American Journal of Emergency Medicine 35 (2017) 1–6

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

American Journal of Emergency Medicine

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ajem

Original Contribution

Shenfu injection for improving cellular immunity and clinical outcome in

patients with sepsis or septic shock☆,☆☆,★
Ning Zhang, MD a,1, Jianhua Liu, MD b,1, Zeliang Qiu, MD a,c,⁎, Yiping Ye, MD d, Jian Zhang, MD a, Tianzheng Lou, MD a
a
Department of Critical Care Medicine, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical College, Lishui People's Hospital, Lishui, Zhejiang 323000,China
b
Department of Medical Statistics, Zhoupu Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai University of Medicine & Health Sciences, Shanghai 201318, China
c
Department of Critical Care Medicine, Zhoupu Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai University of Medicine & Health Sciences, Shanghai 201318, China
d
Department of Traditional Chinese Medicine, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical College, Lishui People's Hospital, Lishui, Zhejiang,China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Purpose: To assess the efficacy of Shenfu injection (SFI) for enhancing cellular immunity and improving the clin-
Received 2 June 2016 ical outcomes of patients with septic shock.
Received in revised form 31 August 2016 Methods: Patients with sepsis were randomly assigned to receive either SFI at a dose of 100 mL every 24 hours for
Accepted 5 September 2016 7 consecutive days or a placebo in addition to conventional therapy. The immunologic parameters were collected
on days 1, 3, and 7 after the above treatments, and the clinical outcomes were updated for 28 days.
Results: Of these160 patients, 3 were excluded from the analysis due to protocol violation and withdrawal of con-
sent; thus, 157 completed the study (78 in the SFI group and 79 in the placebo group). We found that SFI in-
creased both CD4 + and CD8+ T cells in peripheral blood and up-regulated HLA-DR expression in monocytes
(P b .05). Furthermore, SFI was also found to restore ex vivo monocytic tumor necrosis factor α and interleukin
6 proinflammatory cytokine release in response to the endotoxin (P b .05). Importantly, the SFI group showed
better clinical outcomes than did the placebo group in terms of the duration of vasopressor use (P = .008),
Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (P = .034), Marshall score (P = .01), and length of in-
tensive care unit stay (10.5 ± 3.2 vs 12.2 ± 2.8 days; P = .012). However, the 28-day mortality rate was not sig-
nificantly different between the SFI (20.5%; 16/78) and placebo groups (27.8%; −22/79; P = .28).
Conclusion: These findings suggest that SFI can enhance the cellular immunity of patients with septic shock and
could be a promising adjunctive treatment for patients with septic shock.
© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction due to secondary/opportunistic infections [7,10-16]. Thus, this so-called

Despite the recent advances in medicine, sepsis is still one of the lead-
ing causes of death among patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) world-
wide [1-4]; moreover, a continued increase in incidence has been
observed over recent years [5]. Although sepsis or septic shock is tradi-
tionally viewed as an excessive systemic inflammatory reaction to inva-
sive microbial pathogens, pharmacologic suppression of the innate
immune response has proven unsuccessful [6-9]. An important reason
may be that most patients with septic shock survive after the initial pro-
inflammatory hit, but die in the subsequent immunosuppressed state
☆ Financial support: None.
☆☆ Funding: The current study was supported by the Seed Foundation of the Shanghai
University of Medicine & Health Sciences (key project) (Grant No.: HMSF-16-21-026).
★ Conflict of interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
⁎ Correspondence author at: Zhoupu Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai University of Med-
icine & Health Sciences, 1500 Zhouyuan Rd, Shanghai 201318, China. Tel.: +86 21
68135590; fax: +86 21 68135715.
E-mail address: 1201zeliang_qiu@tongji.edu.cn (Z. Qiu).
1
Co-first authors.
immunosuppression has been increasingly recognized as the overriding
immune dysfunction in patients with septic shock. Therefore, we hypoth-
esized that the reversal of sepsis-induced immunosuppression could be a
promising adjunctive treatment for those patients.
Shenfu injection (SFI), which originated from Shenfu decoction, a
well-known traditional Chinese formulation restoring “Yang” from col-
lapse, tonifying “Qi” for relieving desertion, is prepared from ginseng
(Panax; family: Araliaceae) and aconite (Radix aconiti lateralis preparata,
Aconitum carmichaeli Debx; family: Ranunculaceae). Ginsenosides and
aconite alkaloids are the main active ingredients in Shenfu [17].
Ginsenosides are the determinant contributor to the vasodilator benefit
of Shenfu, whereas the alkaloids play a vital role in the cardiac electro-
physiological effect of Shenfu by blocking ion channels [18]. The SFI
has been widely used to treat septic shock in China for more than 2 de-
cades; it is frequently used in emergency departments and ICUs in China
and has been shown to have some beneficial effects in rescuing these
patients [19]. Animal experiments have also confirmed that SFI has ef-
fects on scavenging free radicals [21], inhibiting inflammatory media-
tors [20,22], suppressing cell apoptosis [18,23], and regulating the host
immune response [24,25]. We hypothesized that by enhancing cellular

