Red Blood Cell Distribution Width as a Pragmatic Marker for Outcome in Pediatric Critical Illness

Ramby, A. L.; Goodman, D. M.; Wald, E. L.; Weiss, S. L.

PLoS One. 2015 Jun 10; 10(6):e0129258


BACKGROUND: Red cell distribution width (RDW) is a routine laboratory measure associated with poor outcomes in adult critical illness. OBJECTIVE: We determined the utility of RDW as an early pragmatic biomarker for outcome in pediatric critical illness. METHODS: We used multivariable logistic regression to test the association of RDW on the first day of pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) admission with prolonged PICU length of stay (LOS) >48 hours and mortality. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for RDW was compared to the Pediatric Index of Mortality (PIM)-2 score. RESULTS: Over a 13-month period, 596 unique patients had RDW measured on the first day of PICU admission. Sepsis was an effect modifier for LOS >48 hours but not mortality. In sepsis, RDW was not associated with LOS >48 hours. For patients without sepsis, each 1% increase in RDW was associated with 1.17 (95% CI 1.06, 1.30) increased odds of LOS >48 hours. In all patients, RDW was independently associated with PICU mortality (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.09, 1.43). The AUROC for RDW to predict LOS >48 hours and mortality was 0.61 (95% CI 0.56, 0.66) and 0.65 (95% CI 0.55, 0.75), respectively. Although the AUROC for mortality was comparable to PIM-2 (0.75, 95% CI 0.66, 0.83; p = 0.18), RDW did not increase the discriminative utility when added to PIM-2. Despite the moderate AUROC, RDW <13.4% (upper limit of lower quartile) had 53% risk of LOS >48 hours and 3.3% risk of mortality compared to patients with an RDW >15.7% (lower limit of upper quartile) who had 78% risk of LOS >48 hours and 12.9% risk of mortality (p<0.001 for both outcomes). CONCLUSIONS: Elevated RDW was associated with outcome in pediatric critical illness and provided similar prognostic information as the more complex PIM-2 severity of illness score. Distinct RDW thresholds best discriminate low- versus high-risk patients.

Read More on PubMed