INTRODUCTION

Trauma remains one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide, with polytrauma patients—those sustaining multiple severe injuries—being particularly vulnerable to life-threatening complications such as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), sepsis, and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) [1,2]. Early identification of patients at risk for clinical deterioration is critical to enable timely interventions and optimize outcomes [2]. While traditional trauma scoring systems, including the Injury Severity Score (ISS), and physiological indicators offer some prognostic value, they often fail to fully capture the dynamic and evolving systemic inflammatory response that contributes to secondary injury and organ dysfunction [2,3].

In recent years, inflammatory biomarkers have gained attention as adjuncts to established prognostic tools [2,3]. Among these, interleukin-6 (IL-6) has emerged as a particularly promising candidate. IL-6 is a multifunctional cytokine produced by macrophages, endothelial cells, fibroblasts, and other cell types in response to tissue injury and inflammation [2]. Initially described as B-cell stimulatory factor 2 and later designated IL-6 in 1988, this cytokine plays a central role in orchestrating the acute-phase response through signaling via the IL-6 receptor α and glycoprotein 130 co-receptor, activating the JAK/STAT signaling cascade [2]. This activation induces hepatic production of acute-phase reactants such as C-reactive protein (CRP) and regulates immune cell activity. IL-6 demonstrates both proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory actions, including the induction of IL-10, which underscores its pleiotropic effects within the immune system.

Clinically, IL-6 has attracted significant interest due to its rapid elevation following trauma and its apparent association with injury severity and the risk of complications [1,3]. Numerous studies have linked excessive or prolonged IL-6 responses to poorer outcomes after trauma and surgical procedures [1]. Although debate continues as to whether IL-6 serves primarily as a marker of injury severity or as an active contributor to downstream pathophysiology, current evidence consistently supports its value as a prognostic biomarker in trauma patients [1].

This review synthesizes the available literature on the prognostic utility of IL-6 in polytrauma. It examines the biological mechanisms and kinetics of IL-6 after injury, its relationship with trauma severity, and its predictive value for adverse clinical outcomes including ARDS, MODS, and mortality. In addition, the review compares IL-6 with other inflammatory biomarkers and discusses its potential role in early clinical decision-making. Finally, it highlights current research limitations and suggests directions for future study.

BIOLOGICAL ROLE AND KINETICS OF IL-6

IL-6 is a key mediator of the acute inflammatory response to injury. Following trauma, damage-associated molecular patterns and cytokine cascades trigger IL-6 production within minutes to hours by immune cells (e.g., monocytes/macrophages) and damaged tissues [2]. IL-6 subsequently stimulates hepatic synthesis of acute-phase reactants (including CRP, fibrinogen, and serum amyloid A) and facilitates the recruitment and activation of lymphocytes and neutrophils, thereby amplifying the inflammatory response [4]. This early surge in IL-6 is part of the body's attempt to contain injuries and initiate repair. However, when unregulated, an excessive IL-6 response can drive systemic inflammation and contribute to tissue damage [1].

Kinetics

IL-6 is notable for its rapid and sustained elevation in the bloodstream after severe trauma. Unlike tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) and IL-1β, which also rise early but diminish quickly, IL-6 remains elevated for a longer period, making it more practical for clinical measurement [4]. Blood IL-6 levels typically begin to increase immediately or within a few hours after injury, usually peaking within the first 12 to 24 hours [2]. For example, trauma patients often exhibit markedly elevated IL-6 concentrations on the first day after injury, with levels declining toward baseline by around day 4 in cases without complications [4]. In a multicenter study, Maier et al. [5] found that IL-6 peaked within 24 hours in severely injured patients, dropped to a nadir by day 4, and returned to baseline by day 10 if no ongoing complications developed. This early peak and subsequent decline suggest that IL-6 acts as an acute-phase signal reflecting the initial magnitude of injury.

The magnitude of the IL-6 peak correlates strongly with the severity of tissue damage. Within hours of trauma, patients with more severe injuries display significantly higher IL-6 levels than those with less severe trauma [3,4]. One study demonstrated that as early as 4 hours after trauma, IL-6 concentrations stratified patients by injury severity: those with the highest ISS (>32) had the highest IL-6 levels, while those with minor injuries exhibited minimal IL-6 elevation [6]. IL-6 levels at admission and during the first day remain largely unaffected by the precise time since injury (within the initial 12-hour window), so even patients arriving several hours after trauma will have IL-6 levels that reflect injury severity rather than elapsed time [3].

