颅脑损伤患者血清GFAP和NSE的变化与神经功能缺损程度的相关性研究

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-9141.2018.06.004

中华神经创伤外科电子杂志 ›› 2018, Vol. 04 ›› Issue (06) : 333 -336. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-9141.2018.06.004

所属专题：文献；

临床研究

颅脑损伤患者血清GFAP和NSE的变化与神经功能缺损程度的相关性研究

郭宗培¹, 张洪钿², 魏希发¹, 相里昆¹, 张银善¹, 赵志英¹, 马大程¹^,^†(

)

^1. 100192　北京，北京市红十字会急诊抢救中心
^2. 100700　北京，解放军总医院第七医学中心神经外科

收稿日期:2018-08-22 出版日期:2018-12-15
通信作者: 马大程
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金(81371345)

Correlation of serum GFAP, NSE and national institute of health stroke scale in patients with traumatic brain injury

Zongpei Guo¹, Hongtian Zhang², Xifa Wei¹, Likun Xiang¹, Yinshan Zhang¹, Zhiying Zhao¹, Dacheng Ma¹^,^†()

^1. Department of Neurosurgery, Beijing Red Cross Emergency Rescue Center, Beijing 100192, China
^2. Department of Neurosurgery, the Seventh Medical Center, the PLA Army General Hospital, Beijing 100700, China

Received:2018-08-22 Published:2018-12-15
Corresponding author: Dacheng Ma
About author:
Corresponding author: Ma Dacheng, Email: 1075878223@qq.com

全文 ( ) 下载PDF ( ) 导出引用

引用本文：

郭宗培, 张洪钿, 魏希发, 相里昆, 张银善, 赵志英, 马大程. 颅脑损伤患者血清GFAP和NSE的变化与神经功能缺损程度的相关性研究[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2018, 04(06): 333-336.

Zongpei Guo, Hongtian Zhang, Xifa Wei, Likun Xiang, Yinshan Zhang, Zhiying Zhao, Dacheng Ma. Correlation of serum GFAP, NSE and national institute of health stroke scale in patients with traumatic brain injury[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Neurotraumatic Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2018, 04(06): 333-336.

目的

探讨颅脑损伤患者血清胶质纤维酸性蛋白（GFAP）和神经元特异性烯醇化酶（NSE）的水平变化，并根据预后美国国立卫生院神经功能缺损评估量表（NIHSS）进行相关性分析。

方法

选取北京市红十字会急诊抢救中心神经外科自2017年4月至2018年3月收治的颅脑损伤患者140例，根据NIHSS评分将患者分为对照组（20例，NIHSS 0~1分）、轻度组（40例，NIHSS 2~15分）、中度组（40例，NIHSS 16~20分）及重度组（40例，NIHSS 21~42分），对症治疗并通过酶联免疫吸附法进行GFAP和NSE不同时间点的动态检测。比较不同损伤水平患者两个指标的变化趋势，分析两个指标与NIHSS水平的相关性。

结果

轻、中、重度组患者血清GFAP和NSE水平显著高于对照组，差异具有统计学意义（P<0.05）。轻、中、重度组间不同时间段GFAP及NSE水平变化比较，差异有统计学意义（P<0.05），且重度组GFAP、NSE浓度显著增高。患者血清GFAP和NSE水平与NHISS评分均呈正相关（r=0.484，0.447，P<0.05）。

结论

颅脑损伤患者血清GFAP和NSE水平和神经功能缺损程度密切相关，动态监测有助于评估患者病情演变和神经功能缺损的严重程度。

关键词: 颅脑损伤, 胶质纤维酸性蛋白, 神经元特异性烯醇化酶, 神经功能缺损评估

Objective

To investigate the serum glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and neuron specific enolase (NSE) level changes in traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients, and according to the prognosis of national institute of health stroke scale (NIHSS) scores for correlation analysis.

