Contribution of the uremic milieu to an increased pro-inflammatory monocytic phenotype in chronic kidney disease.

Intermediate (CD14++CD16+) monocytes have important pro-inflammatory and atherogenic features and are increased in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). The present study aims to elucidate the role of the uremic milieu and of platelet activation in monocyte differentiation. Monocyte subtypes were analyzed in CKD patients (n = 193) and healthy controls (n = 27). Blood from healthy controls (Ctrl; n = 8) and hemodialysis patients (HD; n = 8) was centrifuged, and plasma (pl) was exchanged between Ctrl and HD (Ctrlcells/HDpl and HDcells/Ctrlpl) or reconstituted as original (Ctrlsham and HDsham) and incubated for 24 h (T24). Monocyte differentiation and platelet aggregation to monocytes (MPA) was assessed by flow cytometry. Especially, a higher proportion of CD14++CD16+ monocytes was found in hemodialysis (HD) patients (p < 0.01). In plasma exchange experiments, Ctrl cells/HD pl T24 showed an increased percentage of CD14++CD16+ monocytes versus Ctrl sham (33.7% ± 15 vs. 15.7% ± 9.6; P < 0.005), comparable to the level of CD14++CD16+ monocytes in the HD sham condition. The percentage of CD14++CD16+ monocytes was lowered by suspending HD cells in Ctrl pl (18.4% ± 7.8 vs. 36.7% ± 15 in HD sham; P < 0.005) reaching the level of the Ctrl sham condition (15.7% ± 9.6). A mixture of uremic sulfates increased CD14++CD16+ monocytes compared to control (19.8 ± 9.6% vs. 15.8 ± 10.9%; P < 0.05), paralleled by a rise MPA. Blocking MPA by abciximab, a potential therapeutic strategy, or anti-CD62P did not inhibit differentiation towards the CD14++CD16+ monocytes. In conclusion, in the present cohort, CD14++CD16+ monocytes are especially increased in HD patients and this can at least in part be attributed to the presence of the uremic milieu, with uremic sulfates inducing a reversible shift towards pro-inflammatory CD14++CD16+ monocytes.

Consensus statement: minimal criteria for reporting the systemic inflammatory response to cardiopulmonary bypass.

The lack of established cause and effect between putative mediators of inflammation and adverse clinical outcomes has been responsible for many failed anti-inflammatory interventions in cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Candidate interventions that impress in preclinical trials by suppressing a given inflammation marker might fail at the clinical trial stage because the marker of interest is not linked causally to an adverse outcome. Alternatively, there exist examples in which pharmaceutical agents or other interventions improve clinical outcomes but for which we are uncertain of any antiinflammatory mechanism. The Outcomes consensus panel made 3 recommendations in 2009 for the conduct of clinical trials focused on the systemic inflammatory response. This panel was tasked with updating, as well as simplifying, a previous consensus statement. The present recommendations for investigators are the following: (1) Measure at least 1 inflammation marker, defined in broad terms; (2) measure at least 1clinical end point, drawn from a list of practical yet clinically meaningful end points suggested by the consensus panel; and(3) report a core set of CPB and perfusion criteria that maybe linked to outcomes. Our collective belief is that adhering to these simple consensus recommendations will help define the influence of CPB practice on the systemic inflammatory response, advance our understanding of causal inflammatory mechanisms, and standardize the reporting of research findings in the peer-reviewed literature.