Notably, IL-6 may display a biphasic pattern in patients who develop secondary complications. After the initial peak and partial decline, a secondary rise in IL-6 has been observed in trauma patients who subsequently develop late MODS or sepsis [4,7]. This second spike is thought to represent the “second hit” from complications such as infection or additional surgical interventions, which reignite systemic inflammation. In summary, IL-6’s kinetic profile, characterized by rapid elevation, correlation with injury magnitude, and the potential for a secondary rise with complications, allows it to serve as a sensitive, real-time barometer of inflammatory status after polytrauma (Fig. 1) [3–5,8,9].

IL-6 AND INJURY SEVERITY

There is compelling evidence that early IL-6 levels correlate with trauma severity. Numerous studies measuring IL-6 in the hours following injury have found higher concentrations in patients with more severe anatomical injuries or greater physiological derangement. In an early seminal study, Gebhard et al. [6] reported that IL-6 levels measured repeatedly within the first 24 hours after major trauma correlated strongly with ISS. Similarly, a cross-sectional study involving 159 trauma patients in Uganda found that serum IL-6 levels were significantly higher in patients with severe trauma (defined by the Kampala Trauma Score) compared to those with mild trauma (P<0.001) [3]. This relationship persisted regardless of whether blood was drawn soon after injury or several hours later, confirming that IL-6 elevation reflects injury severity rather than just elapsed time [3].

Early IL-6 also correlates with other markers of injury severity and shock. IL-6 has been positively associated with the extent of tissue damage (e.g., number of fractures, presence of chest or abdominal injury) and with physiological indicators such as lactate levels or base deficit. A recent prospective study found that IL-6 levels on admission were significantly linked to both the patient’s ISS and their Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, an index of physiological derangement [10]. In that study, both IL-6 and serum lactate independently predicted the development of MODS, emphasizing that IL-6 reflects not only anatomic injury severity but also the resultant metabolic stress and hypoperfusion. IL-6 is often considered one of the earliest reliable cytokine indicators of injury severity after major trauma [10]. While cytokines like TNF-α or IL-1β tend to rise and fall rapidly, often before hospital arrival, IL-6 continues to circulate at high levels during the early post-trauma period, making it particularly useful for triage decisions [4].

Notably, threshold values of IL-6 have been proposed to stratify trauma severity. Some studies report that an IL-6 concentration above certain cutoffs indicates a “critical” injury burden. For example, IL-6 levels exceeding approximately 500 pg/mL within hours of injury are associated with a markedly increased risk of posttraumatic complications [8]. Frink et al. [9] found that in patients with ISS ≥16 who developed MODS, IL-6 levels were dramatically higher (median >760 pg/mL on day 1) compared to those without MODS. They suggested that IL-6 levels around 700 to 800 pg/mL early after trauma should be considered a warning sign for impending organ dysfunction, and that levels above approximately 2,100 pg/mL were predictive of in-hospital mortality. Although exact cutoff values vary between studies and assays, these findings underscore that extremely high IL-6 concentrations signal a substantial injury burden and physiological stress.

In the context of damage control orthopedics, management of polytrauma patients requires careful attention to the inflammatory response triggered by surgical interventions. Elevated IL-6 levels have been linked to systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), and surgery can further increase IL-6 concentrations, potentially worsening the patient’s condition [11]. Consequently, IL-6 has been investigated as a biomarker to guide the timing and extent of surgical interventions. For example, patients with significantly elevated IL-6 may benefit from staged procedures rather than immediate definitive fracture fixation, reducing the risk of exacerbating systemic inflammation. This approach highlights the translational potential of IL-6 measurement in informing surgical decisions and optimizing patient outcomes by tailoring interventions to each individual’s inflammatory status.

In summary, IL-6 levels during the early post-trauma period show a clear positive correlation with injury severity. Higher IL-6 levels indicate more severe trauma and greater physiological insult. IL-6 not only parallels established trauma scores like ISS, but also provides independent prognostic value, sometimes identifying high-risk patients who may not be readily apparent from clinical assessment alone. This strong relationship underpins the growing role of IL-6 as a prognostic biomarker in polytrauma care (Table 1).

IL-6 AND CLINICAL OUTCOMES

Elevated IL-6 in polytrauma is not just a marker of injury severity but also a predictor of adverse clinical outcomes. A substantial body of evidence indicates that patients with high IL-6 levels during the first day after trauma are more likely to develop inflammatory complications, such as SIRS/ARDS or MODS, and are at higher risk of mortality than those with lower IL-6 responses.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome

