Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 236

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Evaluation of sublingual and gut mucosal microcirculation in sepsis: A quantitative analysis*

Verdant, Colin L., De Backer, Daniel, Bruhn, Alejandro, Clausi, Carla M., Su, Fuhong, Wang, Zhen, Rodriguez, Hector, Pries, Axel R., Vincent, Jean-Louis·2009·Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between sublingual and intestinal mucosal microcirculatory perfusion. DESIGN: Observational, experimental study. SETTING: University-affiliated large animal laboratory. SUBJECTS: Ten fasted, anesthetized, mechanically ventilated, male pigs randomized to a sham group (n = 3) or to a hyperdynamic septic shock group (n = 7) in which cholangitis was induced by direct infusion of Escherichia coli into the common bile duct. This model was developed because it is not accompanied by changes in intra-abdominal pressure. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The sublingual and intestinal microcirculations were simultaneously assessed at 4-hr intervals for up to 12 hrs with a modified orthogonal polarization spectral device and functional microvessel density and erythrocyte velocity were measured quantitatively. In sham animals, both regions maintained a stable functional microvessel density and erythrocyte velocity throughout the study period. In contrast, in septic animals, already after 4 hrs of sepsis, functional microvessel density was markedly decreased (>50%) in the sublingual and gut regions; mean erythrocyte velocity decreased dramatically and similarly in both regions, from 1022 +/- 80 to 265 +/- 43 mum/sec in the sublingual region and from 1068 +/- 45 to 243 +/- 115 mum/sec in the gut (p < 0.001, at T12). There was a significant correlation between the sublingual and gut microcirculations in septic animals (r = 0.92, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The severity and the time course of microcirculatory changes were similar in the sublingual and in the gut region in this clinically relevant model of severe sepsis. These findings support the sublingual region as an appropriate region to monitor the microcirculation in sepsis.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ccm.0b013e3181b029c1

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 236

Metadata

Authors
Verdant, C. L., De Backer, D., Bruhn, A., Clausi, C. M., Su, F., Wang, Z., Rodriguez, H., Pries, A. R., & Vincent, J.-L.
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Published
2009-11
Volume
37
Issue
11
Pages
2875-2881
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2042251693
Cited by
236
References
0
FWCI
9.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluation of sublingual and gut mucosal microcirculation in sepsis: A quantitative analysis*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/ccm.0b013e3181b029c1
The paper
Verdant, C. L., De Backer, D., Bruhn, A., Clausi, C. M., Su, F., Wang, Z., Rodriguez, H., Pries, A. R., & Vincent, J.-L. (2009). Evaluation of sublingual and gut mucosal microcirculation in sepsis: A quantitative analysis*. Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0b013e3181b029c1

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.