Lab results - looking for opinions [PLEASE READ 1ST POST]

Maria Fisher46 said:Excuse me,

was this treatment actually ordered by her primary care physician?

With results like these and symptoms lasting this long, she really ought to be in the hospital.

Yeah, the GP. She went to the ER, but they basically told her nothing, sent her home, and just handed her some antibiotics.

Frank Anderson9 said:Yeah, her primary care doctor. She went through the ER, but they didn't really find anything significant, sent her home, and just prescribed an antibiotic.

At a hospital ER?

Maria Fisher46 said:Like, in an ER?

Yeah

Since we haven't established a fever pattern, the illness has been dragging on for two weeks. Lab results are trending downward, and the antibiotic clearly isn't cutting it—we should have seen improvement within a 72-hour window. In my view, hospitalization is the only real path forward. I routinely admit patients with this exact profile. Even the initial urinalysis didn't point toward a urinary tract infection.

Maria Fisher46 said:Since we can't pin down whether there's an actual fever, the illness just drags on for two weeks. Lab results keep trending the wrong way, and clearly, the antibiotics aren't doing the trick—usually, you'd see some improvement within 72 hours. In my book, hospitalization is the only real move here. I end up admitting patients like this all the time. Plus, those initial urine tests weren't even pointing toward a urinary tract infection to begin with.

Thanks for the input. At the hospital, along with a few other doctors we reached out to, everyone was dead set on a UTI, while one specialist was looking at the liver instead. Honestly, after seeing a clean ultrasound, we were also leaning toward a urinary issue or something similar—especially since the lab work shows the urine levels are actually improving now that they're on antibiotics.

To follow up on yesterday's update—during today's checkup with the OB-GYN, they found a significant amount of pus, so she’s being sent back to the hospital again.

I’d be grateful if someone could walk me through these blood results. I can see for myself that my cholesterol and liver enzymes are high, but I'm not really sure what to make of all that or the hematology report where several things are elevated too. What does this actually point to? Just for context, I'm 51.
Thanks in advance.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S23 using Reddit

Anthony Wood11 said:Hey there!
Can someone take a look at my blood work? Should I be worried?

https://ibb.co/PYLZjqC
https://ibb.co/8Nnc1z0

edit. For context—I'm 38, in pretty good shape, hit the gym regularly, and don't really have any specific symptoms. Just been feeling a bit wiped out in the afternoons over the last two weeks, but I’m guessing that’s just due to lack of sleep and stress. Also, my GGT has been slightly elevated like this for about 5 years now—usually hovering somewhere between 73-83. My internist didn't think much of it back then.

I'm seeing slightly elevated eosinophils here—that could definitely be an allergy. An allergy might actually be what's causing that mild fatigue you mentioned.

steeleagle152 said:I’d be super grateful if someone could help me make sense of these blood results. I can see my cholesterol and liver enzymes are up, but I’m not really sure what to make of it—especially looking at the hematology side where a few things are elevated too. What does this all point to? Just for context, I’m 51.
Thanks in advance.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S23 using Reddit

High white blood cell counts can sometimes signal a bacterial infection, but as for the stuff in red, I'm not totally sure. From what I can tell, there isn't a CRP result listed, which is usually the main indicator for inflammation or infection.

Maria Fisher46 said:Dear patient,

The normal calprotectin levels, along with a normal CRP and ESR, suggest there is a low probability that your gastrointestinal issues are linked to inflammatory bowel disease. That is what can be inferred from that specific portion of the results. However, we cannot determine the actual cause of these symptoms based solely on this data.

Your low vitamin D concentrations indicate a deficiency that requires treatment with vitamin D supplements. Given how extremely low your levels are, it would be best to start treatment with 50,000 units weekly for about 6 to 8 weeks, then transition to a maintenance dose. For a prescription, an oral solution like D-vital would work.

Regarding the nodules, this finding doesn't provide any clues as to what might be causing them at this stage. One possibility could be calcium deposition resulting from prolonged vitamin D deficiency—which could trigger secondary hyperparathyroidism—though I don't suspect that is likely in your case. Still, after a physical exam, it might make sense to check your calcium, PTH, and magnesium levels. Ultimately, a clinical examination and a biopsy of the lesions remain the gold standard diagnostic methods.

Many thanks!

My gastroenterologist wrote this under the diagnosis on my results:

SIC
Gastropathia vs.

I've basically figured out that I'm dealing with Irritable Bowel Syndrome, but what on earth does "gastropathia vs." actually mean?

Maria Fisher46 said:To whom it may concern,

Was this specific testing ordered based on a recommendation from your primary care physician?

Given these lab results and how long you've been dealing with this, hospitalization is honestly what's required here.

I have to agree with that assessment.