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2016.09.008
0735-6757/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
2 N. Zhang et al. / American Journal of Emergency Medicine 35 (2017) 1–6
immunity, SFI may help restore immunity, thereby improving outcomes
in sepsis. In this randomized control trial, we evaluated the efficacy of
SFI in sepsis.
2. Materials and methods
The institutional review board of the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of
Wenzhou Medical College approved the study protocol and the partici-
pants provided written informed consent. The study was conducted in
the 30-bed ICU of a large tertiary teaching hospital from June 2010 to
November 2012.
2.1. Patient selection
The inclusion criteria were as follows: age ≥18 years and onset of
sepsis/septic shock within the previous 24 hours. According to the
Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock,
sepsis was defined as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a
dysregulated host response to infection, and septic shock was clinically
identified by a vasopressor requirement to maintain a mean arterial
pressure of 65 mm Hg or greater and serum lactate level greater than
2 mmol/L in the absence of hypovolemia [9].
The exclusion criteria were as follows: known hypersensitivity to
SFI, pregnancy, systemic autoimmune disease, hematologic disease
(neoplasm, acute leukemia), transplant patients, known HIV infection,
and moribundity.
2.2. Randomization and blinding methods
Randomization was performed by an independent statistician by
generating allocation numbers based on a random number creation sys-
tem. The patients were randomized at a ratio of 1:1 to receive either SFI
or placebo (0.9% saline) in addition to standard care. The patients, inves-
tigators, and all others involved in conducting the study remained
blinded to the treatment assignments for the duration of the study.
2.3. Interventions
The SFI was produced by Ya'an Sanjiu Pharmaceutical Co Ltd (Si-
chuan, China; batch number: Z20043117). Fifty milliliters of normal sa-
line was used to wash the pipeline before and after the administration of
SFI. Therefore, the SFI did not interact with other routine medicines. A
previous study with a septic rat model showed that a high dose
(100 mg/kg) inhibited endotoxin-induced pulmonary inflammation
in vivo [26] and ameliorated the mucosal barrier function [27]. Further-
more, recent clinical trials have indicated that a dose of 100 mL/d had
better clinical outcomes, with special reference to decreasing consump-
tion of vasoactive drugs, improving hemodynamics parameters, and
shortening ventilator time and ICU stay [28-30]. Thus, the patients in
the SFI group received 100 mL SFI in 250 mL of 5% glucose intravenously
every 24 hours for 7 consecutive days.
2.4. Immunologic parameters
Blood samples were obtained on day 1 as baseline and on days 3 and
7 after randomization for the measurements of T-lymphocyte numbers
(including CD4 + and CD8 + subsets) and monocyte human leukocyte
antigen–DR (mHLA-DR) expression. These measurements were per-
formed using flow cytometry (BD FACS Aria, BD Biosciences, San Jose,
CA) following the manufacturer's manual. To assess monocytic function,
ex vivo endotoxin (lipopolysaccharide [LPS])-induced tumor necrosis
factor-α (TNF-α), interleukin (IL) 6, and IL-10 cytokines released from
monocytes were analyzed as previously reported [31].
2.5. Clinical outcomes
The primary outcomes were the length of ICU stay, the duration of
vasopressor use, illness severity, and the degree of organ dysfunction,
