Cited by 17Cardiac and Coronary Surgery TechniquesNeutrophil, Myeloperoxidase and Oxidative MechanismsInflammation biomarkers and pathways

CARDIOPULMONARY BYPASS INDUCES ENDURING ALTERATIONS TO HOST NEUTROPHIL PHYSIOLOGY: A SINGLE-CENTER LONGITUDINAL OBSERVATIONAL STUDY

Fung, Yoke Lin, Silliman, Christopher C., Minchinton, Robyn M., Wood, Peter, Fraser, John F.·2008·Shock

Abstract

Studies during and immediately post-cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) surgery have revealed that neutrophils (PMNs) are pivotal to post-CPB inflammation and innate immunity. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of CPB on the PMN phenotype and respiratory burst function over a longer post-CPB period (up to day 5). Blood samples were collected pre-CPB and on days 1, 3, and 5 post-CPB from 20 patients. Changes to PMN surface expression of CD16, CD62L, CD11b, CD18, and CD43, and PMN respiratory burst activity were measured, together with the white blood cell count and absolute PMN count. Cardiopulmonary bypass induced neutrophilia on days 1 and 3. One day post-CPB, CD16 expression reached a nadir (P = 0.001), and platelet-activating factor-induced CD18 increase was depressed (P < 0.05). Three days post-CPB, CD43 expression peaked (P < 0.05), with a concomitant resistance to N-formyl-Met-Leu-Phe-induced CD11b upregulation (P < 0.05). The PMN respiratory burst activity declined continuously post-CPB until day 5. Neutrophilia on days 1 and 3 was associated with changes to surface molecules expression that may reduce PMN activation response. This study demonstrated that CPB depresses the respiratory burst activity of host PMNs for an extraordinarily longer period of at least 5 days even after neutrophilia had resolved. Collectively, the changes portray an autoprotective yet responsive homeostatic balance.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/shk.0b013e318173e717

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fung, Y. L., Silliman, C. C., Minchinton, R. M., Wood, P., & Fraser, J. F.
Affiliations
  • Australian Red Cross Lifeblood (AU)
  • Princess Alexandra Hospital (AU)
  • Prince Charles Hospital (AU)
Corresponding author
  • Fung, Yoke Lin
  • Silliman, Christopher C.
  • Minchinton, Robyn M.
Venue
Shock
Published
2008-12
Volume
30
Issue
6
Pages
642-648
ISSN
1073-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2075255334
Cited by
17
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Shock (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Cardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Neutrophil, Myeloperoxidase and Oxidative Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Inflammation biomarkers and pathways
Keywords
cardiopulmonary bypass, neutrophils, respiratory burst, neutrophilia, CD16, CD43, CD11b, CD18, L-selectin, postoperative inflammation, innate immunity, leukocyte surface markers
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cardiopulmonary Bypass, Female, Flow Cytometry, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neutrophils, Respiratory Burst, CD18 Antigens, CD11b Antigen, Leukosialin

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