Abstract
Purpose
SuPAR (soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor) and PAI-1 (plasminogen activator inhibitor 1) are active in the coagulation-fibrinolysis pathway. Both have been suggested as biomarkers for disease severity. We evaluated them in prediction of mortality, acute lung injury (ALI)/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), sepsis and renal replacement therapy (RRT) in operative and non-operative ventilated patients.
Methods
We conducted a prospective, multicenter, observational study. Blood samples and data of intensive care were collected. Mechanically ventilated patients with baseline suPAR and PAI-1 measurements were included in the analysis, and healthy volunteers were analysed for comparison. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC), logistic regression, likelihood ratios and Kaplan–Meier analysis were performed.
Results
Baseline suPAR was 11.6 ng/ml (quartiles Q1–Q3, 9.6–14.0), compared to healthy volunteers with suPAR of 0.6 ng/ml (0.5–11.0). PAI-1 concentrations were 2.67 ng/ml (1.53–4.69) and 0.3 ng/ml (0.3–0.4), respectively. ROC analysis for suPAR 90-day mortality areas under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) 0.61 (95 % confidence interval (CI): 0.55–0.67), sepsis 0.68 (0.61–0.76), ALI/ARDS 0.64 (0.56–0.73) and RRT 0.65 (0.56–0.73). Patients with the highest quartile of suPAR concentrations had an odds ratio of 2.52 (1.37–4.64, p = 0.003) for 90-day mortality and 3.16 (1.19–8.41, p = 0.02) for ALI/ARDS. In non-operative patients, the AUC’s for suPAR were 90-day mortality 0.61 (0.54–0.68), RRT 0.73 (0.64–0.83), sepsis 0.70 (0.60–0.80), ALI/ARDS 0.61 (0.51–0.71). Predictive value of PAI-1 was negligible.
Conclusions
In non-operative patients, low concentrations of suPAR were predictive for survival and high concentrations for RRT and mortality. SuPAR may be used for screening for patients with potentially good survival. The association with RRT may supply an early warning sign for acute renal failure.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (UPAR) and plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 (PAI-1) are both active in coagulation pathway [1]. The activation of coagulation and fibrinolysis pathways and local production of pro-inflammatory mediators are important innate reactions in acute lung injury (ALI) or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [2, 3], and biomarkers of coagulation, fibrinolysis and inflammation have been suggested for recognizing ALI/ARDS. Numerous studies on biomarkers for ALI/ARDS have resulted in promising results, but none of these have entered routine clinical practice [4–9]. In acute kidney injury (AKI), a novel biomarker neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) has entered clinical use [10] and has shown prognostic value for renal recovery in AKI [11].
UPAR is involved in many immune functions like fibrinolysis, cell proliferation and angiogenesis [12–14]. UPAR is expressed in numerous different cells and is glycosyl phosphatidylinositol (GPI)-anchored to cell surface. Removal of the GPI anchor by phospholipases or extracellular proteolytic cleavage yields a soluble form: soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) [1, 15]. UPAR expression is induced under conditions that involve extra cellular matrix (ECM) remodelling, and also in stress, injury and inflammation. Elevated levels of suPAR in circulation are considered to be a marker for activation of immune and inflammatory systems [15]. In the acute setting, elevated levels of suPAR have been proposed to be predictive for disease severity in bacteraemia [16, 17], ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) with sepsis [18], and in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with or without sepsis [19]. Recently suPAR was discovered as a cause of chronic renal disease focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS). In addition, removing suPAR with plasmapheresis resulted in lowered suPAR concentrations and a disease-stabilizing effect [20].
PAI-1 (also known as SERPINE1) is the main inhibitor for tissue-type (tPA) and urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA). It is present during activation of the coagulation system in sepsis [21]. In ALI and ARDS, fibrin production is induced, but the activation of PAI-1 in pulmonary tissue inhibits fibrinolytic activity. It is suggested that higher levels of PAI-1 in alveoli or plasma are associated with higher mortality rate, increased risk of VAP, and fewer days of unassisted ventilation in adult [22, 23] and in paediatric patients [24]. PAI-1 levels in serum are suggested to be elevated in sepsis [25], to predict multiple organ failure (MOF), mortality [26] and AKI [27]. Increased levels of PAI-1 in bronchoalveolar lavage are suggested to differentiate patients developing VAP, before clinical signs are present in adult [22] and in paediatric patients [28].
