepsis, the patient’s condition is dangerous and changeable, and its diagnosis and treatment is one of the puzzles faced by clinicians at present. For post-traumatic sepsis, there is still a lack of specific biomarkers for diagnosis and effective treatment. Therefore, combining reliable biomarkers and evaluating the use of biomarkers in sepsis will undoubtedly help guide clinical decision making. This article reviews the value of biomarkers in the treatment and prognosis of patients with acute post-traumatic sepsis.

Keywords:Sepsis, Biomarkers, Acute Trauma, Prognosis

Copyright © 2024 by author(s) and Hans Publishers Inc.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY 4.0).

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

1. 引言

目前急诊创伤的发生率约25万人/年,急诊创伤患者住院死亡率高达22% [1] ,导致患者死亡的主要原因是脓毒血症。早期识别出创伤后脓毒症对评估病情严重程度至关重要 [2] 。脓毒血症是由于宿主对感染反应失调导致的疾病,被定义为危及生命的器官功能障碍性疾病,随着病情加重将诱发组织低灌注以及器官功能障碍,是造成感染患者死亡的重要因素 [3] 。脓毒血症是全球危重患者死亡的主要原因之一 [4] 。据统计,2020年脓毒症病例已经增加至4890万例,其中1100万例死亡,占全球死亡总数的19.7%。而急性创伤后导致脓毒血症占脓毒血症病例的10%~20%,其发病率和病死率均较高 [5] 。早期对创伤后危重患者脓毒血症发生情况和病情进行正确判断,从而及时进行有效治疗可减少患者多器官功能衰竭的发生,也是降低病死率的关键 [6] 。近年来,脓毒血症被认为是感染的全身性播散,可以通过炎症介质发生,因此产生了脓毒症的现代概念由严重创伤或感染诱导发生的促炎介质大量产生,从而引发机体炎性反应失衡、免疫防御功能下降等一系列急性全身炎症反应,如不及早控制,极易进展为多器官功能不全综合征 [7] 。脓毒血症诊断金标准为通过培养方法确认患者有病原感染,而血培养耗时长,无法在早期提供鉴别信息 [8] 。因此,通过血清标志物在疾病早期鉴别显得更为重要 [9] 。

2. 脓毒血症预后判断生物标志物

2.1. C反应蛋白(C-Reactive Protein, CRP)

CRP是反映机体炎症反应的标志物,正常人群机体内的CRP含量较低,仅为0.057~8.200 g/L,CRP是一种急性时相反应蛋白,是由肝脏合成的一种全身性炎症反应的非特异性标志物,其通过调理作用、补体激活与免疫球蛋白受体结合,在先天免疫中发挥重要作用。若机体组织出现各种感染、组织损伤和免疫反应等情况CRP可在短时间内异常升高 [10] 。CRP的半衰期约为19小时,这使其成为一种监测炎症反应、感染和抗生素治疗的有效工具。在正常人群中,当机体感染发生炎症反应时,CRP在4~6小时开始升高,每隔8小时可上升1倍,在诊断炎症反应时灵敏度较高,因其具有此类特点,故被广泛应用于脓毒症的诊断 [11] 。有研究显示,脓毒症患者应动态监测血清CRP来提高对脓毒症早期诊断及改善预后 [12] 。

2.2. 白细胞(White Blood Cell Count, WBC)

WBC是人体重要的免疫细胞,对于病原微生物而言WBC是人体的第一道防线,机体发生炎症或者其他疾病都有可能引起WBC总数及各种WBC百分比发生变化,临床上将WBC作为为临床评价细菌、病毒等病原体感染及应激状态的重要指标 [13] 。

2.3. 红细胞压积(Hematocrit, HCT)

HCT是指一定量的抗凝全血经离心沉淀后,测得下沉的红细胞占全血的容积比,是一种间接反映红细胞数量大小及体积的简单方法。结合红细胞计数和血红蛋白含量,可计算红细胞平均值,有助于贫血的形态学分类。HCT可用作多种癌症的关键预后生物标志物,包括肺癌、肾癌和上皮性卵巢癌。然而,HCT对ICU脓毒症患者的预后价值知之甚少 [14] 。目前,临床研究主要集中在红细胞分布宽度和血小板等贫血指标与脓毒症预后的关系 [15] 。尽管关于HCT对脓毒症患者预后影响的研究有限,但少数研究仅限于脓毒症手术前贫血的评估 [16] 。研究表明全血黏度、红细胞聚集和红细胞变形可能是脓毒症和脓毒性休克死亡的危险因素 [17] 。此外,有研究阐明HCT降低可以显著预测脓毒症患者的疾病进展和不良临床结局 [18] 。

