Sandbox john2: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 4: Line 4:


Initially, due to the similarity between the MERS-CoV and the SARS-CoV, it was proposed that the MERS-CoV would use the same cellular receptor for infection, as the SARS-CoV, namely the [[Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2|angiotensin converting enzyme 2]].<ref name=nih_expr>{{cite journal|title=ACE2 Receptor Expression and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Infection Depend on Differentiation of Human Airway Epithelia|date=2005-12-xx |publisher=ncbi.nlm.nih.gov |pmc=1287568 |last1=Jia |first1=HP |last2=Look |first2=DC |last3=Shi|first3=L |last4=Hickey | first4=M |last5=Pewe |first5=L |last6=Netland |first6=J |last7=Farzan|first7=M|last8=Wohlford-Lenane |first8=C |last9=Perlman |first9=S |volume=79 |issue=23 |pages=14614–14621 |doi=10.1128/JVI.79.23.14614-14621.2005|journal=Journal of Virology|pmid=16282461|display-authors=9}}</ref> Later, it was discovered that this assumption was wrong because the neutralization of [[Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2|ACE2]] did not prevent infection by MERS-CoV.<ref name="Müller-2012">
Initially, due to the similarity between the MERS-CoV and the SARS-CoV, it was proposed that the MERS-CoV would use the same cellular receptor for infection, as the SARS-CoV, namely the [[Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2|angiotensin converting enzyme 2]].<ref name=nih_expr>{{cite journal|title=ACE2 Receptor Expression and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Infection Depend on Differentiation of Human Airway Epithelia|date=2005-12-xx |publisher=ncbi.nlm.nih.gov |pmc=1287568 |last1=Jia |first1=HP |last2=Look |first2=DC |last3=Shi|first3=L |last4=Hickey | first4=M |last5=Pewe |first5=L |last6=Netland |first6=J |last7=Farzan|first7=M|last8=Wohlford-Lenane |first8=C |last9=Perlman |first9=S |volume=79 |issue=23 |pages=14614–14621 |doi=10.1128/JVI.79.23.14614-14621.2005|journal=Journal of Virology|pmid=16282461|display-authors=9}}</ref> Later, it was discovered that this assumption was wrong because the neutralization of [[Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2|ACE2]] did not prevent infection by MERS-CoV.<ref name="Müller-2012">
{{Cite journal| last1 = Müller | first1 = MA.| last2 = Raj | first2 = VS.| last3 = Muth | first3 = D.| last4 = Meyer | first4 = B.| last5 = Kallies | first5 = S.| last6 = Smits | first6 = SL.| last7 = Wollny | first7 = R.| last8 = Bestebroer | first8 = TM.| last9 = Specht | first9 = S.| title = Human coronavirus EMC does not require the SARS-coronavirus receptor and maintains broad replicative capability in mammalian cell lines| journal = MBio| volume = 3| issue = 6| pages =  e00515–12| date=11 December 2012| doi = 10.1128/mBio.00515-12| pmid = 23232719| pmc = 3520110| display-authors = 9 }}</ref> The cellular receptor for MERS-CoV was recently identified as being the dipeptyl peptidase 4, or CD26.<ref name="Raj-2013" /> Unlike other known coronavirus receptors, the [[enzymatic activity]] of DPP4 is not required for infection. As would be expected, the amino acid sequence of DPP4 is highly conserved across species and is expressed in the human bronchial epithelium and kidneys.<ref name="Raj-2013" /><ref name="dpp4_receptor">{{cite web|title=Receptor for new coronavirus found|url=http://www.nature.com/news/receptor-for-new-coronavirus-found-1.12584|date=2013-03-13|accessdate=2013-03-18|publisher=nature.com}}</ref>
{{Cite journal| last1 = Müller | first1 = MA.| last2 = Raj | first2 = VS.| last3 = Muth | first3 = D.| last4 = Meyer | first4 = B.| last5 = Kallies | first5 = S.| last6 = Smits | first6 = SL.| last7 = Wollny | first7 = R.| last8 = Bestebroer | first8 = TM.| last9 = Specht | first9 = S.| title = Human coronavirus EMC does not require the SARS-coronavirus receptor and maintains broad replicative capability in mammalian cell lines| journal = MBio| volume = 3| issue = 6| pages =  e00515–12| date=11 December 2012| doi = 10.1128/mBio.00515-12| pmid = 23232719| pmc = 3520110| display-authors = 9 }}</ref> The cellular receptor for MERS-CoV was recently identified as being the dipeptyl peptidase 4, or CD26.<ref name="Raj-2013" />  
 
Unlike other known coronavirus receptors, the [[enzymatic activity]] of DPP4 is not required for infection. As would be expected, the amino acid sequence of DPP4 is highly conserved across species and is expressed in the human bronchial epithelium and kidneys.<ref name="Raj-2013" /><ref name="dpp4_receptor">{{cite web|title=Receptor for new coronavirus found|url=http://www.nature.com/news/receptor-for-new-coronavirus-found-1.12584|date=2013-03-13|accessdate=2013-03-18|publisher=nature.com}}</ref>
===Temporary===
===Temporary===



