4.6 Article

Erythrocyte mechanical fragility is increased in patients with type 2 diabetes

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Volume 23, Issue 2, Pages 150-153

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejim.2011.11.004

Keywords

Diabetes; Anemia; Erythrocytes; Hemolysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Anemia is common among patients with type 2 diabetes. We determined whether type 2 diabetic patients significantly differed in erythrocyte mechanical fragility as compared with nondiabetic subjects. Methods: We recruited 25 Caucasian patients with type 2 diabetes (14 men and 11 women; mean age 58 +/- 8 years) and 25 age-, race- and sex-matched nondiabetic individuals. The fragility of erythrocytes was tested by inducing mechanical hemolysis by double aspiration of K(2)EDTA blood through a 0.5 mL insulin syringe equipped with a very thin needle. The plasma was then separated from the blood cells by centrifugation at 2000 xg for 15 min at room temperature. A Beckman Coulter DxC 800 was used to measure the hemolysis index by direct spectrophotometry. Results: Compared with matched nondiabetic controls, type 2 diabetic patients had a significantly increased mechanical fragility of erythrocytes (hemolysis index ratio 21 +/- 13 vs. 14 +/- 10, p=0.02). Univariable linear regression analysis revealed that there was a strong positive association between percent hemolysis and fasting plasma glucose (r=0.669, p<0.001) and hemoglobin A1c (r=0.549, p<0.005) in type 2 diabetic subjects, but not in matched nondiabetic controls. Conclusions: Our data suggest that patients with type 2 diabetes have a significantly higher erythrocyte mechanical fragility than matched nondiabetic subjects, and that fasting plasma glucose is the strongest correlate of increased mechanical fragility of erythrocytes in this patients group. (C) 2011 European Federation of Internal Medicine. Published by Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved.

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