Methods

One hundred and forty cases of TBI were selected, 140 patients were divided into control group (20 cases, NIHSS 0-1 scores), mild injury group (40 cases, NIHSS 2-15 scores), moderate injury group (40 cases, NIHSS 16-20 scores), and severe injury grou (40 cases, NIHSS 21-42 scores) according to NIHSS. The corresponding treatments were given in the hospital, the concentrations of GFAP and NSE at different time points by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay were monitored. The change trend between the two indicators in patients with different injury levels (NIHSS score) was compared, and the correlation between the two indicators and the NIHSS level was analyzed.

Results

Serum GFAP and NSE levels were significantly higher in the patients with the three groups than the control group (P<0.05). There were significant differences in GFAP and NSE levels among mild, moderate and severe groups at different time periods (P<0.05), and significant increases in GFAP and NSE concentrations in the severe group. The levels of serum GFAP and NSE were positively correlated with NHISS scores (r=0.484, 0.447, P<0.05).

Conclusion

The levels of serum GFAP and NSE in patients with TBI are closely related to the degree of NIHSS scores, which can be used to assess the severity of disease progression and neurological deficits with dynamic monitoring.

Key words: Traumatic brain injury, Glial fibrillary acidic protein, Neuron specific enolase, National institute of health stroke scale

表1 4组TBI患者血清GFAP和NSE的水平比较（±s，ng/mL）

组别	例数	GFAP	NSE
对照组	20	8.4±3.2	23.6±8.7
轻度组	40	10.5±3.6^a	21.9±5.7^a
中度组	40	15.1±4.1^ab	39.4±8.5^ab
重度组	40	17.5±4.6^abc	46.8±6.7^abc
F值	?	4.325	9.827
P值	?	0.001	0.001

表1 4组TBI患者血清GFAP和NSE的水平比较（±s，ng/mL）

组别	例数	GFAP	NSE
对照组	20	8.4±3.2	23.6±8.7
轻度组	40	10.5±3.6^a	21.9±5.7^a
中度组	40	15.1±4.1^ab	39.4±8.5^ab
重度组	40	17.5±4.6^abc	46.8±6.7^abc
F值	?	4.325	9.827
P值	?	0.001	0.001

图1 血清胶质纤维酸性蛋白、神经元特异性烯醇化酶与美国国立卫生院神经功能缺损评估量表评分的相关性分析

表2 观察组不同时间点血清GFAP和NSE水平比较（±s）

组别	GFAP（ng/mL）				NSE（ng/mL）
组别	24 h内	48 h	72 h	120 h	24 h内	48 h	72 h	120 h
轻度组	8.1±2.4	10.3±3.7	12.2±4.2	11.6±3.2	19.3±5.8	22.3±3.5	24.7±4.8	21.1±8.3
中度组	10.3±4.5^a	13.7±4.2^a	16.5±3.7^a	19.8±5.2^a	31.5±7.2^a	36.1±8.3^a	48.6±9.2^a	41.3±7.2^a
重度组	10.5±4.6^ab	16.1±3.6^ab	20.3±3.7^ab	23.5±4.1^ab	32.4±3.5^ab	40.5±6.7^ab	53.9±7.6^ab	60.3±6.8^ab
F值	0.729	2.271	4.598	5.583	4.823	6.383	9.813	22.434
P值	0.043	0.023	0.013	0.008	0.024	0.007	0.003	0.001

表2 观察组不同时间点血清GFAP和NSE水平比较（±s）

组别	GFAP（ng/mL）				NSE（ng/mL）
组别	24 h内	48 h	72 h	120 h	24 h内	48 h	72 h	120 h
轻度组	8.1±2.4	10.3±3.7	12.2±4.2	11.6±3.2	19.3±5.8	22.3±3.5	24.7±4.8	21.1±8.3
中度组	10.3±4.5^a	13.7±4.2^a	16.5±3.7^a	19.8±5.2^a	31.5±7.2^a	36.1±8.3^a	48.6±9.2^a	41.3±7.2^a
重度组	10.5±4.6^ab	16.1±3.6^ab	20.3±3.7^ab	23.5±4.1^ab	32.4±3.5^ab	40.5±6.7^ab	53.9±7.6^ab	60.3±6.8^ab
F值	0.729	2.271	4.598	5.583	4.823	6.383	9.813	22.434
P值	0.043	0.023	0.013	0.008	0.024	0.007	0.003	0.001