Revision as of 02:46, 22 June 2014

In Progress

Studies have shown that in humans, unlike most viruses that tend to infect ciliated cells, MERS-CoV has a strong tropism for the nonciliated bronchial epithelium. Also, it has been noted that the virus has the capacity to evade the innate immune system and inhibit interferon production.[1][2]

Initially, due to the similarity between the MERS-CoV and the SARS-CoV, it was proposed that the MERS-CoV would use the same cellular receptor for infection, as the SARS-CoV, namely the angiotensin converting enzyme 2.[3] Later, it was discovered that this assumption was wrong because the neutralization of ACE2 did not prevent infection by MERS-CoV.[4] The cellular receptor for MERS-CoV was recently identified as being the dipeptyl peptidase 4, or CD26.[2]

Unlike other known coronavirus receptors, the enzymatic activity of DPP4 is not required for infection. As would be expected, the amino acid sequence of DPP4 is highly conserved across species and is expressed in the human bronchial epithelium and kidneys.[2][5]

Temporary

Bat DPP4 genes appear to have been subject to a high degree of adaptive evolution as a response to coronavirus infections, so the lineage leading to MERS-CoV may have circulated in bat populations for a long period of time before being transmitted to people.[6]

Random notes


CS Ultrasound: Echocardiography is an important imaging modality in the evaluation of the patient with cardiogenic shock. In cardiogenic shock complicating acute-MI, findings such as poor wall motion may be identified. Mechanical complications such as papillary muscle rupture, pseudoaneurysm, and a ventricular septal defect may also be visualized. Valvular heart disease such as aortic stenosis, aortic insufficiency and mitral stenosis can also be assessed. Dynamic outflow obstruction such as HOCM can also be indentified and quantified. The magnitude of left ventricular dysfunction in patients with cardiomyopathy can be evaluated. It allows the clinician to distinguish cardiogenic shock from septic shock and neurogenic shock. In septic shock, a hypercontractile ventricle may be present.


  • Differential diagnosis - "Cardiogenic shock may be difficult, at least initially, to distinguish from hypovolemic shock. Both forms of shock are associated with decreased cardiac output and compensatory upregulation of the sympathetic response. Both entities also respond initially to fluid resuscitation. The syndrome of cardiogenic shock is defined as the inability of the heart to deliver sufficient blood flow to meet metabolic demands. The etiology of cardiogenic shock may be intrinsic or extrinsic. In Case 1 , the development of class IV shock may be due to hemorrhage, such as an aortic injury, or may be cardiogenic, such as a myocardial contusion from blunt injury to the chest. Echocardiography would evaluate the possibility of intrinsic or extrinsic myocardial dysfunction. Intrinsic causes of cardiogenic shock include myocardial infarction, valvular disease, contusion from thoracic trauma, and arrhythmias. For patients with myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock is associated with loss of greater than 40% of left ventricular myocardium. The normal physiologic compensation for cardiogenic shock actually results in progressively greater myocardial energy demand that, without intervention, results in the death of the patient . A decrease in blood pressure activates an adrenergic response that leads to increased sympathetic tone, stimulates renin-angiotensinaldosterone feedback, and potentiates antidiuretic hormone secretion. These mechanisms serve to increase vasomotor tone and retain salt and water. The resultant increase in systemic vascular resistance and in left ventricular end-diastolic pressure leads to increased myocardial oxygen demand in the face of decreased oxygen delivery. This, in turn, results in worsening left ventricular function, a perceived reduction in circulating blood volume, and repetition of the cycle."

Cardiogenic shock and Inflammatory Mediators

The Pathophysiologic "Spiral" of Cardiogenic shock

Among patients with acute MI, there is often a downward spiral of hypoperfusion leading to further ischemia which leads to a further reduction in cardiac output and further hypoperfusion. The lactic acidosis that develops as a result of poor systemic perfusion can further reduce cardiac contractility. Reduced cardiac output leads to activation of the sympathetic nervous system, and the ensuing tachycardia that develops further exacerbates the myocardial ischemia. The increased left ventricular end diastolic pressures is associated with a rise in wall stress which results in further myocardial ischemia. Hypotension reduces epicardial perfusion pressure which in turn further increases myocardial ischemia.

Patients with cardiogenic shock in the setting of STEMI more often have multivessel disease, and myocardial ischemia may be present in multiple territories. It is for this reason that multivessel angioplasty may be of benefit in the patient with cardiogenic shock.