and the secondary outcome was the rate of death from any cause at
28 days after treatment. The severity of systemic illness was assessed
with the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II
score, with scores ranging from 0 to 71 and higher scores indicating
more severe illness [32]. Organ function was assessed weekly with the
use of the Marshall score, which ranges from 0 to 4 for each of 6 compo-
nents (respiratory, renal, liver, cardiovascular, coagulation, and central
nervous system), with higher scores indicating more severe organ
dysfunction [33].
2.6. Treatment
In addition to the study medication, the patients received standard
care from the attending physician according to the Surviving Sepsis
Campaign guidelines, including source control, antibiotics, fluid resusci-
tation, vasopressors (noradrenaline, or dopamine), glycemic control,
enteral or parenteral nutrition, and intensive life support (including me-
chanical ventilation, continuous renal replacement therapy, etc). Anti-
microbial treatment in both groups followed the recommendations
previously described [34]. In brief, anti-infection principles included
the following: (1) administration of effective intravenous antimicro-
bials within the first hour of recognizing septic shock and sepsis; (2) ini-
tial empiric anti-infective therapy using 1 or more drugs that have
activity against all likely pathogens (bacterial and/or fungal or viral)
and that penetrate in adequate concentrations into the tissues pre-
sumed to be the source of sepsis; (3) daily reassessment of the antimi-
crobial regimen for potential de-escalation; (4) empiric combination
therapy lasting no more than 3 to 5 days (de-escalation to the most ap-
propriate single therapy should be performed as soon as the susceptibil-
ity profile is known); and (5) typical therapy duration 7 to 10 days;
longer courses may be appropriate for patients who have a slow clinical
response, undrainable foci of infection, bacteremia with Staphylococcus
aureus, and some fungal and viral infections or immunologic deficien-
cies, including neutropenia.
2.7. Safety assessment of SFI
Safety was monitored by observing parameters including changes in
symptoms, vital signs, complete blood cell count, and urine routine. To
detect any possible side effects of the SFI on the liver and kidney, the
serum levels of alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase,
total bilirubin, urea nitrogen, and creatinine were evaluated.
2.8. Statistical analysis
To detect an absolute 20% difference in mortality between the SFI
group and the placebo group (per previous studies, approximately
40% mortality at 28 days for the placebo group) with an 80% power at
a 2-sided P value of .05, 160 patients needed to be included in the
trial. All analyses were conducted on a modified intention-to-treat
basis. Safety was assessed in the trial population, defined as all subjects
who received even a single dose of the study medication. The
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was performed to assess the normal distribu-
tion of continuous data. Continuous variables were compared using the
unpaired t test or the Wilcoxon rank sum test, and Pearson χ2 tests or
Fisher exact test was used for categorical variables. For survival analysis,
Kaplan-Meier estimates were generated, and between-group differ-
ences were assessed using the log-rank test. All analyses were per-
formed using SPSS20.0 software (SPSS, Chicago, IL). P values less than
.05 were considered to indicate significant differences.
 N. Zhang et al. / American Journal of Emergency Medicine 35 (2017) 1–6 3