Our primary hypothesis was that elevated serum levels of suPAR and PAI-1 in critically ill patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) are associated with development of ALI/ARDS, sepsis, renal replacement therapy (RRT) and mortality. Accordingly, we analysed serum suPAR and PAI-1 concentrations at baseline and on day 2 in a large prospective nationwide multicenter cohort study. Our secondary hypothesis was that suPAR and PAI-1 act differently in different patient cohorts. In order to evaluate this, we also performed a subgroup analysis of operative and non-operative patients.
Methods
This was a predetermined substudy of the prospective observational FINNALI study, including 25 Finnish ICUs [29]. All adult patients admitted to participating ICUs and receiving ventilatory support for more than 6 h within an 8-week period in 2007 were included in the FINNALI-study.
The FINNALI study obtained approval from ethical committees in all participating hospitals. The routine quality data were collected in all participating ICUs (The Finnish Quality Consortium, Intensium Ltd, Kuopio, Finland). Routine data included information of critical illness severity by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE2) and Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II) points, age, gender, body mass index (BMI), survival and length of hospital stay. Ventilatory treatment strategies, need of RRT and presence of sepsis according to physicians’ clinical evaluation were recorded on case report forms (CRFs). ALI or ARDS was defined according to American–European Consensus Conference (AECC) criteria [30]. We collected a written informed consent from the patient or his/her relative for blood samples. Baseline samples were collected within 6 h following ICU admission and on day 2 after ICU admission.
The sera were frozen until later analysed (after 32–34 months). SuPAR and PAI-1 levels in serum were measured as paired samples by enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), according to the manufacturer’s (suPAR suPARnostic®, ViroGates, Birkeroed, Denmark; PAI-1 BioVendor GmbH, Heidelberg, Germany) instructions. Samples from ten healthy volunteers were analysed for comparison.
All those patients with ventilatory support exceeding 6 h, with an informed consent and with blood samples, were included in this FINNALI sub study. In order to have comparable data between the two biomarkers, we only included patients with suPAR and PAI-1 blood samples at baseline. The study flowchart is presented in the electronic supplemental material (Fig. 1 in ESM).
Statistical analysis
Data are presented as median and quartiles (Q1–Q3) or percentages. Nonparametric data were compared by Mann–Whitney U test and categorical variables with the Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate. Areas under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) to determine the discrimination of suPAR and PAI-1 regarding different time-point mortality, sepsis, ALI/ARDS and RRT were calculated. Likelihood ratios (LR+ or LR−) with 95 % CIs were calculated. The Youden index with the highest sum of the sensitivity and specificity [sensitivity + (1-specificity)] was used to select the optimal cut-off point for calculating LR+ and LR−. SuPAR and PAI-1 levels were separately divided into quartiles, and Kaplan–Meier survival curves were produced. Two subgroups were identified and analysed according to patients being operative or non-operative, and Kaplan–Meier survival curves for subgroups were produced. Finally, a multivariate backward logistic regression analysis to evaluate the independent association of suPAR and PAI-1 and post hoc subgroups regarding the study primary endpoint of (1) 90-day mortality; (2) 12-month mortality; (3) ALI/ARDS; (4) sepsis; and (5) RRT. The following variables were first tested in a univariate analysis baseline: suPAR and PAI-1, SOFA- and SAPS II-points, baseline PaO2:FiO2 ratio, age, gender and body mass. Those with p value <0.10 were included in multivariate analysis. The level of p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all tests. PASW 18.0 software (SPSS, Chicago, IL) was used for the analyses.
Results
The characteristics of the 454 study patients and the remaining 504 FINNALI patients without laboratory samples are presented in Table 1.
