[The Immune System of the Critically Ill Patient]. / Das Immunsystem des kritisch Kranken.

Critically ill patients often experience a dysregulated immune response, leading to immune dysfunction. Sepsis, trauma, severe infections, and certain medical conditions can trigger a state of systemic inflammation, known as the cytokine storm. This hyperactive immune response can cause collateral damage to healthy tissues and organs, exacerbating the patient's condition. On the other hand, some critically ill patients may suffer from immune paralysis which can increase the risk of nosocomial infections.Fever is an evolutionary adaptation that evolved as an effective defense mechanism to fight invading pathogens. By raising body temperature, fever enhances the immune response, inhibits pathogen growth, promotes recovery, and aids in the formation of immune memory. Understanding the role of fever in the context of immune defense is crucial for optimizing medical interventions and supporting the body's natural ability to combat infections.Future Directions: Advancements in immunology research and technology hold promise for better understanding the immune system's complexities in critically ill patients. Personalized medicine approaches may be developed to tailor therapies to individual patients based on their immune profile, optimizing treatment outcomes. Based on recent studies prognostic parameters such as lymphocyte count, IL-10 concentration and mHLA-DR expression can be used to stratify the immunological response pattern in septic patients.Conclusion: The immune system's response in critically ill patients is a multifaceted process, involving intricate interactions between various immune cells, cytokines, and organs. Striking the delicate balance between immune activation and suppression remains a significant challenge in clinical practice. Continued research and therapeutic innovations are vital to improve patient outcomes and reduce the burden of critical illness on healthcare systems.

Clinical effects and safety of different transarterial chemoembolization methods for bridging and palliative treatments in hepatocellular carcinoma.

PURPOSE: We assessed and compared clinical effects and safety endpoints of three methods of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), conventional (cTACE), with drug-eluting beads (DEB-TACE), and with degradable starch microspheres (DSM-TACE), used in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the bridging to liver transplant (LT) and the palliative setting. METHODS: In our center, 148 patients with HCC underwent 492 completed TACE procedures between 2008 and 2017 (158 for bridging to LT; 334 for palliative treatment) which we analyzed retrospectively. Of these procedures, 348 were DEB-TACE, 60 cTACE, and 84 DSM-TACE. RESULTS: The cTACE procedure revealed a significantly longer period of hospitalization (p = 0.02), increased occurrence of nausea (p = 0.025), and rise in alanine transaminase (ALT) levels (p = 0.001), especially in the palliative setting. In the bridging to LT cohort, these clinical endpoints did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical safety of different TACE methods for HCC in both the palliative and the bridging to LT setting was equivalent. In the palliative setting, the cTACE procedure revealed an increased risk for adverse clinical effects such as nausea, elevation of ALT, and a prolonged period of hospitalization what might either be related to the systemic effects of the chemotherapeutic agent or to the differences in both collectives. Thus, further studies must be conducted on a larger number of TACE procedures to effectively explore the clinical side effects of the various TACE variants.

Applicability of scoring systems predicting outcome of transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Several scoring systems have been proposed to predict the outcome of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the application of these scores to a bridging to transplant setting is poorly validated. Evaluation of the applicability of prognostic scores for patients undergoing TACE in palliative intention vs. bridging therapy to liver transplantation (LT) is necessary. METHODS: Between 2008 and 2017, 148 patients with HCC received 492 completed TACE procedures (158 for bridging to transplant; 334 TACE procedures in palliative treatment intention at our center and were analyzed retrospectively. Scores (ART, CLIP, ALBI, APRI, SNACOR, HAP, STATE score, Child-Pugh, MELD, Okuda and BCLC) were calculated and evaluated for prediction of overall survival. ROC analysis was performed to assess prediction of 3-year survival and treatment discontinuation. RESULTS: In patients receiving TACE in palliative intention most scores predicted OS in univariate analysis but only mSNACOR score (p = 0.006), State score (p < 0.001) and Child-Pugh score (p < 0.001) revealed statistical significance in the multivariate analysis. In the bridging to LT cohort only the BCLC score revealed statistical significance (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical usability of suggested scoring systems for TACE might be limited depending on the individual patient cohorts and the indication. Especially in patients receiving TACE as bridging to LT none of the scores showed sufficiently applicability. In our study Child-Pugh score, STATE score and mSNACOR score showed the best performance assessing OS in patients with TACE as palliative therapy.