3. Results Table 1
Demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients at baseline

3.1. Patients Characteristic Placebo (n = 79) SFI (n = 78) P

Male sex, n (%) 45 (56.9) 43 (55.1) .817

In the current study, a total of 157 patients, 78 in the SFI group and Age (y) 58.6 ± 17.2 59.3 ± 16.4 .397
79 in the placebo group, underwent follow-up of at least 28 days. Weight (kg) 65.2 ± 15.5 67.3 ± 15.8 .201
Three patients were excluded from the analysis because of protocol vi- APACHE II score 18.3 ± 6.5 18.6 ± 6.8 .389
Marshall score 11.5 ± 4.5 11.2 ± 4.6 .340
olation by 1 patient and withdrawal of consent by 2 patients (Fig. 1).
Shock, n (%) 61 (77.2) 60 (76.9) .965
The 2 groups were well matched at the baseline with respect to de- Mechanical ventilation, n (%) 47 (59.5) 48 (61.5) .793
mographic and clinical characteristics (Table 1). The most common in- Infection site, n (%)a
fection site was the respiratory tract, followed by the urinary tract, Lung 40 (50.6) 37 (47.4) .689
abdomen, blood, and skin or skin structure. In these 2 groups, the inci- Urinary tract 17 (21.5) 17 (21.8) .967
Intra-abdominal 15 (18.9) 14 (17.9) .867
dence of positive cultures with gram-negative, gram-positive, or fungal
Blood 7 (8.9) 8 (10.3) .766
organisms was found to be similar. The isolation of gram-negative or- Skin or skin structure 5 (6.3) 6 (7.7) .738
ganisms was approximately twice as common as the isolation of Type of organism, n (%)a
gram-positive organisms, and approximately one-third of the cultures Gram-negative 33 (41.8) 34 (43.6) .818
Gram-positive 16 (20.3) 17 (21.8) .813
were polymicrobial (Table 1).
Fungal 5 (6.3) 4 (5.1) 1.000
Polymicrobial 24 (30.4) 22 (28.2) .765
3.2. Immunologic parameters
The SFI group was treated with SFI; the placebo group was treated with a placebo.
a
Each patient may be counted in more than 1 category.
Compared with the placebo, SFI administration increased signifi-
cantly the patients' CD4 + and CD8 + T-cell counts, respectively, upon
7-day treatment (Fig. 2A and B; P b .05). HLA-DR/CD14 expression in monocytes on day 7, compared with the
The monocytic function was determined by evaluating the mHLA- placebo (Fig. 2C).
DR expression and ex vivo cytokine release in response to the endotox-
in. Compared with the baseline, the expression rate of mHLA-DR was
significantly elevated in the SFI group on days 3 and 7 (P b .05; 3.3. Clinical outcomes
Fig. 2C). Furthermore, the LPS-induced monocytic TNF-α and IL-6 re-
leases were significantly higher in the subjects treated with SFI on As presented in Table 2, the length of ICU stay was significantly
days 3 and 7 (Fig. 2D and E). In contrast, IL-10 release showed a trend shorter (10.5 ± 3.2 days) in the SFI group than in the placebo
toward a lower level in the SFI group (Fig. 2F). (12.2 ± 2.8 days; P = .012). The APACHE II and Marshall scores were
Regarding ex vivo cytokines, the flow cytometry analysis demon- significantly lower in the SFI group than in the placebo on day 7 after
strated that the SFI treatment resulted in an increased frequency of the treatment began (P = .034 and .01, respectively). There was also a

Fig. 1. CONSORT flow diagram.

4 N. Zhang et al. / American Journal of Emergency Medicine 35 (2017) 1–6

Fig. 2. Compared with placebo, SFI treatment enhanced the cellular immunity of patients with septic shock. A, CD4+ T cells. B, CD8+ T cells. C, mHLA-DR expression ratio. D, TNF-α. E, IL-6.
F, IL-10. Data were shown as the mean (SD). ⁎P b .05; ⁎⁎P b .01 vs day 1 (within-group); #P b .05; ##P b .01 vs placebo.