2.4. 乳酸(Lactic Acid, LAC)

LAC是葡萄糖无氧代谢的最终产物,可以反映组织氧合代谢状况 [19] 。乳酸已成为感染危险分层的重要生物标志物,也被应用于衡量液体复苏的充分性,在健康个体中,乳酸的产生和清除是一个动态循环的过程,但在危重症休克患者中,由于微循环灌注不足,细胞缺氧等因素会导致乳酸升高。对于脓毒血症患者来说,机体有效循环血量往往呈现不足现象,导致细胞组织呈现严重缺氧状态,加快糖酵解速度,从而促使机体产生大量LAC,一旦超出肝脏的代谢负荷,便会使机体LAC堆积在肝脏部位 [20] 。所以,LAC可以做为监测感染严重程度的重要指标。测量乳酸可选择动脉血或静脉血,既往最初建议为测定动脉血乳酸,但抽取动脉血较痛苦、并发症相对多等缺点,故有研究显示静脉血乳酸或许可替代动脉血乳酸,以减轻患者的痛苦,且两者数值没有显著差异。但也有研究显示静脉血乳酸值与动脉血乳酸一致性较差,不建议用静脉血乳酸替代动脉血乳酸,但当静脉血乳酸 > 4.5 mmol/L时可能对脓毒症诊断及动脉血乳酸预测有价值。随乳酸值升高,患者死亡率也会升高,但这并不是绝对的,因乳酸的代谢时间比较长,对于没有休克的患者,不能单纯依靠乳酸排除危及生命的脓毒症,即使乳酸水平 ≤ 2 mmol/L也与高死亡率有关。初始乳酸 > 4 mmol/L时预测脓毒症患者28天死亡率的准确率为85.7%。随着对患者进行积极治疗,我们可用乳酸清除率(lactic clearance rate)判断患者预后,当乳酸清除率超过20%时,患者生存率大大提升 [21] 。

3. 生物标志物对预后判断的应用价值

炎症和感染是创伤后常见的病理生理过程,而由此所致的脓毒血症是导致患者死亡的重要原因 [22] 。但由于脓毒血症缺乏特异性的临床表现及早期诊断指标,患者病情凶险且多变,其诊断和治疗是目前临床医生所面临的困惑之一 [23] 。有研究表明脓毒血症的抗生素治疗每延迟1小时,存活率将下降8%。脓毒症患者的短期病死率呈下降趋势,远期病死率却居高不下 [24] 。美国一项回顾性研究调查显示,从1996年至2008年脓毒症患者短期病死率从28.5%降至15.8%,而3年病死率从73.5%降至71.3%,并未有明显改善。脓毒症远期病死率高,并未随着治疗的进步而有明显改善,尽管脓毒症的发病率和死亡率在过去20年中已大幅下降,但仍需改进管理 [25] 。与脓毒症相关的死亡率下降可部分归因于早期的认识和干预,以及对这种疾病过程的理解的进步。创伤后脓毒血症的早期诊断及对预后的评估至关重要 [26] 。因此,通过血清标志物在疾病早期鉴别更显得重要。

3.1. CRP对脓毒症患者预后的评估

研究表明,通过评估CRP在脓毒症患者中的预后作用,CRP使用对死亡率预测的贡献在5.7%至18.1%之间 [27] 。尽管该研究指出诊断为感染的患者中使用CRP提供了预后预测,但是,有研究却认为单一的血清CRP的水平缺乏特异性,急性排异反应及手术等也有可能引起机体血清CRP的异常升高,且炎症刺激停止后,血清CRP的水平下降较慢,无法准确地评估疾病的预后情况 [28] 。

3.2. WBC对脓毒症患者的预后的评估

有研究指出WBC水平对脓毒血症的早期诊断中具有显著的预测价值,可作为脓毒血症早期诊断的重要指标 [29] 。国外学者初步观察该指标表明它们在脓毒血症诊断中的实用性。强调了WBC对脓毒症早期识别的价值,因此对患者预后有潜在改善 [30] 。

