4.6 Article

The Predictive Role of Red Cell Distribution Width in Mortality among Chronic Kidney Disease Patients

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 11, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0162025

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Recently, accumulating evidence has demonstrated that RDW independently predicts clinically important outcomes in many populations. However, the role of RDW has not been elucidated in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients. We conducted the present study with the aim to evaluate the predictive value of RDW in CKD patients. Methods A retrospective observational cohort study of 1075 stage 3-5 CKD patients was conducted in a medical center. The patients' baseline information included demographic data, laboratory values, medications, and comorbid conditions. The upper limit of normal RDW value (14.9%) was used to divide the whole population. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to determine the independent predictors of mortality. Results Of the 1075 participants, 158 patients (14.7%) died over a mean follow-up of approximately 2.35 years. The crude mortality rate was significantly higher in the high RDW group (high RDW group, 22.4%; low RDW group 11%, p <0.001). From the adjusted model, the high RDW group was correlated with a hazard ratio of 2.19 for overall mortality as compared with the low RDW group (95% CI = 1.53-3.09, p<0.001). In addition, the high RDW group was also associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease (HR = 2.28, 95% CI = 1.14-4.25, p = 0.019) and infection (HR = 1.9, 95% CI = 1.15-3.14, p = 0.012)) related mortality in comparison with the low RDW group. Conclusions In stage 3-5 CKD patients, RDW was associated with patient mortality of all-cause, cardiovascular disease and infection. RDW should be considered as a clinical predictor for mortality when providing healthcare to CKD patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available