significant reduction of vasopressor use in the SIF group (2.5 ± 1.5 vs therapy for sepsis was an effective immune-adjuvant measure for re-
3.7 ± 1.7 days; P = .008). storing monocyte immunosuppression. Moreover, SFI reduced the du-
Despite a trend, no significant difference was observed in the 28-day ration of vasopressor use, the severity of illness, and the degree of
mortality between the SFI (20.5%; 16/78) and the placebo group (27.8%; organ dysfunction, and it shortened length of ICU stay and tended to de-
22/79; relative risk, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-1.29; P = .28). A crease the 28-day mortality.
Kaplan-Meier analysis of survival yielded similar results between the 2 Sepsis is typically characterized by initial cytokine-mediated
groups for cumulative mortality on day 28 (P = .26). hyperinflammation. This hyperinflammatory phase is followed by immu-
nosuppression [35,36], which independently contributes to the increased
4. Discussion risk of subsequent nosocomial infections and multiple-organ dysfunction
system [37]. T cells are often referred to as the “directors” of the adaptive-
In addition to clinical parameters investigated, the current study immune response. Upon antigen-specific activation, they can help B cells,
provided a randomized, controlled trial on the immunologic character- influence the type of immune response via their cytokine secretion pro-
istics of sepsis response on patients undergoing SFI. We found that SFI file, or engage in cytolytic activity. Approximately three-quarters of pe-
ripheral blood mononuclear cells are T lymphocytes. Among them,
Table 2 CD4 + cells often referred to as T helper cells predominate over CD8 +
Clinical outcomes of patients with septic shock after treatment cells. Numerous studies have reported that enhanced apoptosis causes a
Placebo (n = 79) SFI (n = 78) P remarkable loss of CD4 + and CD8 + T cells in protracted sepsis
[10,38,39]. In the current study, both CD4+ and CD8+ T cells increased
Dead on day 28, n (%) 22 (27.8) 16 (20.5) .28
ICU stay (d) 12.2 ± 2.8 10.5 ± 3.2 .012 significantly undergoing SFI therapy (Fig. 2A and B), which indicated
APACHEIIscore on day 7 16.9 ± 8.8 13.2 ± 7.6 .034 that SFI might be able to induce CD4+ and CD8+ T-lymphocyte cell pro-
Marshall score on day 7 8.5 ± 3.3 6.8 ± 2.6 .010 liferation or prevent apoptosis during sepsis. However, significant differ-
Duration of vasopressor use (d) 3.7 ± 1.7 2.5 ±1.5 .008 ences in T-cell function were not noted between the 2 groups. In the
The SFI group was treated with SFI; the placebo group was treated with a placebo. future, this should be investigated in more detail.
 N. Zhang et al. / American Journal of Emergency Medicine 35 (2017) 1–6
In addition, monocytes from patients with sepsis typically show a di-
minished ability to release LPS-induced proinflammatory cytokines,
such as TNF and IL-6. The proinflammatory cytokines are able to release
anti-inflammatory mediators, mainly IL-10, which are either unimpaired
or enhanced [11,40-42] and lead to an increase in the release of immuno-
suppressive mediators and a decrease in antigen presentation as a result
of the reduced expression of mHLA-DR. Both are associated with a
worse outcome of sepsis [1,43,44]. Low levels of mHLA-DR expression
function as a surrogate marker of monocyte unresponsiveness [43,45]
and as an independent predictor of nosocomial infection and mortality
after sepsis [35,36]. Regarding the assessment of monocytic function,
the results showed that treatment with SFI substantially restored
mHLA-DR expression (Fig. 2C) and significantly increased LPS-induced
monocytic proinflammatory cytokine (TNF-α and IL-6) release in patients
with sepsis (Fig. 2D and E). However, previous studies showed that the
release of proinflammatory mediators may induce hemodynamic insta-
bility, end-organ dysfunction, and coagulation abnormalities [12,14],