SuPAR concentration was 11.6 ng/ml (9.6–14.0) at baseline and 12.8 ng/ml (10.8–15.1) on day 2. PAI-1 concentration was 2.67 ng/ml (1.53–4.69) at baseline and 1.62 ng/ml (1.26–2.62) on day 2. In healthy volunteers, the suPAR and PAI-1 concentrations were 0.6 ng/ml (0.5–11.0) and 0.3 ng/ml (0.3–0.4), respectively. SuPAR and PAI-1 concentrations were higher in critically ill patients compared to healthy volunteers (p < 0.001 for both groups and time points).
SuPAR: the whole patient cohort
The baseline and day 2 suPAR concentrations were higher in 90-day non-survivors compared to survivors, 13.2 ng/ml (10.3–15.8) versus 11.3 ng/ml (9.5–13.7), and 14.2 ng/ml (11.6–17.1) versus 12.5 ng/ml (10.7–14.5) (p < 0.001). SuPAR concentrations were higher in septic versus non-septic patients (p < 0.001).
AUC analyses for mortality, sepsis, ALI/ARDS and RRT are presented in Table 1 in ESM, and respective LR+ in Table 2. The highest of suPAR concentrations showed an independent effect on 90-day mortality and development of ALI/ARDS in a multivariate analysis adjusted to age, gender, SOFA and body mass. The univariate analysis showed no correlation between baseline suPAR and PAI-1 concentrations (r = 0.041, p = 0.389).
The binary logistic regression analysis showed that patients with the highest quartile of baseline suPAR concentrations had an odds ratio (OR) of 2.52 (95 % CI 1.37–4.64, p = 0.003) for 90-day mortality when compared to lowest quartile. Furthermore, the patients with highest quartile of baseline suPAR concentration had an OR of 3.16 (95 % CI 1.19–8.41, p = 0.021) for developing ALI or ARDS.
The Kaplan–Meier analysis for the baseline suPAR concentration quartiles suggested a markedly increased risk of death in the highest suPAR concentration quartile (p = 0.009). The 12-month mortality in the lowest quartile of suPAR concentration was 20.8 %, and in the highest quartile, 41.4 % (Fig. 2 in ESM).
SuPAR: operative versus non-operative patient subgroups
In post hoc subgroup analyses relevant to clinical practice, Kaplan–Meier analysis for non-operative patients suggested high prognostic value for lower mortality with the lowest suPAR concentration quartile. Lowest baseline suPAR concentration quartile (below 9.7 ng/ml) was associated with 18.3 % 12-month mortality, while the three highest concentration quartiles had 41.3–47.7 % mortality. LR− for 90-day survival with a cut-off value of 9.7 ng/ml was 0.36 (0.18–0.70) and LR+ for 90-day mortality was 1.25 (1.11–1.40). In the subgroup of operative (surgical) admissions, the prognostic value was negligible (Fig. 1).
Non-operative patients belonging to the three highest suPAR concentration quartiles had an increased risk of death (90 days), with the OR varying from 2.2 to 2.6. OR for developing ALI or ARDS was insignificant in both subgroups. OR for sepsis in the highest concentration quartile of suPAR was 3.4 (95 % CI 1.2–9.6) in non-operative patients. In operative patients the highest two concentration quartiles had OR’s of 6.6 (95 % CI 1.7–25.0) and 5.4 (95 % CI 1.3–22.9) for sepsis (Fig. 2).
ROC analysis in non-operative patients indicated suPAR as a moderate to good predictor for RRT at baseline and on day 2. The AUC’s were 0.73 (0.64–0.83) and 0.78 (0.70–0.87), respectively with LR+ of 3.31 (2.06–5.32) and 2.38 (1.88–3.00). LR− for not needing RRT was 0.19 (0.07–0.49), with the cut off value of 13.4 ng/ml. In operative patients, suPAR had no predictive value for RRT [AUC 0.51 (0.37–0.65) and 0.62 (0.49–0.76)] (Table 1 in ESM). The binary logistic regression analysis for RRT in non-operative patients gave an OR 11.7 (2.6–53.4) for the highest baseline suPAR concentration quartile (Fig. 2).