Several studies have linked early elevations in IL-6 to the subsequent development of ARDS. Systemic inflammation is a key driver of trauma-related ARDS, and IL-6 is one of the principal cytokines implicated in the pathogenesis of acute lung injury. In a cohort of patients with severe traumatic brain injury, a population particularly prone to ARDS, Aisiku et al. [12] found that higher plasma IL-6 levels within 6 hours of injury were associated with a significantly increased hazard of developing ARDS (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.55; P=0.005). Similarly, earlier research showed that trauma patients who eventually developed ARDS had markedly higher IL-6 (and IL-8) concentrations on admission compared to those who did not [13]. IL-6 contributes to endothelial activation and neutrophil recruitment within the lungs, processes that can precipitate ARDS. Thus, an early surge in IL-6 can serve as a warning sign of incipient lung injury. Reports indicate that trauma patients with high IL-6 and IL-8 but low IL-4 in the acute phase are more likely to progress to SIRS and ARDS, with corresponding increases in morbidity and mortality [13]. While ARDS risk is multifactorial, IL-6 is a robust inflammatory correlate: for example, a study of chest trauma patients found that IL-6 measured on emergency admission correlated with both the extent of lung contusion and the need for prolonged ventilation [14]. These findings underscore the value of IL-6 in forecasting respiratory failure following trauma.

MODS and organ failure

The relationship between IL-6 and MODS or organ failure after trauma is well established. IL-6 is frequently described as a sentinel cytokine for the development of MODS. In a prospective study of 143 major trauma patients, those who developed MODS had significantly higher plasma IL-6 levels than those who did not [9]. The investigators determined that among all measured cytokines, IL-6 was the best predictor for subsequent MODS, with an overall predictive accuracy of approximately 85%. Using an IL-6 threshold of around 760 pg/mL on day 1 after injury, they achieved 98% specificity for identifying patients at risk of MODS (though sensitivity was more modest). Qiao et al. [8], in a meta-analysis encompassing 11 studies (775 patients), found a significant correlation between early IL-6 levels (first 24 hours) and the later occurrence of multiple organ failure (MOF)/MODS. Patients who went on to develop MOF/MODS had higher IL-6 concentrations on admission than those who did not, with a pooled standardized mean difference of approximately 0.33 (P<0.01). Moreover, trauma patients who exhibit a secondary rise in IL-6, a biphasic pattern, a few days after injury are often those who experience late organ failures [4]. The association of IL-6 with MODS is thought to reflect both its role as a marker of initial injury severity (predisposing to organ dysfunction) and as a mediator capable of worsening systemic inflammation, capillary leak, and organ damage. For instance, Spindler-Vesel et al. [15] found that as early as postinjury day 2, IL-6 levels were significantly higher in patients who subsequently developed MOF, suggesting that IL-6 elevations can precede and possibly contribute to the pathological process of organ failure. In summary, IL-6 is strongly prognostic for MODS: an early, marked IL-6 elevation flags patients for whom aggressive supportive care and close monitoring for complications are warranted.

Mortality

Perhaps the most critical outcome is mortality, and here, too, IL-6 shows prognostic value. Patients with the highest IL-6 responses to trauma are more likely to die from their injuries or related complications. The aforementioned meta-analysis by Qiao et al. [8] found that early IL-6 levels were significantly higher in trauma patients who died compared to those who survived, with a subgroup analysis yielding a standardized mean difference of about 0.61 for nonsurvivors. This represents a substantial difference in IL-6 between these groups across multiple studies. In one study, Jawa et al. [4] observed that nonsurviving trauma patients had persistently elevated IL-6 levels over time, even when initial injury severity was similar to that of survivors. Frink et al. [9] demonstrated a striking IL-6 threshold for mortality: patients with acute-phase IL-6 levels above approximately 2,000 pg/mL had an extremely high risk of in-hospital death. In their cohort, IL-6 predicted mortality with high specificity—nearly 100% at that threshold. Another notable observation is that IL-6 remains elevated postmortem in trauma cases; forensic studies have found that patients who died from traumatic injuries had higher IL-6 levels in their blood even after death compared to those who died from other causes, reflecting the severe inflammation preceding death [4]. Collectively, these data support the use of IL-6 as an indicator of injury lethality.

Sepsis and other outcomes

IL-6 also plays a role in predicting sepsis after trauma, although findings are somewhat mixed. While many trauma patients who develop sepsis have high initial IL-6 levels, the meta-analysis by Qiao et al. [8] noted that the differences in early IL-6 between those who did and did not develop sepsis were not statistically significant (pooled standardized mean difference, 0.194; P for heterogeneity=0.512). This suggests that early IL-6 alone may be less useful for predicting later sepsis than for organ failure or mortality. One explanation is that sepsis typically occurs several days after injury, and IL-6 measured only in the first 24 hours may not reflect the complex interplay of nosocomial infection and immune response that emerges later. However, persistently elevated or second-hit rises in IL-6 are associated with increased infection risk. Generally, an exaggerated IL-6 response indicates an “at risk” immune environment in which complications, including sepsis, are more likely. Additionally, IL-6 has been implicated in other clinical outcomes such as intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay and duration of mechanical ventilation; several studies have found that early IL-6 levels correlate with prolonged ICU courses and greater need for supportive therapies [14,16].