which led to strategies that aimed to treat sepsis by targeting proinflam-
matory mediators. However, most of these approaches have failed. An im-
portant reason for this might be that most patients with septic shock do
not die of complications resulting from an overwhelming proinflammato-
ry immune response but of secondary/opportunistic infections resulting
from a severely suppressed immune response [12,37,46]. Furthermore,
ginsenoside, a major active ingredient, has effects that include scavenging
free radicals [21], inhibiting inflammatory mediators [20,22], suppressing
cell apoptosis [18,23], and regulating the host immune response [24,25]. It
is of great interest to further define the mechanism by which SFI improves
the cellular immunity reaction.
The current study also showed the beneficial effects of SFI on the du-
ration of vasopressor use, severity of illness, and degree of organ dys-
function, which indicated faster recovery from sepsis. This also
translated into a shorter ICU stay in the SFI group. In addition, the 28-
day all-cause mortality was lower in the patients who received SFI, al-
though it did not reach statistical significance (Table 2). However, dur-
ing the study, we did see 4 patients who had headaches after the first
dose of SFI and 5 patients who had an increased heart rate on the first
2 days after the SFI treatment. Those symptoms returned to normal
after 4 days. The serum levels of alanine aminotransferase, alanine ami-
notransferase, total bilirubin, urea nitrogen, and creatinine were evalu-
ated, and there were no obvious differences among the SFI-treated
patients and those in the placebo group, which was concordant with
previous studies [47,48].
Some limitations of this study demand further investigations. First,
T-cell function and other indices reflecting monocyte immunity, such
as phagocytosis and antigen presentation, were not analyzed in the cur-
rent study. These indices need to be investigated in subsequent analy-
ses. Another limitation is the lack of prior stratification of patients
with septic shock based on their immune functional status. Moreover,
the power of this study is limited by the single-center design and rela-
tively small sample size, and although the 28-day all-cause mortality
was observed, the study lacked a longer-term follow-up.
In conclusion, this preliminary study investigated the effect of SFI on
the cellular immunity and clinical outcomes of patients with septic
shock. We found that SFI had significant efficacy to restore monocyte
immunosuppression in the patients with sepsis. Importantly, the SFI
group showed better clinical outcomes than did the placebo group in
the duration of vasopressor use, APACHE II score, Marshall score, and
length of ICU stay. These findings suggest that SFI can enhance the cel-
lular immunity of patients with septic shock and could be considered
a promising adjunctive treatment for this patient population.
References
[1] Angus DC, Linde-Zwirble WT, Lidicker J, Clermont G, Carcillo J, Pinsky MR. Epidemi-
ology of severe sepsis in the United States: analysis of incidence, outcome, and asso-
ciated costs of care. Crit Care Med 2001;29(7):1303–10.
5
[2] Martin GS, Mannino DM, Eaton S, Moss M. The epidemiology of sepsis in the United
States from 1979 through 2000. N Engl J Med 2003;348(16):1546–54.
[3] Linde-Zwirble WT, Angus DC. Severe sepsis epidemiology: sampling, selection, and
society. Crit Care 2004;8(4):222–6.
[4] Dombrovskiy VY, Martin AA, Sunderram J, Paz HL. Rapid increase in hospitalization
and mortality rates for severe sepsis in the United States: a trend analysis from 1993
to 2003. Crit Care Med 2007;35(5):1244–50.
[5] Lagu T, Rothberg MB, Shieh MS, Pekow PS, Steingrub JS, Lindenauer PK. Hospitaliza-
tions, costs, and outcomes of severe sepsis in the United States 2003 to 2007. Crit
Care Med 2012;40(3):754–61.