PAI-1: the whole cohort and the subgroups
Baseline PAI-1 levels were higher in in-hospital non-survivors [3.01 (2.28–5.34) vs. 2.62 ng/ml (1.51–4.47)] (p = 0.006). For the whole cohort and the subgroups, the AUC’s in ROC analyses suggested insignificant or very weak prognostic value for PAI-1 to predict mortality, sepsis, ALI/ARDS or RRT (Table 1 in ESM). In the binary regression analysis, the highest PAI-1 concentration quartile was not prognostic for mortality, sepsis and ALI/ARDS, in the whole cohort or subgroups. OR for RRT in operative admissions when the PAI-1 concentration was in the highest quartile was 5.27 (1.05–26.41, p = 0.04) (Fig. 3 in ESM). Kaplan–Meier analysis revealed insignificant pattern between the PAI-1 quartiles in the whole cohort and the two subgroups (Figs. 4, 5 in ESM).
Discussion
Key findings of the present investigation were that in this cohort of critically ill patients receiving ventilatory support, suPAR was higher compared to healthy volunteers. The association between suPAR and 90-day mortality and secondary endpoints was only moderate. In post hoc subgroup analyses, high suPAR concentration was associated with high 90-day mortality and RRT in non-operative patients. In particular, LR− suggested that low suPAR at admission predicts high probability of survival.
Serum PAI-1 was higher in ICU patients compared to healthy volunteers. However, in the whole patient cohort and in the post hoc subgroups, no indication for prognostic value occurred.
In septic patients, suPAR concentrations were higher than in non-septic patients. This finding is in line with previous studies suggesting suPAR/uPAR activation in infection [16–19, 31]. Previous studies have suggested cut-off points of 8.0 ng/ml [19] and 11.0 ng/ml [17] for predicting 30-day and ICU mortality. In our study with a heterogeneous group of critically ill patients, a higher cut-off point than previously reported is more likely to be prognostic for mortality. The higher suggested cut-off point may be explained by the inclusion criteria in the study. In the work of Huttunen et al. [17], the patients were known to have positive blood culture and septicaemia. Our data represent a heterogeneous group of adult patients with a wide variety of etiology for respiratory failure. Although the low sensitivity in ROC analysis limits the use of suPAR, the increased risk of death and ALI/ARDS with the highest suPAR concentrations could be clinically relevant information. More importantly, in non-operative patients, low concentrations of suPAR were highly predictive for survival. The sensitivity for mortality was poor, but specificity was high, with the lowest quartile cut-off value of 9.7 ng/ml.
The activation of uPA–uPAR interaction is suggested to have a role in blocking fibrin accumulation and fibrin-associated inflammation [32]. Low concentrations of suPAR being predictive for survival may indicate that uPA–uPAR and fibrin-associated inflammation are not activated. Instead, high concentrations could indicate only activation of uPA–uPAR, but mechanistically this may also be required to block fibrin accumulation, and hence is a physiologically advantageous reaction to inflammation and fibrin accumulation.
In operative patients, prognostic value of suPAR is weaker than in non-operative patients. This is potentially related to patient selection. Disease severity markers (SAPS, SOFA) indicate less organ failure and mortality in operative patients (Table 1). The low mortality rate and low disease severity suggest that operative patients recovered after single organ failure (e.g., head trauma) and hence had minor activation of uPA–uPAR.
In comparison to previously investigated biomarkers [5–9], suPAR was inferior to a combination of biomarkers and clinical evaluation [5] in predicting ALI, ARDS and mortality. Like other biomarkers, suPAR as a single biomarker is not strong enough for clinical decision-making. The combination of suPAR and disease severity scores as a clinical outcome prediction tool should be assessed in further studies.
Previous studies have suggested that PAI-1 is a marker for AKI [27]. In this study, we evaluated PAI-1 and suPAR on those with RRT, and found suPAR to be fairly prognostic for RRT. Based on the ROC analysis, risk of RRT was increased with higher concentrations of suPAR, especially on day 2. The indications for RRT in critically ill patients differ from those with AKI alone, and hence RRT cannot be used as a definition for AKI. A subgroup analysis revealed that in operative patients, PAI-1 was prognostic for RRT. In non-operative patients, suPAR was superior to PAI-1 in predicting RRT. A previous study [19] has reported an association between suPAR and renal dysfunction. A recent report on suPAR as a cause of kidney injury in chronic renal disease [20] suggests a tentative mechanistic role in acute kidney failure as well. NGAL is shown to have prognostic value for renal recovery in community-acquired pneumonia [11]. The reported AUC of 0.74 (0.66–0.81) for NGAL is the same level as suPAR-AUC for RRT in non-operative patients. A study involving suPAR and NGAL in prediction of AKI is strongly warranted.
