Thrombocytopenia is not mandatory to diagnose haemolytic and uremic syndrome.
Détails
ID Serval
serval:BIB_17313072E5D7
Type
Article: article d'un périodique ou d'un magazine.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Titre
Thrombocytopenia is not mandatory to diagnose haemolytic and uremic syndrome.
Périodique
BMC nephrology
ISSN
1471-2369 (Electronic)
ISSN-L
1471-2369
Statut éditorial
Publié
Date de publication
08/01/2013
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
14
Pages
3
Langue
anglais
Notes
Publication types: Journal Article
Publication Status: epublish
Publication Status: epublish
Résumé
Hemolytic and uremic syndrome (HUS) diagnosis involves association of non immune hemolytic anemia, thrombocytopenia, and renal failure. HUS without thrombocytopenia has been observed, we call it partial HUS. Its real frequency and outcome are unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of patients with normal platelets count in two HUS cohorts and to compare their outcome to patients with thrombocytopenia.
We retrospectively identified HUS diagnosis in two different cohorts. The first cohort was from a single center and consisted of all cases of HUS whatever the aetiology, the second was multicentric and consisted of atypical HUS patients. These cohorts were divided into two groups depending on the presence or absence of thrombocytopenia. Clinical and biological data were compared between thrombopenic and non thrombopenic group.
We identified 13% (20/150) of patients with normal platelets count: 10 episodes (18%) of HUS in six patients (14%) in the monocentric cohort and 14 patients (13%) with 17 episodes (12%) in the multicentric cohort of atypical HUS. Groups differed in platelets count and LDH level. In both cohorts, renal outcome was similar to patient presenting with thrombocytopenia.
HUS with normal platelets count is not infrequent. Relative to classical clinical presentation of HUS, partial HUS has similar characteristics and identical poor renal outcome and so must be treated in the same way.
We retrospectively identified HUS diagnosis in two different cohorts. The first cohort was from a single center and consisted of all cases of HUS whatever the aetiology, the second was multicentric and consisted of atypical HUS patients. These cohorts were divided into two groups depending on the presence or absence of thrombocytopenia. Clinical and biological data were compared between thrombopenic and non thrombopenic group.
We identified 13% (20/150) of patients with normal platelets count: 10 episodes (18%) of HUS in six patients (14%) in the monocentric cohort and 14 patients (13%) with 17 episodes (12%) in the multicentric cohort of atypical HUS. Groups differed in platelets count and LDH level. In both cohorts, renal outcome was similar to patient presenting with thrombocytopenia.
HUS with normal platelets count is not infrequent. Relative to classical clinical presentation of HUS, partial HUS has similar characteristics and identical poor renal outcome and so must be treated in the same way.
Mots-clé
Adult, Cohort Studies, Comorbidity, Diagnosis, Differential, Female, France/epidemiology, Hemolytic-Uremic Syndrome/diagnosis, Hemolytic-Uremic Syndrome/epidemiology, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Platelet Count, Reproducibility of Results, Risk Factors, Sensitivity and Specificity, Thrombocytopenia/diagnosis, Thrombocytopenia/epidemiology, Young Adult
Pubmed
Web of science
Open Access
Oui
Création de la notice
29/02/2024 14:23
Dernière modification de la notice
01/03/2024 8:07