[6] Russell JA. Management of sepsis. N Engl J Med 2006;355(16):1699–713.
[7] Carlet J, Cohen J, Calandra T, Opal SM, Masur H. Sepsis: time to reconsider the con-
cept. Crit Care Med 2008;36(3):964–6.
[8] Cohen J, Opal S, Calandra T. Sepsis studies need new direction. Lancet Infect Dis
2012;12(7):503–5.
[9] Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, Bauer M, et al.
The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-
3). JAMA 2016;315(8):801–10.
[10] Hotchkiss RS, Monneret G, Payen D. Sepsis-induced immunosuppression: from cel-
lular dysfunctions to immunotherapy. Nat Rev Immunol 2013;13(12):862–74.
[11] Angus DC, van der Poll T. Severe sepsis and septic shock. N Engl J Med 2013;369(9):
840–51.
[12] Hotchkiss RS, Karl IE. The pathophysiology and treatment of sepsis. N Engl J Med
2003;348(2):138–50.
[13] Hotchkiss RS, Opal S. Immunotherapy for sepsis—a new approach against an ancient
foe. N Engl J Med 2010;363(1):87–9.
[14] Annane D, Bellissant E, Cavaillon JM. Septic shock. Lancet 2005;365(9453):63–78.
[15] Monneret G, Venet F, Pachot A, Lepape A. Monitoring immune dysfunctions in the
septic patient: a new skin for the old ceremony. Mol Med 2008;14(1–2):64–78.
[16] van der Poll T, Opal SM. Host-pathogen interactions in sepsis. Lancet Infect Dis 2008;
8(1):32–43.
[17] Yang H, Liu L, Gao W, Liu K, Qi LW, Li P. Direct and comprehensive analysis of
ginsenosides and diterpene alkaloids in Shenfu injection by combinatory liquid
chromatography–mass spectrometric techniques. J Pharm Biomed Anal 2014;92:13–21.
[18] Song Y, Zhang N, Jiang Y, Li J, Zhao Y, Shi S, et al. Simultaneous determination of ac-
onite alkaloids and ginsenosides using online solid phase extraction hyphenated
with polarity switching ultra-high performance liquid chromatography coupled
with tandem mass spectrometry. RSC Adv 2015;5(9):6419–28.
[19] Mou Z, Lv Z, Li Y, Wang M, Xu Q, Yu X. Clinical effect of Shenfu injection in patients
with septic shock: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Evid Based Complement
Alternat Med 2015;2015:863149.
[20] Hou X, Li C, Gu W, Guo Z, Yin W, Zhang D. Effect of Shenfu on inflammatory cytokine
release and brain edema after prolonged cardiac arrest in the swine. Am J Emerg
Med 2013;31(8):1159–64.
[21] Liu K, Abe T, Sekine S, Goto Y, Iijima K, Kondon K, et al. Experimental study on the
scavenging effects of ginsenosides on oxygen free radicals using model of heterotop-
ic heart transplantation in rats. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1998;4(4):188–91.
[22] Lee SM. Anti-inflammatory effects of ginsenosides Rg5, Rz1, and Rk1: inhibition of
TNF-alpha-induced NF-kappaB, COX-2, and iNOS transcriptional expression.
Phytother Res 2014;28(12):1893–6.
[23] Gu W, Li C, Yin W, Guo Z, Hou X, Zhang D. Shen-fu injection reduces
postresuscitation myocardial dysfunction in a porcine model of cardiac arrest by
modulating apoptosis. Shock 2012;38(3):301–6.
[24] Su X, Pei Z, Hu S. Ginsenoside Re as an adjuvant to enhance the immune response to the
inactivated rabies virus vaccine in mice. Int Immunopharmacol 2014;20(2):283–9.
[25] Wang Y, Liu Y, Zhang XY, LH X, Ouyang DY, Liu KP, et al. Ginsenoside Rg1 regulates
innate immune responses in macrophages through differentially modulating the
NF-kappaB and PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathways. Int Immunopharmacol 2014;23(1):
77–84.
[26] Qian Y, Sun J, Wang Z, Yang J. Shen-Fu attenuates endotoxin-induced acute lung in-
jury in rats. Am J Chin Med 2006;34(4):613–21.
[27] Wu W, Jiang RL, Wang LC, Lei S, Xing X, Zhi YH, et al. Effect of Shenfu injection on
intestinal mucosal barrier in a rat model of sepsis. Am J Emerg Med 2015;33(9):
1237–43.
[28] Guo N, Liu QQ, Jiang QM, Zhang Y, Wang XX, Cai YP, et al. Clinical effect of Shenmai,
Shenfu injection on septic shock. Beijing J Tradit Chin Med 2011;30(5):329–33.