[1]	冯东侠.美国的创伤急救和创伤系统[J].中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2016, 2(1):57-60.
[2]	Sherman M, Liu MM, Birnbaum S, et al. Adult obese mice suffer from chronic secondary brain injury after mild TBI[J]. J Neuroinflammation, 2016, 13(1):171.
[3]	孙敬伟，赵振林，黄富,等.影响重型颅脑损伤患者预后的临床因素分析[J].中华神经医学杂志, 2016, 15(3):279-283.
[4]	Han K, Mac CL Donald AM, et al. Disrupted modular organization of resting-state cortical functional connectivity in U.S. military personnel following concussive 'mild’ blast-related traumatic brain injury[J]. Neuroimage, 2014, 84:76-96.
[5]	中国神经科学学会神经损伤与修复分会.脑损伤神经功能损害与修复专家共识[J].中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2016, 2(2):100-104.
[6]	费舟.对颅脑创伤救治的思考[J].中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2016, 2(2):124-126.
[7]	郭宗培，郭跃平，乔晓霞,等.小骨窗经侧裂-岛叶开颅治疗壳核出血的疗效及血清GFAP水平[J].贵州医科大学学报, 2017, 42(8):964-968.
[8]	Forde CT, Karri SK, Young AM, et al. Predictive markers in traumatic brain injury: opportunities for a serum biosignature[J]. Br J Neurosurg, 2014, 28(1):8-15.
[9]	Glushakova OY, Glushakov AO, Borlongan CV, et al. Role of caspase-3-mediated apoptosis in chronic caspase-3-cleaved tau accumulation and blood-brain barrier damage in the corpus callosum after traumatic brain injury in rats[J]. J Neurotrauma, 2018, 35(1):157-173.
[10]	Boutté AM, Deng-Bryant Y, Johnson D, et al. Serum glial fibrillary acidic protein predicts tissue glial fibrillary acidic protein break-down products and therapeutic efficacy after penetrating ballistic-like brain injury[J]. J Neurotrauma, 2016, 33(1):147-156.
[11]	Takala RS, Posti JP, Runtti H, et al. Glial fibrillary acidic protein and ubiquitin c-terminal hydrolase-l1 as outcome predictors in traumatic brain injury[J]. World Neurosurg, 2016, 87:8-20.
[12]	Haque A, Ray SK, Cox A, et al. Neuron specific enolase: a promising therapeutic target in acute spinal cord injury[J]. Metab Brain Dis, 2016, 31(3):487-495.
[13]	Hawro T, Bogucki A, Krupińska-Kun M, et al. Serum neuron specific enolase-a novel indicator for neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus?[J]. Lupus, 2015, 24(14):1492-1497.
[14]	Yáñez M, Matías-Guiu J, Arranz-Tagarro JA, et al. The neuroprotection exerted by memantine, minocycline and lithium, against neurotoxicity of CSF from patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, is antagonized by riluzole[J]. Neurodegener Dis, 2014, 13(2-3):171-179.
[15]	Mokhtari M, Nayeb-Aghaei M, Kouchek M, et al. Effect of memantine on serum levels of neuron-specific enolase and on the glasgow coma scale in patients with moderate traumatic brain injury[J]. J Clin Pharmacol, 2018, 58(1):42-47.
[16]	Zhou L, Talebian A, Meakin SO. The signaling adapter, FRS2, facilitates neuronal branching in primary cortical neurons via both Grb2- and Shp2-dependent mechanisms[J]. J Mol Neurosci, 2015, 55(3):663-677.
[17]	付小兵.脑损伤后认知障碍及神经生长因子的脑保护作用[J].中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2015, 1(3):1-3.
[18]	Zhou S, Bao J, Wang Y, et al. S100β as a biomarker for differential diagnosis of intracerebral hemorrhage and ischemic stroke[J]. Neurol Res, 2016, 38(4):327-332.