In summary, IL-6 has proven to be a powerful prognostic indicator of clinical outcomes in polytrauma patients. High IL-6 levels in the acute phase are consistently associated with increased rates of ARDS, MODS, and mortality [4,9]. Its predictive value for sepsis is less definitive but remains suggestive. These associations highlight the clinical utility of IL-6, which is a single biomarker that reflects both the magnitude of the initial injury and the subsequent risk of progression to critical illness. This provides strong support for integrating IL-6 measurement into early trauma assessment protocols, as discussed in the following section.

THERAPEUTIC AND DIAGNOSTIC IMPLICATIONS

The robust prognostic associations of IL-6 in polytrauma have practical implications for both diagnostics and therapeutics.

Early risk stratification

Perhaps the most immediate application of IL-6 is as an early warning biomarker to identify high-risk trauma patients upon hospital arrival. Unlike many traditional laboratory tests that change more slowly (e.g., CRP or creatinine), IL-6 can become elevated within the first hour after injury and reach high levels within 12 to 24 hours [2]. This provides a crucial window of opportunity to intervene before full-blown clinical deterioration occurs. For example, a point-of-care IL-6 test on admission could identify a patient who appears hemodynamically stable but harbors a substantial injury burden and mounting inflammatory response. Such a patient may benefit from more aggressive monitoring, ICU admission, or preemptive strategies to reduce complications. Notably, the availability of rapid IL-6 assays is increasing [4,17]. Bedside devices can now measure IL-6 qualitatively or quantitatively in under an hour, enabling real-time decision support. Early IL-6 measurement could be incorporated alongside lactate and base deficit as part of an “injury severity panel” to guide trauma resuscitation.

A clear example of IL-6’s diagnostic value is its role in guiding surgical strategy. Polytrauma patients often require operative fixation of fractures or hemorrhage control, but extensive surgery in an unstable patient can worsen outcomes due to the “second hit” phenomenon. IL-6 has been proposed as a criterion to help determine whether to proceed with immediate definitive surgery (early total care) or adopt staged procedures (damage control surgery/orthopedics) [11]. For example, a very high IL-6 level (>500 pg/mL) soon after injury indicates a severe inflammatory response, and performing prolonged surgery at that time could precipitate ARDS or MODS [11]. Surgeons can use this information to opt for temporary stabilization and defer definitive procedures until the inflammatory window subsides (typically 2–5 days after injury, once IL-6 and other markers normalize) [11]. This tailored approach, sometimes called “laboratory-guided resuscitation,” exemplifies the translational utility of IL-6: it goes beyond prognostication to directly inform management decisions that could improve outcomes.

Therapeutic targeting

The strong association between IL-6 and organ injury raises the question of whether IL-6 itself could serve as a therapeutic target. In other fields, IL-6 blockade has proven beneficial—for example, tocilizumab (an anti-IL-6 receptor antibody) is used in rheumatoid arthritis and has been lifesaving in cytokine release syndrome. In critical illness, IL-6 has been targeted in hyperinflammatory states such as COVID-19 ARDS, where trials have shown that IL-6 inhibitors can reduce mortality in severe cases [18]. This has sparked interest in whether modulating IL-6 could benefit trauma patients experiencing a “cytokine storm” after injury. Although no large clinical trials have tested IL-6 blockade in trauma, case series in other severe infections suggest it might attenuate systemic inflammation and prevent organ failure [19]. However, trauma is distinct from infection: IL-6 also plays essential roles in host defense and tissue repair. Excessive suppression of IL-6 could risk impaired immune responses or delayed wound healing. Thus, any therapeutic strategy targeting IL-6 in trauma would require a careful balance and likely need to be timed precisely (e.g., short-term blockade during the peak inflammatory phase).

Another therapeutic implication is using IL-6 levels to trigger adjunctive treatments. For instance, a trauma patient with extremely high IL-6 may be considered for enhanced immunomodulation, such as high-dose corticosteroids in select cases of early refractory shock or, in extreme SIRS, plasmapheresis. While these are not standard therapies, IL-6 provides a quantitative measure for identifying rare patients in whom experimental anti-inflammatory interventions might be justified. Similarly, IL-6 could be used to stratify patients in clinical trials, allowing enrollment or subgroup analysis based on IL-6 levels to enrich for those most likely to benefit, or to contextualize treatment effects in relation to baseline inflammation.