[29] He Y, Wang Q, Wu X. Effect of early used high dose Shenfu injection for the treat-
ment of septic shock. J Emerg Tradit Chin Med 2013;22(1):99–100.
[30] Li MQ, Pan CG, Wang XM, Mo X, Shi ZX, JY X, et al. Effect of the Shenfu injection com-
bined with early goal-directed therapy on organ functions and outcomes of septic
shock patients. Cell Biochem Biophys 2015;72(3):807–12.
[31] Meisel C, Schefold JC, Pschowski R, Baumann T, Hetzger K, Gregor J, et al.
Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor to reverse sepsis-associated im-
munosuppression: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled multicenter
trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2009;180(7):640–8.
[32] Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE. APACHE II: a severity of disease
classification system. Crit Care Med 1985;13(10):818–29.
[33] Marshall JC, Cook DJ, Christou NV, Bernard GR, Sprung CL, Sibbald WJ. Multiple organ
dysfunction score: a reliable descriptor of a complex clinical outcome. Crit Care Med
1995;23(10):1638–52.
[34] Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Rhodes A, Annane D, Gerlach H, Opal SM, et al. Surviving
sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and sep-
tic shock: 2012. Crit Care Med 2013;41(2):580–637.
[35] Monneret G, Lepape A, Voirin N, Bohe J, Venet F, Debard AL, et al. Persisting low
monocyte human leukocyte antigen-DR expression predicts mortality in septic
shock. Intensive Care Med 2006;32(8):1175–83.
6 N. Zhang et al. / American Journal of Emergency Medicine 35 (2017) 1–6
[36] Landelle C, Lepape A, Voirin N, Tognet E, Venet F, Bohe J, et al. Low monocyte human
leukocyte antigen-DR is independently associated with nosocomial infections after
septic shock. Intensive Care Med 2010;36(11):1859–66.
[37] Boomer JS, To K, Chang KC, Takasu O, Osborne DF, Walton AH, et al. Immunosup-
pression in patients who die of sepsis and multiple organ failure. JAMA 2011;
306(23):2594–605.
[38] Le TY, Pangault C, Gacouin A, Guilloux V, Tribut O, Amiot L, et al. Early circulating
lymphocyte apoptosis in human septic shock is associated with poor outcome.
Shock 2002;18(6):487–94.
[39] Inoue S, Suzuki-Utsunomiya K, Okada Y, Taira T, Iida Y, Miura N, et al. Reduction of
immunocompetent T cells followed by prolonged lymphopenia in severe sepsis in
the elderly. Crit Care Med 2013;41(3):810–9.
[40] Cohen J. The immunopathogenesis of sepsis. Nature 2002;420(6917):885–91.
[41] Biswas SK, Lopez-Collazo E. Endotoxin tolerance: new mechanisms, molecules and
clinical significance. Trends Immunol 2009;30(10):475–87.
[42] Cavaillon JM, Adib-Conquy M. Bench-to-bedside review: endotoxin tolerance as a
model of leukocyte reprogramming in sepsis. Crit Care 2006;10(5):233.
[43] Monneret G, Finck ME, Venet F, Debard AL, Bohe J, Bienvenu J, et al. The anti-
inflammatory response dominates after septic shock: association of low monocyte
HLA-DR expression and high interleukin-10 concentration. Immunol Lett 2004;
95(2):193–8.
[44] Hynninen M, Pettila V, Takkunen O, Orko R, Jansson SE, Kuusela P, et al. Predictive
value of monocyte histocompatibility leukocyte antigen-DR expression and plasma
interleukin-4 and -10 levels in critically ill patients with sepsis. Shock 2003;20(1):
1–4.
[45] Lukaszewicz AC, Grienay M, Resche-Rigon M, Pirracchio R, Faivre V, Boval B, et al.
Monocytic HLA-DR expression in intensive care patients: interest for prognosis
and secondary infection prediction. Crit Care Med 2009;37(10):2746–52.
[46] Schefold JC, Hasper D, Volk HD, Reinke P. Sepsis: time has come to focus on the later
stages. Med Hypotheses 2008;71(2):203–8.
[47] Fu YK, Xie YM. Literature analysis of clinical practices and side effects related to
Shenfu injection. Zhongguo Zhong Yao Za Zhi 2012;37(18):2796–9.
[48] Li TQ, Ma JX, Zhou YD. Investigation of clinical practice and side effects of Shenfu in-
jection. Chin J Evid based Med 2009;9(03):319–22.