There was a marked variation in suPAR in the healthy volunteers, in line with the previous report by Koch et al. [19]. The highest suPAR concentrations in healthy volunteers were lower than the concentrations of patients with an increased risk of poor outcome. PAI-1 levels in healthy volunteers were stable and low.
PAI-1 was a poor prognostic marker for mortality or development of sepsis. Previously, PAI-1 has been considered valuable in prognostication in patients with ARF [22–24]. Our data do not support this notion. Even the highest quartile of PAI-1, concentrations did not have predictive value for 90-day mortality or association with ALI/ARDS. Previous reports indicate that PAI-1 levels are elevated in sepsis and VAP, and predict mortality and MOF. We detected no statistically significant differences in PAI-1 levels at baseline or on day 2 in patients with ALI/ARDS or sepsis. Our findings suggest that PAI-1 is only weakly associated with 90-day mortality, sepsis and ALI/ARDS. The findings were similar in the subgroup analyses.
Strengths and limitations
Two major strengths of the present report are proposed: 1) the prospective design with national coverage for the cohort study; and 2) this study was an unselected group of consecutive patient admissions of critically ill patients with ventilatory support. Therefore, this study represented a real-life patient population for testing the prognostic markers. However, some important limitations need to be considered. First, in the FINNALI study [29] the ventilatory tidal volumes were higher than lung-protective strategy guidelines suggest, because due to the observational nature of the study, no strict guidelines were stipulated. This may have had an impact on our results, but again, this exemplifies real adherence to current guidelines, and therefore current clinical practice. Second, in comparison to the original FINNALI-study, the 90-day mortality in the whole FINNALI cohort was 30.8 %. Herein, amongst the patients with available laboratory samples, the 90-day mortality was slightly lower at 26.2 %. This could represent random chance variation. Alternatively, most severely ill patients and their next of kin may not have been approached for informed consent and blood sampling. Another indication towards informed consent procedure being the culprit is that operative patients with good prognosis were slightly over-represented in the patient cohort. Third, the sera were frozen for up to 2.5 years before analyses. However, long-term freezing, or even repeated thawing, should have minimal impact on suPAR or PAI-1 results [33, 34]. Finally, the data input on case report forms did not include administered anticoagulation. PAI-1 levels are known to decrease following low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) therapy [35]. To our knowledge, the impact of anticoagulation therapy on suPAR levels is unknown.
Conclusions
We found that suPAR and PAI-1 serum concentrations were increased in critically ill patients with ARF and need for ventilator support. In non-operative critically ill patients needing ventilator support, low concentrations of suPAR at baseline were predictive for survival, and high concentrations predicted RRT and to lesser extent, 90-day mortality. The association of high suPAR concentration with RRT and AKI needs to be further investigated, bearing in mind the potential for causality.