Diagnostic adjunct

IL-6 may also aid in diagnosing occult issues in trauma patients. For example, persistently elevated or rising IL-6 in the days following trauma can serve as an early indicator of complications such as nosocomial infection or missed injuries. If a patient’s IL-6 is not trending downward as expected by 72 hours, clinicians may be prompted to investigate for developing sepsis, hidden compartment syndromes, or other inflammatory foci. In essence, IL-6 could function as a “canary in the coal mine” during the ICU stay—its trajectory providing insight into whether the patient is truly recovering or entering a maladaptive inflammatory phase.

In conclusion, IL-6 has multiple translational applications: as a diagnostic tool for early risk stratification, as a guide for tailoring surgical and critical care strategies, and potentially as a therapeutic target or trigger for anti-inflammatory interventions. The early and dynamic information IL-6 provides can complement clinical judgment and conventional parameters, steering trauma care toward a more personalized, biology-driven paradigm. To fully realize these benefits, however, challenges in implementation must be addressed, as discussed below.

COMPARISON WITH OTHER INFLAMMATORY MARKERS

IL-6 is one of many inflammatory mediators released after trauma. The question then arises of how it compares to other markers in terms of prognostic utility.

Cytokines

In addition to IL-6, trauma researchers have examined cytokines such as TNF-α, IL-1β, IL-8, IL-10, and others. TNF-α and IL-1β are very early-response cytokines, but due to their short half-lives, they are often undetectable by the time patients arrive at the hospital. In contrast, IL-6 remains elevated longer and is more consistently measurable [4,17]. IL-8 (a proinflammatory chemokine) and IL-10 (an anti-inflammatory cytokine) also rise after trauma and have been associated with outcomes, but generally not as strongly as IL-6. For example, in the study by Frink et al. [9] involving major trauma patients, both IL-8 and IL-10 levels were higher in those who developed MODS, yet IL-6 had the highest predictive accuracy for MODS and mortality in a head-to-head comparison [10]. IL-10 is often elevated alongside IL-6 in severe trauma, reflecting the compensatory anti-inflammatory response. Some have proposed the IL-6 to IL-10 ratio as a marker of the balance between proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory responses, potentially indicating immune dysfunction if the ratio is skewed. However, in practice, IL-6 alone usually suffices, as it tends to correlate with these broader patterns (high IL-6 generally coincides with high IL-8 and IL-10 in severely injured patients) [9]. In summary, IL-6 has emerged as the most robust single cytokine predictor among those measured, due to its magnitude of change and timing.

Acute phase reactants

CRP is a well-known inflammatory marker that is routinely measured and is induced by IL-6. CRP levels reflect the impact of trauma and tissue damage and have been used as an indicator of surgical stress and injury severity [6,20–22]. However, CRP is a downstream marker; it rises more slowly (typically elevating by 4–12 hours and peaking around 24–72 hours after trauma) [6,21–23]. Because IL-6 triggers CRP production, CRP changes lag behind IL-6 changes. In the early hours after injury, IL-6 provides information that CRP cannot. By the time CRP is markedly elevated (day 2–3), many interventions or decisions (like whether the patient will develop MODS) have already been made or become apparent. That said, CRP is widely available and can be a rough surrogate for IL-6 in later phases if IL-6 assays are not accessible [24,25].

Procalcitonin (PCT) is another acute-phase protein, especially used to detect sepsis. PCT typically rises within 6 to 24 hours after severe trauma, peaking at 1 to 2 days, and can indicate infection or tissue necrosis. While PCT is valuable for diagnosing sepsis, IL-6 generally increases even earlier and in a broader array of inflammatory conditions (including both sterile injury and infection) [4]. Thus, IL-6 is more sensitive in the hyperacute phase, whereas PCT is more specific for bacterial complications.

Physiological markers

It is also relevant to compare IL-6 with physiological markers such as lactate and base deficit, which indicate shock and hypoperfusion. Lactate is a rapid marker of tissue hypoxia; elevated lactate on admission predicts worse outcomes. IL-6 complements this: for example, in the study by Rao et al. [10], both IL-6 and lactate correlated with ISS and MODS, but IL-6 provided additional predictive value and higher specificity for MODS when using optimal cutoffs. Lactate typically normalizes within 24 to 48 hours with effective resuscitation, whereas IL-6 may remain elevated if tissue injury persists or complications arise. Therefore, combining IL-6 with lactate could enhance prognostic accuracy—lactate reflecting the shock state and IL-6 capturing the inflammatory burden.

In summary, IL-6 stands out among trauma biomarkers for its early rise and strong correlation with outcomes. It increases sooner and more dramatically than most acute-phase proteins, and is more practical to measure in the clinical setting than transient cytokines like TNF-α. While other markers (IL-8, IL-10, CRP, PCT, and lactate) each have value, IL-6 provides a unifying signal that integrates both the extent of injury and the intensity of the host response. Many clinicians regard IL-6 as the “benchmark” inflammatory cytokine in trauma, against which others are compared [4,17]. Importantly, the optimal approach may ultimately involve a panel of markers for maximum prognostic precision. Nevertheless, if a single inflammatory marker is to be chosen for early risk assessment in polytrauma, the literature suggests that IL-6 is the most informative choice.