The multifactorial nature of cardiogenic shock can also be operative in the patient with critical aortic stenosis who has "spiraled": There is impairment of left ventricular outflow, with a drop in cardiac output there is greater subendocardial ischemia and poorer flow in the coronary arteries, this leads to further left ventricular systolic dysfunction, given the subendocardial ischemia, the left ventricle develops diastolic dysfunction and becomes harder to fill. Inadvertent administration of vasodilators and venodilators may further reduce cardiac output and accelerate or trigger such a spiral.

Pathophysiologic Mechanisms to Compensate for Cardiogenic shock

Cardiac output is the product of stroke volume and heart rate. In order to compensate for a reduction in stroke volume, there is a rise in the heart rate in patients with cardiogenic shock. As a result of the reduction in cardiac output, peripheral tissues extract more oxygen from the limited blood that does flow to them, and this leaves the blood deoxygenated when it returns to the right heart resulting in a fall in the mixed venous oxygen saturation.

Pathophysiology of Multiorgan Failure

The poor perfusion of organs results in hypoxia and metabolic acidosis. Inadequate perfusion to meet the metabolic demands of the brain, kidneys and heart leads to multiorgan failure.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Differential Diagnosis


Classification of shock based on hemodynamic parameters. (CO, cardiac output; CVP; central venous pressure; PAD, pulmonary artery diastolic pressure; PAS, pulmonary artery systolic pressure; RVD, right ventricular diastolic pressure; RVS, right ventricular systolic pressure; SVO2, systemic venous oxygen saturation; SVR, systemic vascular resistance.)[7][8]
Type of Shock Etiology CO SVR PCWP CVP SVO2 RVS RVD PAS PAD
Cardiogenic Acute Ventricular Septal Defect ↓↓ N — ↑ ↑↑ ↑ — ↑↑ N — ↑ N — ↑ N — ↑
Acute Mitral Regurgitation ↓↓ ↑↑ ↑ — ↑↑ N — ↑
Myocardial Dysfunction ↓↓ ↑↑ ↑↑ N — ↑ N — ↑ N — ↑
Right Ventricular Infarction ↓↓ N — ↓ ↑↑ ↓ — ↑ ↓ — ↑ ↓ — ↑
Obstructive Pulmonary Embolism ↓↓ N — ↓ ↑↑ ↓ — ↑ ↓ — ↑ ↓ — ↑
Cardiac Tamponade ↓ — ↓↓ ↑↑ ↑↑ N — ↑ N — ↑ N — ↑
Distributive Septic Shock N — ↑↑ ↓ — ↓↓ N — ↓ N — ↓ ↑ — ↑↑ N — ↓ N — ↓
Anaphylactic Shock N — ↑↑ ↓ — ↓↓ N — ↓ N — ↓ ↑ — ↑↑ N — ↓ N — ↓
Hypovolemic Volume Depletion ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ N — ↓ N — ↓

References

  1. Kindler, E.; Jónsdóttir, H. R.; Muth, D.; Hamming, O. J.; Hartmann, R.; Rodriguez, R.; Geffers, R.; Fouchier, R. A.; Drosten, C. (2013). "Efficient Replication of the Novel Human Betacoronavirus EMC on Primary Human Epithelium Highlights Its Zoonotic Potential". MBio. 4 (1): e00611–12. doi:10.1128/mBio.00611-12. PMC 3573664. PMID 23422412.
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 Raj, V. S.; Mou, H.; Smits, S. L.; Dekkers, D. H.; Müller, M. A.; Dijkman, R.; Muth, D.; Demmers, J. A.; Zaki, A. (March 2013). "Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 is a functional receptor for the emerging human coronavirus-EMC". Nature. 495 (7440): 251–4. doi:10.1038/nature12005. PMID 23486063.
  3. Jia, HP; Look, DC; Shi, L; Hickey, M; Pewe, L; Netland, J; Farzan, M; Wohlford-Lenane, C; Perlman, S (2005-12-xx). "ACE2 Receptor Expression and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Infection Depend on Differentiation of Human Airway Epithelia". Journal of Virology. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. 79 (23): 14614–14621. doi:10.1128/JVI.79.23.14614-14621.2005. PMC 1287568. PMID 16282461. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. Müller, MA.; Raj, VS.; Muth, D.; Meyer, B.; Kallies, S.; Smits, SL.; Wollny, R.; Bestebroer, TM.; Specht, S. (11 December 2012). "Human coronavirus EMC does not require the SARS-coronavirus receptor and maintains broad replicative capability in mammalian cell lines". MBio. 3 (6): e00515–12. doi:10.1128/mBio.00515-12. PMC 3520110. PMID 23232719.
  5. "Receptor for new coronavirus found". nature.com. 2013-03-13. Retrieved 2013-03-18.
  6. Template:Cite doi
  7. Parrillo, Joseph E.; Ayres, Stephen M. (1984). Major issues in critical care medicine. Baltimore: William Wilkins. ISBN 0-683-06754-0.
  8. Judith S. Hochman, E. Magnus Ohman (2009). Cardiogenic Shock. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 9781405179263.