References
Smith HV, Marshall CJ (2010) Regulation of cell signalling by uPAR. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 11:23–36
Idell S (2003) Coagulation, fibrinolysis, and fibrin deposition in acute lung injury. Crit Care Med 31(4 Suppl):S213–S220
Dahlem P, Bos AP, Haitsma JJ, Schultz MJ, Meijers JC, Lachmann B (2005) Alveolar fibrinolytic capacity suppressed by injurious mechanical ventilation. Intensive Care Med 31:724–732
McClintock D, Zhuo H, Wickersham N, Matthay MA, Ware LB (2008) Biomarkers of inflammation, coagulation and fibrinolysis predict mortality in acute lung injury. Crit Care 12:R41
Ware LB, Koyama T, Billheimer DD, Wu W, Bernard GR, Thompson BT, Brower RG, Standiford TJ, Martin TR, Matthay MA, NHLBI ARDS Clinical Trials Network (2009) Prognostic and pathogenetic value of combining clinical and biochemical indices in patients with acute lung injury. Chest 137:288–296
Dushianthan A, Grocott MP, Postle AD, Cusack R (2011) Acute respiratory distress syndrome and acute lung injury. Postgrad Med J 87:612–622
Jabaudon M, Futier E, Roszyk L, Chalus E, Guerin R, Petit A, Mrozek S, Perbet S, Cayot-Constantin S, Chartier C, Sapin V, Bazin JE, Constantin JM (2011) Soluble form of the receptor for advanced glycation end products is a marker of acute lung injury but not of severe sepsis in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med 39:480–488
Eisner MD, Parsons P, Matthay MA, Ware L, Greene K, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network (2003) Plasma surfactant protein levels and clinical outcomes in patients with acute lung injury. Thorax 58:983–988
Determann RM, Royakkers AA, Haitsma JJ, Zhang H, Slutsky AS, Ranieri VM, Schultz MJ (2010) Plasma levels of surfactant protein D and KL-6 for evaluation of lung injury in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients. BMC Pulm Med 10:6
Haase M, Bellomo R, Devarajan P, Schlattmann P, Haase-Fielitz A, NGAL Meta-analysis Investigator Group (2009) Accuracy of neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) in diagnosis and prognosis in acute kidney injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Kidney Dis 54:1012–1024
Srisawat N, Murugan R, Lee M, Kong L, Carter M, Angus DC, Kellum JA, Genetic and Inflammatory Markers of Sepsis (GenIMS) Study Investigators (2011) Plasma neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin predicts recovery from acute kidney injury following community-acquired pneumonia. Kidney Int 80:545–552
Schultz MJ, Millo J, Levi M, Hack CE, Weverling GJ, Garrard CS, van der Poll T (2004) Local activation of coagulation and inhibition of fibrinolysis in the lung during ventilator associated pneumonia. Thorax 59:130–135
Eugen-Olsen J, Andersen O, Linneberg A, Ladelund S, Hansen TW, Langkilde A, Petersen J, Pielak T, Møller LN, Jeppesen J, Lyngbaek S, Fenger M, Olsen MH, Hildebrandt PR, Borch-Johnsen K, Jørgensen T, Haugaard SB (2010) Circulating soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor predicts cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and mortality in the general population. J Intern Med 268:296–308
de Bock CE, Wang Y (2004) Clinical significance of urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR) expression in cancer. Med Res Rev 24:13–39
Thunø M, Macho B, Eugen-Olsen J (2009) suPAR: the molecular crystal ball. Dis Markers 27:157–172
Wittenhagen P, Kronborg G, Weis N, Nielsen H, Obel N, Pedersen SS, Eugen-Olsen J (2004) The plasma level of soluble urokinase receptor is elevated in patients with Streptococcus pneumoniae bacteraemia and predicts mortality. Clin Microbiol Infect 10:409–415
Huttunen R, Syrjänen J, Vuento R, Hurme M, Huhtala H, Laine J, Pessi J, Aittoniemi J (2011) Plasma level of soluble urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor as a predictor of disease severity and case fatality in patients with bacteraemia: a prospective cohort study. J Intern Med 270:32–40
Savva A, Raftogiannis M, Baziaka F, Antonopoulou A, Koutaukas P, Tsaganos T, Kotanidou A, Apostolodou E, Giamarellos-Bourboulis EJ, Dimopoulos G (2011) Soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) for assessment of disease severity in ventilator-associated pneumonia and sepsis. J Infect 63:344–350
Koch A, Voigt S, Kruschinski C, Sanson E, Duckers H, Horn A, Yagmur E, Zimmermann H, Trautwein C, Tacke F (2011) Circulating soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor is stably elevated during the first week of treatment in the intensive care unit and predicts mortality in critically ill patients. Crit Care 15:R63