CHALLENGES AND LIMITATIONS IN THE CURRENT LITERATURE

Despite extensive research linking IL-6 to trauma outcomes, there are several challenges and limitations that must be acknowledged:

Heterogeneity of studies

Studies examining IL-6 in trauma vary widely in design, including different patient populations (blunt vs. penetrating trauma, civilian vs. military injuries), variability in the timing of blood sampling (on admission, at specific hour intervals, or with daily measurements), and differing outcome definitions. This heterogeneity complicates direct comparisons and may explain why some studies report stronger prognostic value for IL-6 than others. For example, IL-6’s predictive accuracy is highest when measured very early (within hours of injury), but not all studies obtain samples within this critical window.

Assay variability

A practical issue is that IL-6 assay methods differ substantially across laboratories [4]. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), point-of-care tests, and multiplex bead assays each have distinct sensitivities and calibration standards. It has been reported that measured IL-6 values can differ by more than 10-fold between assay kits using the same sample [26,27]. This lack of standardization means that absolute IL-6 cutoff values (such as 500 pg/mL) cannot be universally applied without context. Low IL-6 levels (e.g., <20 pg/mL) might be within the noise range for some assays, and some studies found numerically small differences near the detection limit between patient groups [26,27]. These technical limitations hinder the translation of research findings into clinical protocols. Standardized, rapid IL-6 assays are needed if IL-6 is to be widely adopted in trauma care.

Influence of confounders

IL-6 levels after trauma may be influenced by factors unrelated to the injury itself. Age, sex hormones, and comorbid conditions can affect cytokine responses. One study identified sex-related differences in IL-6 response, suggesting that men and women may react differently after trauma [4]. Moreover, interventions such as resuscitation, blood transfusion, or surgery during the first 24 hours can modulate cytokine levels; for instance, a patient who receives aggressive resuscitation may exhibit a different IL-6 trajectory than one who does not. These confounders complicate efforts to isolate the prognostic role of IL-6. High IL-6 levels may also reflect unmeasured factors, such as occult hemorrhage or the severity of brain injury (as IL-6 can cross into cerebrospinal fluid in neurotrauma). Future studies with larger sample sizes should perform multivariate analyses to adjust for these factors and further validate the independent predictive value of IL-6.

Redundancy and interplay of cytokines

The inflammatory response is highly redundant, with IL-6 being only one component of a complex network. Its prognostic value may overlap with that of other markers. Debate persists as to whether IL-6 is a causal driver of organ injury or primarily a correlated marker. For instance, blocking IL-6 may not completely prevent organ failure if other cytokines (such as IL-1, TNF, HMGB1, etc.) also play significant roles. Some patients with severe outcomes may have only moderately elevated IL-6 but very high levels of other inflammatory mediators. Thus, focusing exclusively on IL-6 could miss important aspects of the inflammatory response in certain cases. Integrating IL-6 into multibiomarker risk models might be more effective, but most existing literature assesses IL-6 in isolation.

Limited integration into clinical practice

Despite the strength of research evidence, IL-6 is not yet a routine test in trauma bays or ICUs outside of research settings. Barriers include the need for rapid turnaround (traditional laboratory IL-6 tests can take hours or days), cost concerns, and a general lack of familiarity among clinicians. Without established trauma-specific reference ranges or clear guidelines on how to act on a given IL-6 level, many providers are hesitant to incorporate it into practice. This creates a catch-22: broader clinical use would generate data needed to refine IL-6’s utility, but the lack of established protocols hinders its use. Ongoing studies are now evaluating IL-6-guided algorithms, and their outcomes will provide valuable insights.

Narrative bias and publication bias

Given the decades-long study of this field, positive findings (demonstrating that IL-6 predicts outcomes) are common in the literature, while studies with null results may be underreported. This publication bias can overstate the true effect of IL-6 as a prognostic marker. Additionally, many reviews (including this one) are narrative rather than systematic, which may inadvertently emphasize select high-impact studies. A formal systematic review or prospective meta-analysis would provide a more unbiased quantitative summary. The 2018 meta-analysis by Qiao et al. [8] represents a step in this direction, confirming many key associations but also noting where evidence remains inconclusive, such as for sepsis.

In summary, while IL-6 is a promising biomarker, the current evidence should be interpreted with these caveats in mind. The variability in measurements and patient factors, along with the need for standardized protocols, are critical challenges that must be resolved before IL-6 can be fully integrated into standard trauma care. Ongoing research and technological advancements—including point-of-care testing, multiplex panels, and personalized medicine approaches—are likely to address some of these limitations.