Sent from my iPhone using Reddit

So, my doctor ordered an immunoelectrophoresis protein test along with a whole bunch of other stuff—and now, staring at this mountain of lab results I just got back, I’m honestly not even sure if I actually found the one for the immunoelectrophoresis. Can anyone tell me if "(S) Monoclonal protein - immunotyping" is what I'm looking for?

jaderanger6 said:My gastroenterologist wrote this under the diagnosis on my results:

SIC
Gastropathy vs.

I figured out the "vs." part means Irritable Bowel Syndrome, but what exactly is gastropathy?

"Gastropathy" is just a broad medical term for stomach issues, and "vrs." is a Latin abbreviation that translates to probably.

jaderanger6 said:The doctor ordered immunoelectrophoresis for proteins along with several other tests. Looking at this mountain of paperwork, I can't tell if I actually got the immunoelectrophoresis done. Can anyone tell me if "(S) Monoclonal protein - immunotyping" is the same thing?

Monoclonal protein - immunotyping is an immunofixation test. Immunoelectrophoresis itself involves measuring IgA, IgM, and IgG. It’s likely the doctor ordered both, but they aren't the exact same procedure.

Something about my old lab results is really throwing me for a loop...

Ever since the summer of 2011, I’ve been dealing with these vague digestive issues. (The symptoms have fluctuated quite a bit over the years—diarrhea for a year straight, weight loss, and so on...)

On December 29, 2011, I did a stool test for Helicobacter, which came back negative.

Then, on November 7, 2013, I underwent a gastroscopy. It showed "minor ulceration" located right at the cardia. They took a biopsy of that ulceration, along with a sample from the duodenum because they suspected celiac disease.

The pathologist wrote this in the report:



Now, two things are specifically bothering me here:

1. Why isn't there any mention of celiac disease?
I'm pretty sure I was sent for the gastroscopy due to suspicions of celiac, so why didn't the pathologist note anything regarding that?

2. This last line regarding H.p...
"rare bacteria resembling H.p."

Why "resembling" H.p.? Does that mean the bacteria looked like Helicobacter but weren't actually it? Or is that just some standard medical jargon used in pathology reports?

If it actually *was* H.p., how is it possible that they found it now, when I had a negative result for H.p. two years prior (about six months after my symptoms first started)?

I realize those stool tests are roughly 90% accurate, so there's always a slim chance of a false negative. However, I went ahead and did that same stool test twice more after that (once on February 20, 2014, and again on December 18, 2014), and both times were negative. To top it off, I wasn't even prescribed any antibiotics for these bacteria following the biopsy.

So, if three different tests said there was no H.p., is it possible that the bacteria found during the biopsy were actually something else entirely?

And this part about "rare bacteria"—does "rare" mean there were very few of them present, or that they belong to a rare species of bacteria?

Scott Collins2 said:High leukocyte counts might point toward a bacterial infection, though I'm not really sure about what's going on with this specific blood work. From what I can see, there isn't a CRP reading here, which usually helps indicate if there's an infection present.

I'm not sick, and I haven't been feeling unwell lately, but I was wondering if these elevated levels could maybe be because I don't have a spleen? I actually had a splenectomy about nine years ago.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S23 using Reddit

David Flores68 said:Look, two things are bothering me here:

1. why isn't there any mention of celiac disease?
I think I was sent for a gastroscopy because of suspected celiac disease, so why didn't the pathologist write anything about it?

Sir,

It’s not mentioned because celiac disease doesn't show up through specific changes in the histological findings of the esophagus—it shows up in the small intestine. Changes in the esophagus related to celiac aren't specific; they can look just like changes caused by acid reflux.

2. This last line regarding H.p.
"rare bacteria similar to H.p."

Why "similar" to H.p.? Does that mean the bacteria looked like H.p. but weren't actually H.p.? Or is this just standard phrasing in a pathology report?

Strictly speaking, there are other groups of spiral bacteria that look very much like Helicobacter pylori—take Helicobacter felis or Helicobacter heilmannii, for example. The pathologist is clearly being cautious, making it clear that the microorganisms they observed might not actually be Helicobacter pylori. In this context, "rare" means they were few in number. Therefore, based solely on this finding, it's impossible to say with absolute certainty whether we're dealing with an infection caused by Helicobacter pylori or something else.

steeleagle152 said:I’m not sick, nor have I been lately, but I’m wondering if these elevated values could be because I don't have a spleen? I had a splenectomy about 9 years ago.

Ma'am,

Given what you mentioned and following the guidelines in the opening post of this thread—where we ask for context regarding why tests were ordered, any existing conditions, medications, or even smoking habits—it’s clear that all these factors can shift lab results. Without that context, interpretation isn't accurate.

In short: there's no pathology in the liver panel. The GGT result is completely irrelevant here, and the cholesterol is only marginally off. Nothing to worry about yet, though suggesting lifestyle and dietary adjustments is always good practice.

