Submit a comment
Abstract
BACKGROUND. The red cell distribution width (RDW) is associated with health outcomes. Whether non-RDW risk information is contained in RBC sizes is unknown. This study evaluated the association of the percentage of extreme macrocytic RBCs (%Macro, RBC volume > 120 fl) and microcytic RBCs (%Micro, RBC volume < 60 fl) and the RDW–size distribution (RDW-sd) with mortality and morbidity. METHODS. Patients (females, n = 165,770; males, n = 100,210) at Intermountain Healthcare were studied if they had a hematology panel between May 2014 and September 2016. Adjusted sex-specific associations of %Macro/%Micro and RDW-sd with mortality and 33 morbidities were evaluated. RESULTS. Among females with fourth-quartile values of %Macro quartile and %Micro (referred to throughout as 4/4), there was an average of 7.2 morbidities versus 2.9 in the lowest risk (LR1) categories, 1/1, 1/2, 2/1, and 2/2 (P < 0.001). Among males, those in the 4/4 category had 8.0 morbidities, while those in the LR1 had 3.4 (P < 0.001). Cox regressions found %Macro/%Micro (4/4 vs. LR1, females: hazard ratio [HR] = 1.97 [95% CI = 1.53, 2.54]; males: HR = 2.17 [CI = 1.72, 2.73]), RDW-sd (quartile 4 vs. 1, females: HR = 1.33 [CI = 1.04, 1.69]; males: HR = 1.41 [CI = 1.10, 1.80]), and RDW (quartile 4 vs. 1, females: HR = 1.59 [CI = 1.26, 2.00]; males: HR = 1.23 [CI = 0.99, 1.52]) independently predicted mortality. Limitations include that the observational design did not reveal causality and unknown confounders may be unmeasured. CONCLUSIONS. Concomitantly elevated %Macro and %Micro predicted the highest mortality risk and the greatest number of morbidities, revealing predictive ability of RBC volume beyond what is measured clinically. Mechanistic investigations are needed to explain the biological basis of these observations. FUNDING. This study was supported by internal Intermountain Heart Institute funds and in-kind support from Sysmex America Inc.
Authors
Benjamin D. Horne, Joseph B. Muhlestein, Sterling T. Bennett, Joseph Boone Muhlestein, Kurt R. Jensen, Diane Marshall, Tami L. Bair, Heidi T. May, John F. Carlquist, Matthew Hegewald, Stacey Knight, Viet T. Le, T. Jared Bunch, Donald L. Lappé, Jeffrey L. Anderson, Kirk U. Knowlton
Guidelines
The Editorial Board will only consider comments that are deemed relevant and of interest to readers. The Journal will not post data that have not been subjected to peer review; or a comment that is essentially a reiteration of another comment.
- Comments appear on the Journal’s website and are linked from the original article’s web page.
- Authors are notified by email if their comments are posted.
- The Journal reserves the right to edit comments for length and clarity.
- No appeals will be considered.
- Comments are not indexed in PubMed.
Specific requirements
- Maximum length, 400 words
- Entered as plain text or HTML
- Author’s name and email address, to be posted with the comment
- Declaration of all potential conflicts of interest (even if these are not ultimately posted); see the Journal’s conflict-of-interest policy
- Comments may not include figures
