Development of the adult respiratory distress syndrome: progressive alteration of neutrophil chemotactic and secretory processes

A A Fowler, B J Fisher, R M Centor, R A Carchman, A A Fowler, B J Fisher, R M Centor, R A Carchman

Abstract

Chemotaxis and lysosomal enzyme release in peripheral blood neutrophils taken from patients before, during, and after recovery from the adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) were studied. This allowed for correlation of cellular function with changes in a patient's clinical status. It was found that neutrophils from 8 of 9 patients with the fully developed syndrome exhibited a profound depression of chemotaxis (63% depressed, P = 0.0001) and a fourfold elevation of basal lysosomal enzyme release relative to neutrophils from healthy controls (P = 0.0001). These findings of depression of chemotaxis and enhanced basal enzyme release were also detected in neutrophils taken from 7 of 11 patients in whom clinical risk factors (eg, sepsis, pneumonia) for the syndrome had developed. Following resolution of the adult respiratory distress syndrome, the above changes in neutrophil function resolved in the four patients studied during convalescence. Healthy neutrophils exposed to plasma samples (untreated or zymosan-activated) from control subjects and patients with ARDS could not be distinguished with respect to chemotaxis and enzyme secretion. It is concluded that patients in whom ARDS develops show profound but reversible changes in peripheral neutrophil activity which can be measured following the development of a clinical predisposition for the syndrome. Further, the presence of a humoral substance capable of promoting chemotaxis or enzyme secretion from healthy neutrophils in the untreated plasma of patients suffering from ARDS was not demonstrated. This suggests that alteration of neutrophil activity measured in patients with the fully developed syndrome may be cellular in origin.

References

    1. J Immunol. 1981 Sep;127(3):839-44
    1. Schweiz Med Wochenschr. 1974 Jan 26;104(4):129-32
    1. Infect Immun. 1974 Nov;10(5):1003-9
    1. J Immunol. 1977 Sep;119(3):1068-76
    1. J Clin Invest. 1974 Oct;54(4):1001-4
    1. Scand J Clin Lab Invest Suppl. 1968;97:77-89
    1. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1983 Sep;128(3):552-9
    1. N Engl J Med. 1981 Jan 22;304(4):192-6
    1. J Immunol Methods. 1979;31(3-4):271-82
    1. Ann Intern Med. 1983 May;98(5 Pt 1):593-7
    1. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1983 Mar;127(3):290-300
    1. Lancet. 1980 May 3;1(8175):947-9
    1. Chest. 1971 Sep;60(3):233-9
    1. J Cell Biol. 1979 Mar;80(3):564-72
    1. Circ Res. 1981 Mar;48(3):344-51
    1. J Clin Invest. 1978 Dec;62(6):1364-74
    1. J Immunol. 1980 Mar;124(3):1467-71
    1. J Cell Biol. 1978 May;77(2):269-87
    1. Surgery. 1981 Aug;90(2):319-27
    1. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1982 Oct 15;108(3):1228-34
    1. Lab Invest. 1980 May;42(5):547-58
    1. J Immunol. 1973 Sep;111(3):938-45
    1. J Clin Invest. 1977 Jul;60(1):260-4
    1. J Exp Med. 1973 Feb 1;137(2):387-410
    1. J Infect Dis. 1971 Jul;124(1):68-75
    1. J Exp Med. 1962 Mar 1;115:453-66
    1. Am J Pathol. 1980 Jul;100(1):179-92
    1. J Lab Clin Med. 1981 Aug;98(2):238-50
    1. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1982 Apr;125(4):443-7
    1. Am J Med. 1975 Aug;59(2):200-7
    1. Circ Res. 1979 Jul;45(1):120-5
    1. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1980 Dec;122(6):841-7

Source: PubMed

3
Sottoscrivi