| Literature DB >> 29286326 |
Emrah Aydin1,2, Omer Faruk Beser3, Soner Sazak4, Ensar Duras5.
Abstract
A quantifiable, quick, inexpensive and reproducible predictor is needed to decide if caustic substance ingestion results in burn regardless of the symptoms. A multicenter cohort study was conducted to investigate the predictive value of red cell distribution width (RDW) in detecting the esophageal burns. The data of 174 patients were retrospectively analyzed. Eleven patients were excluded due to inability to define the substance ingested. Complete blood count (CBC) was taken at admission, and an esophagogastroduodenoscopy was performed within the first 12-24 h in all patients, regardless of their symptoms. The age and gender of the patients, the types of substances ingested, the parameters in the CBC and the severity of the esophageal injury were correlated. Esophageal burns were diagnosed in 38 of 163 patients (23.3%). The risk of esophageal burn with RDW values below 12.20 was significantly lower. Multivariate analysis showed that RDW was the most significant predictor of esophageal burn (p = 0.000, odds ratio (OR) 7.74 (95% confidence interval (CI), 3.02-19.9)). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis demonstrated 84.2% sensitivity at a cut-off value of 12.20 for RDW. The results showed that CBC parameters could avoid unnecessary esophagogastroduodenoscopy. The RDW values regardless of the symptomatology is a good predictor of esophageal burns, and an RDW value over 12.20 shows the increased risk of esophageal burn.Entities:
Keywords: RDW; caustic substance ingestion; esophageal burn
Year: 2017 PMID: 29286326 PMCID: PMC5789287 DOI: 10.3390/children5010005
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Children (Basel) ISSN: 2227-9067
The mean age of the patients per burn degree.
| Age | 95% CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| No burn | 3.29 ± 3.21 | 2.72–3.86 | |
| Burn | Grade 1 | 3.73 ± 3.59 | 1.31–6.14 |
| Grade 2 | 4.32 ± 4.55 | 2.30–6.34 | |
| Grade 3 | 5.25 ± 4.60 | −36.05–46.55 |
Values expressed as means ± standard deviations, CI: confidence interval.
Demographic features of the patients.
| Burn (+) | Burn (−) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| age | 4.03 ± 4.04 | 3.29 ± 3.21 | 0.246 |
| gender | 0.925 | ||
| male | 21 (55.3%) | 68 (54.4%) | |
| female | 17 (44.7%) | 57 (45.6%) | |
| type of substance | 0.742 | ||
| acid | 12 (31.6%) | 36 (28.8%) | |
| base | 26 (68.4%) | 89 (71.2%) |
Values expressed as means ± standard deviations or count (percentage of group).
Laboratory values of the patients.
| Burn (+) | Burn (−) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| wbc | 10,760.26 ± 3211.55 | 11,192.11 ± 3602.84 | 0.508 |
| plt | 337,157.89 ± 78,561.46 | 341,478.16 ± 91,441.24 | 0.793 |
| hgb | 12.98 ± 1.13 | 12.84 ± 1.40 | 0.575 |
| htc | 35.90 ± 3.07 | 37.87 ± 3.66 | 0.704 |
| mcv | 85.28 ± 4.26 | 84.23 ± 4.17 | 0.153 |
| rdw | 14.63 ± 5.45 | 11.99 ± 1.40 | 0.000 * |
| mpw | 8.61 ± 1.69 | 8.39 ± 1.60 | 0.478 |
| pdw | 13.86 ± 4.47 | 13.44 ± 4.23 | 0.606 |
| lym | 5.35 ± 2.42 | 5.44 ± 2.31 | 0.835 |
| mono | 0.86 ± 0.31 | 0.83 ± 0.30 | 0.600 |
| neut | 4.19 ± 1.7 | 4.55 ± 2.71 | 0.451 |
| eos | 0.32 ± 0.23 | 0.33 ± 0.36 | 0.850 |
| baso | 0.11 ± 0.2 | 0.11 ± 0.17 | 0.882 |
| neut/lym | 1.05 ± 0.86 | 1.04 ± 0.98 | 0.930 |
Values expressed as means ± standard deviations, * (95% CI 12.83–16.42), wbc: white blood cell, plt: platelet, hgb: hemoglobin, mcv: mean corpuscular volume, rdw: red cell distribution width, mpw: mean platelet volume, pdw: platelet distribution width, lym: lymphocyte, mono: monocyte, neut: neutrophil, eos: eosinophil, baso: basophil.
Figure 1Distribution of red cell distribution width (RDW) between groups and proportional hazards (COX) regression hazard analysis.