부산대학교 도서관

Abstract Introduction Shock-induced endotheliopathy (SHINE), defined as a profound sympathoadrenal hyperactivation in shock states leading to endothelial activation, glycocalyx damage, and eventual compromise of end-organ perfusion, was first described in 2017. The aggressive resuscitation therapies utilised in treating shock states could potentially lead to further worsening endothelial activation and end-organ dysfunction. Objective This study aimed to systematically review the literature on resuscitation-associated and resuscitation-induced endotheliopathy. Methods A predetermined structured search of literature published over an 11-year and 6-month period (1 January 2011 to 31 July 2023) was performed in two indexed databases (PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase) per PRISMA guidelines. Inclusion was restricted to original studies published in English (or with English translation) reporting on endothelial dysfunction in critically ill human subjects undergoing resuscitation interventions. Reviews or studies conducted in animals were excluded. Qualitative synthesis of studies meeting the inclusion criteria was performed. Studies reporting comparable biomarkers of endothelial dysfunction post-resuscitation were included in the quantitative meta-analysis. Results Thirty-two studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final qualitative synthesis. Most of these studies (47%) reported on a combination of mediators released from endothelial cells and biomarkers of glycocalyx breakdown, while only 22% reported on microvascular flow changes. Only ten individual studies were included in the quantitative meta-analysis based on the comparability of the parameters assessed. Eight studies measured syndecan-1, with a heterogeneity index, I 2 = 75.85% (pooled effect size, mean = 0.27; 95% CI − 0.07 to 0.60; p = 0.12). Thrombomodulin was measured in four comparable studies (I 2 = 78.93%; mean = 0.41; 95% CI − 0.10 to 0.92; p = 0.12). Three studies measured E-selectin (I 2 = 50.29%; mean = − 0.15; 95% CI − 0.64 to 0.33; p = 0.53), and only two were comparable for the microvascular flow index, MFI (I 2 = 0%; mean = − 0.80; 95% CI − 1.35 to − 0.26; p