3.3. LAC对脓毒症患者的预后的评估

脓毒症情况下的LAC积累已被证明对预测急性期死亡和院内死亡率具有高度特异性,监测LAC水平高低与患者死亡率有着密切的关系,动态监测血LAC的变化可作为脓毒血症患者预后的良好指标,血LAC水平短期恢复正常者预后较好 [31] 。LAC作为机体代谢性产物的一种,可有效反映机体组织氧合代谢情况,帮助临床医师有效判断病情。研究证实,监测LAC水平具有良好的判断预后的价值,患者的LAC水平越高,死亡率越高 [32] 。但LAC浓度反映的是全身代谢的总体变化,故其敏感性不强。近来,有学者通过探讨重症脓毒血症患儿血LAC水平变化的关系表明重度脓毒血症患儿由于机体血液黏滞性升高,组织灌注量较少,LAC合成分泌增多,诱发高乳酸血症的发生导致局部酸中毒的发生 [33] 。重度脓毒血症患儿可累及多个脏器,造成心肺功能不全,降低机体的氧气供应,加重机体的缺氧状态,导致LAC代谢增多。结果显示重症脓毒血症患儿各时间点LAC水平高于非重症患儿,提示LAC水平与脓毒血症患儿的病情关系密切 [34] 。LAC对脓毒血症患者预后具有较高的预测价值,提示临床可通过监测上述指标的变化来指导具体诊疗方案的实施,以改善脓毒血症患者不良预后 [35] 。

3.4. 采用WBC、CRP和PCT来评价脓毒症患者的预后

选取血常规WBC、CRP结合PCT作为观察指标,探讨WBC、血清CRP联合PCT检测在脓毒血症早期诊断中的应用价值,通过对非脓毒血症的感染患者及脓毒血症患者间WBC、血清CRP及PCT水平差异进行分析,结果证实血清WBC、CRP、PCT检测及联合检测对脓毒血症的早期诊断均存在显著的预测价值,以联合检测的预测价值最高,可作为脓毒血症早期诊断的重要指标。但该研究结果并未对脓毒血症患者治疗效果以及接受治疗后的预后进行观察 [36] 。

3.5. CRP和PCT对脓毒性休克患者的短期预后价值

有学者通过研究探讨CRP及PCT在脓毒血症休克患者的短期预后价值中发现,CRP及PCT对脓毒血症休克患者28天内死亡预测有一定的价值,但特异性较差,而两者联合预测的灵敏度及特异性都高于单独预测,提示PCT及CRP对脓毒血症休克短期预后有一定的预测价值,但两者联合预测价值更高ADDIN [37] 。CRP和PCT是迄今为止使用最广泛和研究最多的生物标志物。两者都在脓毒症期间短暂增加,这两种生物标志物联合使用可能会提高其排除脓毒症的能力。近年来相关专家学者此类指标的异常升高有助于对脓毒血症的诊断,但是与脓毒血症预后关系的预测价值研究还有所不足 [34] 。

4. 讨论

在近二十年,脓毒症的发病率和死亡率已大幅下降,但仍需改进管理。与脓毒症相关的死亡率下降可部分归因于早期的认识和干预,以及对这种疾病过程的理解的进步。创伤后脓毒血症的早期诊断及对预后的评估至关重要。因此,通过血清标志物在疾病早期鉴别更显得重要。但是就实用价值而言,目前研究发现单一的生物标志物尚不足以准确的进行早期诊断、指导抗生素使用或判断预后,所以我们还是应该联合运用多种血清学因子的潜在价值,提高早期诊断及预后判断的能力。因此,需要对脓毒症相关的生物标志物进行更加深入的研究,合理运用生物标志物可在早期对脓毒血症病人进行干预,从而明确生物标志物对脓毒症诊断与治疗的价值,可有效控制病人病情发展,改善病人预后状况,为临床带来获益,提高医疗质量。

文章引用

罗 超,胡 毅. 生物标志物对急性创伤后脓毒血症患者预后判断的研究进展
Research Progress of Biomarkers for Prognosis of Patients with Acute Post-Traumatic Sepsis[J]. 临床医学进展, 2024, 14(02): 4288-4293. https://doi.org/10.12677/ACM.2024.142594

参考文献

  1. 1. Chiu, C. and Legrand, M. (2021) Epidemiology of Sepsis and Septic Shock. Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology, 34, 71-76. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACO.0000000000000958