Wei C, El Hindi S, Li J, Fornoni A, Goes N, Sageshima J, Maiguel D, Karumanchi SA, Yap HK, Saleem M, Zhang Q, Nikolic B, Chaudhuri A, Daftarian P, Salido E, Torres A, Salifu M, Sarwal MM, Schaefer F, Morath C, Schwenger V, Zeier M, Gupta V, Roth D, Rastaldi MP, Burke G, Ruiz P, Reiser J (2011) Circulating urokinase receptor as a cause of focal segmental glomerulosclerosis. Nat Med 17:952–960
Zeerleder S, Schroeder V, Hack CE, Kohler HP, Wuillemin WA (2006) TAFI and PAI-1 levels in human sepsis. Thromb Res 118:205–212
Prabhakaran P, Ware LB, White KE, Cross MT, Matthay MA, Olman MA (2003) Elevated levels of plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 in pulmonary edema fluid are associated with mortality in acute lung injury. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol 285:L20–L28
Ware LB, Matthay MA, Parsons PE, Thompson BT, Januzzi JL, Eisner MD, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Clinical Trials Network (2007) Pathogenetic and prognostic significance of altered coagulation and fibrinolysis in acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care Med 35:1821–1828
Sapru A, Curley MA, Brady S, Matthay MA, Flori H (2010) Elevated PAI-1 is associated with poor clinical outcomes in pediatric patients with acute lung injury. Intensive Care Med 36:157–163
Suffredini AF, Harpel PC, Parrillo JE (1989) Promotion and subsequent inhibition of plasminogen activation after administration of intravenous endotoxin to normal subjects. N Engl J Med 320:1165–1172
Madoiwa S, Nunomiya S, Ono T, Shintani Y, Ohmori T, Mimuro J, Sakata Y (2006) Plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 promotes a poor prognosis in sepsis-induced disseminated intravascular coagulation. Int J Hematol 84:398–405
Liu KD, Glidden DV, Eisner MD, Parsons PE, Ware LB, Wheeler A, Korpak A, Thompson BT, Chertow GM, Matthay MA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute ARDS Network Clinical Trials Group (2007) Predictive and pathogenetic value of plasma biomarkers for acute kidney injury in patients with acute lung injury. Crit Care Med 35:2755–2756
Srinivasan R, Song Y, Wiener-Kronish J, Flori HR (2011) Plasminogen activation inhibitor concentrations in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid distinguishes ventilator-associated pneumonia from colonization in mechanically ventilated pediatric patients. Pediatr Crit Care Med 12:21–27
Linko R, Okkonen M, Pettilä V, Perttilä J, Parviainen I, Ruokonen E, Tenhunen J, Ala-Kokko T, Varpula T, FINNALI-study group (2009) Acute respiratory failure in intensive care units FINNALI: a prospective cohort study. Intensive Care Med 35:1352–1361
Bernard GR, Artigas A, Brigham KL, Carlet J, Falke K, Hudson L, Lamy M, Legall JR, Morris A, Spragg R (1994) The American–European Consensus Conference on ARDS. Definitions, mechanisms, relevant outcomes, and clinical trial coordination. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 149:818–824
Kofoed K, Andersen O, Kronborg G, Tvede M, Petersen J, Eugen-Olsen J, Larsen K (2007) Use of plasma C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, neutrophils, macrophage migration inhibitory factor, soluble urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor, and soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-1 in combination to diagnose infections: a prospective study. Crit Care 11:R38
Connolly BM, Choi EY, Gårdsvoll H, Bey AL, Currie BM, Chavakis T, Liu S, Molinolo A, Ploug M, Leppla SH, Bugge TH (2010) Selective abrogation of the uPA–uPAR interaction in vivo reveals a novel role in suppression of fibrin-associated inflammation. Blood 116:1593–1603
Riisbro R, Christensen IJ, Høgdall C, Brünner N, Høgdall E (2001) Soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor measurements: influence of sample handling. Int J Biol Markers 16:233–239
Hernestål-Boman J, Jansson JH, Nilsson TK, Eliasson M, Johansson L (2010) Long-term stability of fibrinolytic factors stored at −80 degrees C. Thromb Res 125:451–456
Shafiq N, Malhotra S, Pandhi P, Sharma N, Bhalla A, Grover A (2006) A randomized controlled clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy, safety, cost-effectiveness and effect on PAI-1 levels of the three low-molecular-weight-heparins-enoxaparin nadroparin and dalteparin. The escape-end study. Pharmacology 78:136–143
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by external funding for Critical Care Medicine Research Group in Tampere and the Tampere Tuberculosis Foundation. The FINNALI study was supported by EVO-grant from Helsinki University Hospital. We thank all the study nurses and investigators of the FINNALI study.