[1]	王守森, 傅世龙, 鲜亮, 林珑. 深入理解控制性减压技术对创伤性颅脑损伤术中脑膨出的预防机制与效果[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2024, 10(05): 257-262.
[2]	吴东阳, 林向丹, 石佐林, 赵玉龙, 王振, 文安国, 纪鑫, 李俊之, 赵明光. NF-L、NLRP3、S100B 蛋白在颅脑损伤严重程度及预后评估中的应用价值[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2024, 10(05): 279-285.
[3]	王永楠, 汤畅通, 殷杰, 谭溢涛. 微创钻孔引流术与神经内镜血肿清除术治疗临界量基底节脑出血的效果对比分析[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2024, 10(05): 286-292.
[4]	罗磊, 熊建平, 郑宏伟, 王嗣嵩, 柴祥, 吴青, 潘海鹏. 静脉留置针穿刺引流治疗颅骨修补术后硬膜外积液一例报道[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2024, 10(05): 315-317.
[5]	汤畅通, 王永楠, 王诗筌. 颅脑外伤后阵发性交感神经兴奋患者的药物治疗效果分析[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2024, 10(04): 233-237.
[6]	从长春, 王春琳, 武孝刚, 王金标, 章福彬, 孙磊, 王李. 重型颅脑损伤患者呼吸机相关性肺炎的危险因素及病原学分析[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2024, 10(03): 151-157.
[7]	毛进鹏, 陶治鹤, 刘琦, 王勇, 周明安, 陈劲松, 田少斌. 保守治疗大量创伤性硬膜外血肿的体会（附10例报告）[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2024, 10(03): 164-168.
[8]	辛强, 朱文豪, 何川, 李文臣, 陈勃, 王海峰. 神经胶质细胞来源的外泌体miRNAs对创伤性颅脑损伤后神经炎症的影响[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2024, 10(03): 169-173.
[9]	鹿海龙, 朱玉辐, 贺雪凤, 蔡廷江, 王栋, 朱圣玲, 张恩刚, 王策. 创伤性颅脑损伤二次手术的危险因素分析及预警模型构建[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2024, 10(02): 97-101.
[10]	李鑫, 刘炳辉, 程名, 王凡, 刘玉明, 周绍明. 基于Rotterdam CT评分评估的颅脑损伤术中控制性减压的临床应用价值[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2024, 10(01): 16-21.
[11]	刘彪, 巍山, 关永胜. 基于Rotterdam CT评分及凝血功能指标的创伤性颅脑损伤预后预测模型的构建与验证[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2024, 10(01): 22-27.
[12]	罗丹, 柏宋磊, 易峰. HMGB1-TLR2/TLR4/RAGE通路与颅脑损伤并发认知功能障碍病情变化的关系研究[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2024, 10(01): 28-34.
[13]	袁宝玉, 管义祥, 王东流, 陆正. 不同时机颅骨修补术治疗颅脑外伤的临床疗效[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2024, 10(01): 35-41.
[14]	吕伟豪, 费晓炜, 武秀权, 何鑫, 郇宇, 吴霜, 豆雅楠, 费舟, 胡世颉. 重型颅脑损伤合并应激性高血糖患者血糖水平与预后的关系[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2023, 09(06): 338-342.
[15]	胡志恒, 任洪波, 宋志远, 张运刚, 韩晓正. 血清sTIM-3及其配体Gal-9、CEACAM-1与创伤性颅脑损伤患者脑损伤程度及预后的关系[J/OL]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(04): 201-207.

阅读次数

全文

摘要

选择文件类型/文献管理软件名称

选择包含的内容

Correlation of serum GFAP, NSE and national institute of health stroke scale in patients with traumatic brain injury

模态框（Modal）标题

选择文件类型/文献管理软件名称

选择包含的内容

Correlation of serum GFAP, NSE and national institute of health stroke scale in patients with traumatic brain injury