CONCLUSIONS

IL-6 has proven to be a valuable prognostic indicator in polytrauma patients, reflecting both the severity of injury and the intensity of the ensuing inflammatory response. High serum IL-6 levels within the first 24 hours after trauma are consistently correlated with worse outcomes, including the development of ARDS, MODS, and increased mortality [4,10]. These findings, replicated across diverse patient populations and settings, underscore IL-6 as a central biomarker that can help clinicians identify those at greatest risk and who may benefit from early, aggressive intervention. The translational utility of IL-6 is particularly noteworthy: by guiding clinical decisions such as triage to critical care, timing of surgeries, and tailoring resuscitation strategies, IL-6 has the potential to tangibly improve patient outcomes.

Looking forward, integrating IL-6 measurement into early trauma assessment could enhance traditional scoring systems and provide a more nuanced understanding of each patient’s condition. For instance, an IL-6-informed trauma score may better predict which patients will require advanced life support or are at risk for late complications. In the era of precision medicine, real-time biomarkers like IL-6 enable clinicians to move beyond one-size-fits-all protocols and instead tailor treatment intensity to the patient’s individual biological response. Furthermore, IL-6 may become a target for therapeutic intervention in the future, though additional research is required to establish safe and effective approaches in the trauma context.

In conclusion, IL-6 stands out as a pivotal prognostic biomarker in polytrauma: it is biologically relevant, measurable early, and strongly associated with critical clinical endpoints. While challenges remain in standardizing its use and fully elucidating its complex role, current evidence suggests that IL-6 offers significant promise for guiding early interventions and improving prognosis in severely injured patients. Embracing IL-6 in trauma care—supported by continued research and technological innovation—could translate into more timely treatments, a reduced incidence of organ failure, and, ultimately, lives saved [4,10]. The journey from bench to bedside is ongoing, but IL-6 has undeniably moved to the forefront as a beacon of the inflammatory response that can be harnessed to advance the care of critically injured patients.

ARTICLE INFORMATION

Author contributions

Conceptualization: NM, SH, BH; Formal analysis: NM, SH, HA, AAB, MA; Funding acquisition: BH; Investigation: NM, SH, BH; Methodology: NM, SH, BH; Project administration: all authors; Visualization: all authors; Writing–original draft: all authors; Writing–review & editing: all authors. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for this study.

Data availability

Data sharing is not applicable as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Fig. 1.

Conceptual model of serum interleukin-6 (IL-6) kinetics following polytrauma. In uncomplicated recovery, IL-6 peaks within 12 to 24 hours and declines by day 3. In patients who develop complications (e.g., multiple organ dysfunction syndrome), a biphasic pattern is observed with a secondary rise. Values modeled from aggregate trends reported in Okeny et al. [3], Jawa et al. [4], Maier et al. [5], Qiao et al. [8], and Frink et al. [9].