Conflicts of interest
Dr. Tenhunen was a member of international scientific advisory board for suPARnostic® (travel expenses and lodging) and Chief Medical Officer and shareholder of SenSem Technologies Ltd, Tampere, Finland.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Consortia
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
The FINNALI Study Investigators
The FINNALI Study Investigators
Participating hospitals and investigators
Satakunta Central Hospital: Dr. Vesa Lund, Päivi Tuominen, Pauliina Perkola; East Savo Central Hospital: Dr. Markku Suvela, Sirpa Kauppinen, Anne-Marja Turkulainen; Central Finland Central Hospital: Dr. Raili Laru-Sompa, Tiina Kirkhope, Sirpa Nykänen; South Savo Central Hospital: Dr. Heikki Laine, Kirsi Reponen, Pekka Kettunen; North Karelia Central Hospital: Dr. Matti Reinikainen, Tanja Eiserbeck, Helena Jyrkönen; Seinäjoki Central Hospital: Dr. Kari Saarinen, Dr. Matti Viitanen, Niina Siirilä, Johanna Soini; South Karelia Central Hospital: Dr. Seppo Hovilehto, Dr. Anne Kirsi, Dr. Pekka Tiainen, Sanna Asikainen; Päijät-Häme Central Hospital: Dr. Pekka Loisa; Vaasa Central Hospital: Dr. Pentti Kairi; Kanta-Häme Central Hospital: Dr. Risto Puolakka, Piia Laitinen, Tarja Heikkilä; Lappi Central Hospital: Dr. Outi Kiviniemi, Tarja Laurila, Tiina Pikkuhookana; Keski-Pohjanmaa Central Hospital: Dr. Samuli Forsström, Dr. Tadeusz Kaminski, Tuija Kuusela; Kymenlaakso Central Hospital: Dr. Jussi Pentti, Dr. Seija Alila, Reija Koskinen; Helsinki University Hospital-Jorvi Hospital: Dr. TeroVarpula, Mira Rahkonen; -Meilahti Hospital ICU: Dr. Ville Pettilä, Dr. Anne Kuitunen, Dr. Anna-Maija Korhonen, Dr. Rita Linko, Dr. Marjatta Okkonen, Janne Myller, Jarmo Pekkola, Leena Pettilä, Sari Sutinen; -Meilahti Hospital, Cardiac Surgical ICU: Dr. Raili Suojaranta-Ylinen, Dr. Sinikka Kukkonen, Elina Nurmi-Toivonen; -Meilahti Hospital, Department of Medicine: Dr. Tom Bäcklund, Dr. Juhani Rossinen, Riina Mäkelä; -Töölö Hospital: Dr. Janne Reitala, Dr. Jyrki Vuola, Raija Niemi, Marja-Leena Pihlajamaa, Aira Uusipaavalniemi; -Surgical Hospital: Dr. Anna-Maria Koivusalo, Pasi Kyllönen; Turku University Hospital: Dr. Juha Perttilä, Dr. Erkki Kentala, Dr. Olli Arola, Dr. Outi Inkinen, Jutta Kotamäki; Tampere University Hospital: Dr. Sari Karlsson, Dr. Jyrki Tenhunen, Minna-Liisa Peltola, Sanna Mäkinen, Anna-Liina Korkala, Samuli Kortelainen; Kuopio University Hospital: Dr. Esko Ruokonen, Dr. Ilkka Parviainen, Sari Rahikainen, Elina Halonen; Oulu University Hospital: Dr. Tero Ala-Kokko, Dr. Jouko Laurila, Sinikka Sälkiö, Tarja Lamberg.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jalkanen, V., Yang, R., Linko, R. et al. SuPAR and PAI-1 in critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients. Intensive Care Med 39, 489–496 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-012-2730-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-012-2730-x