  2. 2. Font, M.D., Thyagarajan, B. and Khanna, A.K. (2020) Sepsis and Septic Shock—Basics of Diagnosis, Pathophysiology and Clinical Decision Making. Medical Clinics of North America, 104, 573-585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcna.2020.02.011

  3. 3. Bracht, H., Hafner, S. and Weiß, M. (2019) [Sepsis Update: Definition and Epidemiology]. Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther, 54, 10-20. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0625-5492

  4. 4. Evans, T. (2018) Diagnosis and Management of Sepsis. Clinical Medi-cine Journal, 18, 146-149. https://doi.org/10.7861/clinmedicine.18-2-146

  5. 5. Rehn, M., Chew, M.S., Olkkola, K.T., et al. (2022) Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock in Adults 2021—Endorsement by the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 66, 634-635. https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.14045

  6. 6. Rudd, K.E., Johnson, S.C., Agesa, K.M., et al. (2020) Global, Regional, and National Sepsis Incidence and Mortality, 1990-2017: Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. The Lancet, 395, 200-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32989-7

  7. 7. Ackerman, M.H., Ahrens, T., Kelly, J., et al. (2021) Sepsis. Critical Care Nursing Clinics of North America, 33, 407- 418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnc.2021.08.003

  8. 8. Gunsolus, I.L., Sweeney, T.E., Liesenfeld, O., et al. (2019) Diag-nosing and Managing Sepsis by Probing the Host Response to Infection: Advances, Opportunities, and Challenges. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 57. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.00425-19

  9. 9. Pierrakos, C., Velissaris, D., Bisdorff, M., et al. (2020) Biomarkers of Sepsis: Time for A Reappraisal. Critical Care, 24, Article No. 287. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-020-02993-5

  10. 10. Fendl, B., Weiss, R., Eichhorn, T., et al. (2021) Extracellular Vesicles Are Associated with C-Reactive Protein in Sepsis. Scientific Reports, 11, Article No. 6996. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-86489-4

  11. 11. Stocker, M., Van Herk, W., El Heiou, S., et al. (2021) C-Reactive Protein, Procalcitonin, and White Blood Count to Rule Out Neonatal Early-Onset Sepsis within 36 Hours: A Secondary Analysis of the Neonatal Procalcitonin Intervention Study. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 73, e383-e390. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa876

  12. 12. Cui, N., Zhang, H., Chen, Z., et al. (2019) Prognostic Significance of PCT and CRP Evaluation for Adult ICU Patients with Sepsis and Septic Shock: Retrospective Analysis of 59 Cases. Journal of International Medical Research, 47, 1573-1579. https://doi.org/10.1177/0300060518822404

  13. 13. Russell, C.D., Parajuli, A., Gale, H.J., et al. (2019) The Utility of Peripheral Blood Leucocyte Ratios as Biomarkers in Infectious Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Infection, 78, 339-348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2019.02.006

  14. 14. Chen, J., Li, Y. and Cui, H. (2021) Preoperative Low Hematocrit Is an Adverse Prognostic Biomarker in Ovarian Cancer. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 303, 767-775. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05822-w

  15. 15. Hu, Z.D., Lippi, G. and Montagnana, M. (2020) Diagnostic and Prognostic Value of Red Blood Cell Distribution Width in Sepsis: A Narrative Review. Clinical Biochemistry, 77, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2020.01.001

  16. 16. Chaturvedi, R., Burton, B.N., Trivedi, S., et al. (2022) The Association of Preoperative Hematocrit with Adverse Events Following Exploratory Laparotomy in Septic Patients: A Retrospective Analysis. Journal of Intensive Care Medicine, 37, 46-51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885066620967925

  17. 17. Totsimon, K., Biro, K., Szabo, Z.E., et al. (2017) The Relationship between Hemorheological Parameters and Mortality in Critically Ill Patients with and without Sepsis. Clinical Hemorheology and Microcirculation, 65, 119-129. https://doi.org/10.3233/CH-16136

  18. 18. Luo, M., Chen, Y., Cheng, Y., et al. (2022) Association between Hema-tocrit and the 30-Day Mortality of Patients with Sepsis: A Retrospective Analysis Based on the Large-Scale Clinical Database MIMIC-IV. PLOS ONE, 17, e265758. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265758

  19. 19. Wardi, G., Brice, J., Correia, M., et al. (2020) Demystifying Lactate in the Emergency Department. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 75, 287-298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2019.06.027