REFERENCES

• 1. Biffl WL, Moore EE, Moore FA, Peterson VM. Interleukin-6 in the injured patient: marker of injury or mediator of inflammation? Ann Surg 1996;224:647–64.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 2. Laishram A, Ruram A, Borgohain B, Laishram K. Serum interleukin-6 as an early indicator of trauma complications. Cureus 2024;16:e68606.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 3. Okeny PK, Ongom P, Kituuka O. Serum interleukin-6 level as an early marker of injury severity in trauma patients in an urban low-income setting: a cross-sectional study. BMC Emerg Med 2015;15:22.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
• 4. Jawa RS, Anillo S, Huntoon K, Baumann H, Kulaylat M. Interleukin-6 in surgery, trauma, and critical care part ii: clinical implications. J Intensive Care Med 2011;26:73–87.ArticlePubMedPMCLink
• 5. Maier B, Lefering R, Lehnert M, et al. Early versus late onset of multiple organ failure is associated with differing patterns of plasma cytokine biomarker expression and outcome after severe trauma. Shock 2007;28:668–74.ArticlePubMed
• 6. Gebhard F, Pfetsch H, Steinbach G, et al. Is interleukin 6 an early marker of injury severity following major trauma in humans? Arch Surg 2000;135:291–5.ArticlePubMed
• 7. Stensballe J, Christiansen M, Tønnesen E, et al. The early IL-6 and IL-10 response in trauma is correlated with injury severity and mortality. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2009;53:515–21.ArticlePubMed
• 8. Qiao Z, Wang W, Yin L, et al. Using IL-6 concentrations in the first 24 h following trauma to predict immunological complications and mortality in trauma patients: a meta-analysis. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 2018;44:679–87.ArticlePubMedPDF
• 9. Frink M, van Griensven M, Kobbe P, et al. Il-6 predicts organ dysfunction and mortality in patients with multiple injuries. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 2009;17:49.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 10. Rao A, Balabaskaran S, Abraham VT, Rajendran C, Govindaraju SK. Interleukin-6 and serum lactate as biomarkers in predicting morbidity and mortality among patients with polytrauma and multiple trauma. J Xiangya Med 2022;7:27.Article
• 11. Bates P, Parker P, McFadyen I, Pallister I. Demystifying damage control in musculoskeletal trauma. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2016;98:291–4.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 12. Aisiku IP, Yamal JM, Doshi P, et al. Plasma cytokines IL-6, IL-8, and IL-10 are associated with the development of acute respiratory distress syndrome in patients with severe traumatic brain injury. Crit Care 2016;20:288.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
• 13. Oh JW, Lee TY, Chae M. The practicality of interleukin-6 in prognosis of blunt chest trauma in Korea: a retrospective study. J Trauma Inj 2023;36:114–20.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
• 14. Kurt A, Turut H, Acipayam A, et al. Investigation of surfactant protein-d and interleukin-6 levels in patients with blunt chest trauma with multiple rib fractures and pulmonary contusions: a cross-sectional study in Black Sea Region of Turkey. BMJ Open 2016;6:e011797.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 15. Spindler-Vesel A, Wraber B, Vovk I, Kompan L. Intestinal permeability and cytokine inflammatory response in multiply injured patients. J Interferon Cytokine Res 2006;26:771–6.ArticlePubMed
• 16. Taniguchi M, Nakada TA, Shinozaki K, Mizushima Y, Matsuoka T. Association between increased blood interleukin-6 levels on emergency department arrival and prolonged length of intensive care unit stay for blunt trauma. World J Emerg Surg 2016;11:6.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 17. Watanabe E, Hirasawa H, Oda S, et al. Extremely high interleukin-6 blood levels and outcome in the critically ill are associated with tumor necrosis factor- and interleukin-1-related gene polymorphisms. Crit Care Med 2005;33:89–97.ArticlePubMed
• 18. Gandini L, Fior G, Schibler A, et al. Interleukin-6 inhibitors in non-COVID-19 ARDS: analyzing the past to step into the post-COVID-19 era. Crit Care 2023;27:124.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
• 19. Wang B, Wang Q, Liang Z, et al. Tocilizumab, an IL6-receptor antibody, proved effective as adjuvant therapy for cytokine storm induced by severe infection in patients with hematologic malignancy. Ann Hematol 2023;102:961–6.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
• 20. Hildebrandt U, Kessler K, Plusczyk T, et al. Comparison of surgical stress between laparoscopic and open colonic resections. Surg Endosc 2003;17:242–6.ArticlePubMedPDF
• 21. Sari R, Sevinc A. The effects of laparascopic cholecystectomy operation on C-reactive protein, hormones, and cytokines. J Endocrinol Invest 2004;27:106–10.ArticlePubMedPDF
• 22. Kushner I, Rzewnicki DL. The acute phase response: general aspects. Baillieres Clin Rheumatol 1994;8:513–30.ArticlePubMed
• 23. Schietroma M, Carlei F, Franchi L, et al. A comparison of serum interleukin-6 concentrations in patients treated by cholecystectomy via laparotomy or laparoscopy. Hepatogastroenterology 2004;51:1595–9.PubMed
• 24. Derhaschnig U, Bergmair D, Marsik C, et al. Effect of interleukin-6 blockade on tissue factor-induced coagulation in human endotoxemia. Crit Care Med 2004;32:1136–40.ArticlePubMed
• 25. Bataille R, Klein B. C-reactive protein levels as a direct indicator of interleukin-6 levels in humans in vivo. Arthritis Rheum 1992;35:982–4.ArticlePubMed
• 26. Pignatti P, Ciapponi L, Galle P, et al. High circulating levels of biologically inactive IL-6/SIL-6 receptor complexes in systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis: evidence for serum factors interfering with the binding to gp130. Clin Exp Immunol 2003;131:355–63.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
• 27. Corbi P, Rahmati M, Delwail A, et al. Circulating soluble gp130, soluble IL-6R, and IL-6 in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, with or without extracorporeal circulation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2000;18:98–103.ArticlePubMed

Figure & Data

References

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  

• The Importance of the “Damage Control” Strategy in Multiple Organ Injuries, Pathophysiology and Principles of Hemorrhage Control
  Oliwia Klimek, Jakub Dudek, Anna Czesyk, Bartosz Sierant, Wiktoria Górecka, Grzegorz Gogolewski, Tomasz Jurek, Zuzanna Ochocka, Amelia Jankowska
  Journal of Clinical Medicine.2026; 15(7): 2549.     CrossRef