3.8 Article

Flow-cytometric analysis of erythrocytes and reticulocytes in congenital dyserythropoietic anaemia type II (CDA II): value in differential diagnosis with hereditary spherocytosis

期刊

CLINICAL AND LABORATORY HAEMATOLOGY
卷 23, 期 1, 页码 7-13

出版社

BLACKWELL SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2257.2001.00354.x

关键词

anemia; reticulocytes; erythrocytes; erythrocyte indices; dyserythropoietic; congenital spherocytosis; hereditary

资金

  1. Telethon [E.0645] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Congenital dyserythropoietic anaemia type II (CDA II) is the most common congenital dyserythropoietic anaemia. CDA II is frequently misdiagnosed as Hereditary Spherocytosis (HS) due to the presence of mild chronic haemolytic anaemia with splenomegaly, increased osmotic fragility, and presence of microspherocytes. Accurate diagnosis of CDA II is important to prevent severe iron overload. Erythrocyte and reticulocyte indices were assessed in 10 patients from six families with CDA II, 18 patients from eight families with HS, and 50 normal controls. Characteristic increases in distribution width were present in CDA II for cell volume (RDW, anisocytosis) and in HS for cell haemoglobin concentration (HDW, anisochromia), resulting in an RDW/HDW ratio which was significantly greater in CDA than HS (P < 0.0002). A cut-off value for RDW/HDW of 5.34 resulted in 89% sensitivity and 70% specificity in distinguishing CDA II from HS. Distribution width for cell haemoglobin content of reticulocytes (CHDWr) was characteristically increased in CDA II, resulting in a CHDW/CHDWr ratio significantly lower in CDA II than HS (P < 0.0002). A cut-off value of 0.98 provided 89% sensitivity and 80% specificity in distinguishing CDA II from HS. These differences in distribution widths of flow-cytometric parameters of reticulocytes and mature erythrocytes reflect the different pathogeneses of the two diseases and are helpful for the differential diagnosis of these two conditions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据