  20. 20. Bakker, J., Postelnicu, R. and Mukherjee, V. (2020) Lactate: Where Are We Now? Critical Care Clinics, 36, 115-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccc.2019.08.009

  21. 21. Tian, X., Chen, H., Liu, H., et al. (2021) Recent Advances in Lactic Acid Production by Lactic Acid Bacteria. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 193, 4151-4171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-021-03672-z

  22. 22. Fleischmann-Struzek, C. and Rudd, K. (2023) Challenges of Assessing the Burden of Sepsis. Medizinische Klinik—Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, 118, 68-74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00063-023-01088-7

  23. 23. Purcarea, A. and Sovaila, S. (2020) Sepsis, a 2020 Review for the Internist. Romanian Journal of Internal Medicine, 58, 129-137. https://doi.org/10.2478/rjim-2020-0012

  24. 24. Einav, S., Leone, M. and Martin-Loeches, I. (2023) Sepsis and An-tibiotics: When Should We Deploy a Parachute? International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, 61, Article ID: 106732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2023.106732

  25. 25. Salomão, R., Ferreira, B.L., Salomão, M.C., et al. (2019) Sepsis: Evolving Concepts and Challenges. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, 52, e8595. https://doi.org/10.1590/1414-431x20198595

  26. 26. Mas-Celis, F., Olea-López, J. and Parroquin-Maldonado, J.A. (2021) Sepsis in Trauma: A Deadly Complication. Archives of Medical Research, 52, 808-816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arcmed.2021.10.007

  27. 27. Tan, M., Lu, Y., Jiang, H., et al. (2019) The Diagnostic Accu-racy of Procalcitonin and C-Reactive Protein for Sepsis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Cellular Biochemistry, 120, 5852-5859. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcb.27870

  28. 28. Ozger, H.S. and Senol, E. (2022) Use of Infection Biomarkers in the Emergency Department. Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine, 22, 169-176. https://doi.org/10.4103/2452-2473.357347

  29. 29. Marik, P.E. and Stephenson, E. (2020) The Ability of Procalcitonin, Lactate, White Blood Cell Count and Neutrophil-Lymphocyte Count Ratio to Predict Blood Stream Infection. Analysis of a Large Database. Journal of Critical Care, 60, 135-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2020.07.026

  30. 30. Urrechaga, E. (2020) Reviewing the Value of Leukocytes Cell Population Data (CPD) in the Management of Sepsis. Annals of Translational Medicine, 8, Article 953. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm-19-3173

  31. 31. Hernández, G., Ospina-Tascón, G.A., Damiani, L.P., et al. (2019) Effect of a Resuscitation Strategy Targeting Peripheral Perfusion Status vs Serum Lactate Levels on 28-Day Mortality among Patients with Septic Shock: The ANDROMEDA-SHOCK Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA, 321, 654-664. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.0071

  32. 32. Singhal, R., Coghill, J.E., Guy, A., et al. (2005) Serum Lactate and Base Deficit as Predictors of Mortality after Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, 30, 263-266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2005.04.003

  33. 33. Lu, Y. and Song, L. (2023) Clinical Significance of Procalcitonin, Lactic Acid, and Endotoxin Testing for Children with Severe Pneumonia and Sepsis. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine, 29, 218-223.

  34. 34. Hassan, J., Khan, S., Zahra, R., et al. (2022) Role of Procalcitonin and C-Reactive Protein as Predictors of Sepsis and in Managing Sepsis in Postoperative Patients: A Systematic Review. Cureus, 14, e31067. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.31067

  35. 35. Jiang, M., Wu, W., Wang, X., et al. (2022) Analysis of the Predictive Effect of Lactic Acid Combined with Cardiac Troponin T and 5-Hydroxytryptophan on the Severity of Sepsis in ICU Patients and Its Correlation with Prognosis. Contrast Media & Molecular Imaging, 2022, Article ID: 6215282. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/6215282

  36. 36. Li, Y., Wu, Y., Gao, Y., et al. (2022) Machine-Learning Based Pre-diction of Prognostic Risk Factors in Patients with Invasive Candidiasis Infection and Bacterial Bloodstream Infection: A Singled Centered Retrospective Study. BMC Infectious Diseases, 22, Article No. 150. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-022-07125-8

  37. 37. Papafilippou, L., Claxton, A., Dark, P., et al. (2021) Nanotools for Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment. Advanced Healthcare Materials, 10, e2001378. https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.202001378

  38. NOTES

    *通讯作者。

期刊菜单