Regarding the blood work, mild thrombocytosis is actually expected in someone who has undergone a splenectomy; such individuals may also show slightly higher leukocyte counts. You didn't mention the reason for the splenectomy (was it trauma?), and blood profiles can vary depending on why the organ was removed.

Typically, one sees mild leukocytosis (usually not exceeding 15 x 10^9/L), and the differential usually shows lymphocytosis (lymphocytes around 60%). In your case, however, neutrophilia is dominant. Neutrophilia can occur, and in most patients, it's transient and mild to moderate, though in some, it can persist longer. It's vital to know what your previous blood work looked like—have you had any tests in the last 9 years? We also need to consider your history: smoking, medications, physical activity levels, etc. All of this matters for an accurate reading.

And if I may ask, why is the photo so small? It's quite difficult to make out the numbers...

Maria Fisher46 said:Dear sir,

Nothing is specified because celiac disease doesn't manifest through specific histological changes in the esophagus, but rather in the small intestine. Esophageal changes related to celiac disease aren't unique—they can easily mimic changes caused by acid reflux.

Strictly speaking, there are other groups of spiral bacteria that look remarkably similar to Helicobacter pylori—for instance, Helicobacter felis or Helicobacter heilmannii—and the pathologist was clearly trying to be cautious by noting that the microorganisms observed might not actually represent Helicobacter pylori. In this context, "rare" simply means they were few in number. Therefore, based solely on this finding, it’s impossible to say with absolute certainty whether we are dealing with an infection caused by Helicobacter pylori or something else.

Thank you!

Given that those bacteria were found within the ulceration at the cardia, is it possible to assume the bacteria caused the ulcer, rather than celiac disease or reflux?

What do you think the next steps should be, considering these results? I suspect those three stool tests for H. pylori came back negative precisely because we're looking at a different type of spiral bacteria (or perhaps the test is sensitive to all of them?). Isn't it essential to identify exactly which bacteria we're dealing with and eradicate them? My doctor hasn't prescribed any antibiotics, nor have they pursued the bacterial question any further.

Something occurred to me regarding this whole mess with the celiac findings and the samples. The physician who performed the endoscopy definitely took a duodenal biopsy (here is his report)...



...however, the only report I actually received from the pathologist is the one from my previous post, titled "esophagus biopsy" (even though it mentions the tissue corresponds to the gastric mucosa, I assume the mucosa is essentially the same in the esophagus). There is absolutely no mention of the duodenum or celiac disease. Is it possible that the pathologist processed the duodenal samples, but I was mistakenly handed only the report for the tissue from the cardia? I remember the technician spent quite a while searching for the results—perhaps there were two separate papers (esophagus and duodenum)—and she accidentally gave me just the esophagus one?

Maria Fisher46 said:Hi there,

Because of what you mentioned, and like I said in the opening post, I really need some context. It’s hard to make sense of anything without knowing why you even got these tests done, what medical conditions you're dealing with, if you're on any meds, or if you smoke. All of that stuff can totally mess with lab results, so interpreting them without that info isn't really accurate.

Basically, your liver panel looks fine. That GGT result doesn't really matter here, and your cholesterol is only slightly off, so there's nothing to worry about right now—though it's always a good idea to look at diet and lifestyle changes.

Regarding the blood work, seeing a slight elevation in platelets is pretty normal for someone who's had a splenectomy, and those people can sometimes have higher leukocyte counts too. You didn't mention why you had the spleen removed (was it trauma?), because blood work patterns after a splenectomy can vary depending on how it happened.

Usually, you might see mild leukocytosis (typically not over 15 x 10^9/L), and the differential usually shows lymphocytosis—with lymphocytes around 60%—but in your case, neutrophilia is the main thing. Neutrophilia happens too, and for most people, it's just temporary and mild to moderate, though it can stick around longer for some. That's why it's important to know what your blood work looked like before; have you had any tests in the last 9 years? Also, things like smoking, medications, and how active you are all matter when we're trying to read these numbers.

And if you don't mind me asking, why is the photo so small? I'm having a hard time making out the numbers...

I've had blood work done before, but nothing this detailed. Nobody ever sent me anything like this. My CRP has been consistently high ever since my splenectomy (from a car accident). It goes from 15 up to even higher, but it usually hovers somewhere between 15 and 20. I don't smoke or drink. I am overweight, and I stay active through my job since I don't have a desk job. I only take medication for high blood pressure, and occasionally Praxiten (maybe three or four times a month) because I work three shifts, and if I can't sleep after a night shift, I'll take one. I'm not sure why the photo is so small... maybe it's because I took it with my phone for the forum.
Thanks for the explanations.

Samsung Galaxy S23 using Reddit