D-dimer diagnostic role in thromboembolism: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Newer edit →
VisualWikitext
Rim Halaby (talk | contribs)
CMEUser, Bureaucrats, nocaptcha, Administrators
27,346 edits
Created page with "__NOTOC__ {{D-dimer}} {{CMG}} ==Overview== ==References== {{Reflist|2}} Category:Laboratory Test Category:Chemical pathology Category:Hematology Category:Fibr..."
 
Rim Halaby (talk | contribs)
CMEUser, Bureaucrats, nocaptcha, Administrators
27,346 edits
No edit summary
Line 4: Line 4:


==Overview==
==Overview==
== D-dimer and Thromboembolism==
=== Abnormal Levels ===
[[D-dimer|Plasma D-dimer]] levels > 500 ng/mL are abnormal.<ref name="pmid15096330">{{cite journal |author=Stein PD, Hull RD, Patel KC, Olson RE, Ghali WA, Brant R, Biel RK, Bharadia V, Kalra NK |title=D-dimer for the exclusion of acute venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism: a systematic review |journal=[[Annals of Internal Medicine]] |volume=140 |issue=8 |pages=589–602 |year=2004 |month=April |pmid=15096330 |doi= |url= |accessdate=2012-05-07}}</ref>
=== Sensitivity and Specificity ===
====Sensitivity<ref name="pmid15096330">{{cite journal |author=Stein PD, Hull RD, Patel KC, Olson RE, Ghali WA, Brant R, Biel RK, Bharadia V, Kalra NK |title=D-dimer for the exclusion of acute venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism: a systematic review |journal=[[Annals of Internal Medicine]] |volume=140 |issue=8 |pages=589–602 |year=2004 |month=April |pmid=15096330 |doi= |url= |accessdate=2012-05-07}}</ref>====
[[ELISA]] ''(p=0.020)'', [[ELISA|quantitative rapid ELISA]] ''(p=0.016)'' and [[ELISA|semi-quantitative ELISA]] ''(p=0.047)'' are shown to be statistically superior to [[agglutination|whole-blood agglutination]].
====Specificity<ref name="pmid15096330">{{cite journal |author=Stein PD, Hull RD, Patel KC, Olson RE, Ghali WA, Brant R, Biel RK, Bharadia V, Kalra NK |title=D-dimer for the exclusion of acute venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism: a systematic review |journal=[[Annals of Internal Medicine]] |volume=140 |issue=8 |pages=589–602 |year=2004 |month=April |pmid=15096330 |doi= |url= |accessdate=2012-05-07}}</ref>====
[[ELISA|Qualitative rapid ELISA]] has shown to be statistically superior to [[ELISA]] ''(p=0.004)'', [[ELISA|quantitative rapid ELISA]] ''(p=0.002)'', [[ELISA|semi-quantitative rapid ELISA]] ''(p=0.001)'', [[latex agglutination test|quantitative]] ''(p=0.005)'' and [[latex agglutination test|semi-quantitative]] latex agglutination assays ''(p=0.019)''.
{| border="1"
|+
! Method !! Sensitivity (95% CI) !! Specificity (95% CI) !! Positive Likelihood Ratio (95% CI) !! Negative Likelihood Ratio (95% CI) !! Time to obtain Results
|-
| [[ELISA|Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)]]
| align= "center" | 0.95 (0.85 to 1.00)
| align= "center" | NS
| align= "center" | NS
| align= "center" | 0.13 (0.03 to 0.58)
| align= "center" | ≥ 8 hours
|-
| [[ELISA|Quantitative rapid ELISA]]
| align= "center" | 0.95 (0.83 to 1.00)
| align= "center" | NS
| align= "center" | NS
| align= "center" | 0.13 (0.02 to 0.84)
| align= "center" | 30 mins
|-
| [[ELISA|Semi-Quantitative rapid ELISA]]
| align= "center" | 0.93 (0.79 to 1.00)
| align= "center" | NS
| align= "center" | NS
| align= "center" | 0.20 (0.04 to 0.96)
| align= "center" | 10 mins
|-
| [[ELISA|Qualitative rapid ELISA]]
| align= "center" | NS
| align= "center" | 0.68 (0.50 to 0.87)
| align= "center" | NS
| align= "center" | 0.11 (0.01 to 0.93)
| align= "center" | 10 mins
|-
| [[Latex agglutination test|Quantitative Latex Agglutination]]
| align= "center" | NS
| align= "center" | NS
| align= "center" | NS
| align= "center" | NS
| align= "center" | 10-15 mins
|-
| [[Latex agglutination test|Semi-quantitative Latex Agglutination]]
| align= "center" | NS
| align= "center" | NS
| align= "center" | NS
| align= "center" | 0.17 (0.04 to 0.78)
| align= "center" | 5 mins
|-
| [[Latex agglutination test|Whole-Blood Agglutination]]
| align= "center" | NS
| align= "center" | 0.74 (0.60 to 0.88)
| align= "center" | NS
| align= "center" | NS
| align= "center" | 2 mins
=== Hemodynamically Stable Patients ===
====Incidence of Thromboembolic Events in Hemodynamically Stable Patients====
{| border="1"
|+
! Condition !! Incidence of thromboembolic event (%)
|-
| Patients not receiving anticoagulation with negative CT findings.
| 1.5%<ref name="pmid15858185">{{cite journal| author=Perrier A, Roy PM, Sanchez O, Le Gal G, Meyer G, Gourdier AL et al.|title=Multidetector-row computed tomography in suspected pulmonary embolism. | journal=N Engl J Med | year= 2005 | volume= 352|issue= 17 | pages= 1760-8 | pmid=15858185 | doi=10.1056/NEJMoa042905 | pmc=|url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=15858185}}  [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=16118905Review in: J Fam Pract. 2005 Aug;54(8):653, 657] </ref><ref name="pmid16403929">{{cite journal| author=van Belle A, Büller HR, Huisman MV, Huisman PM, Kaasjager K, Kamphuisen PW et al.|title=Effectiveness of managing suspected pulmonary embolism using an algorithm combining clinical probability, D-dimer testing, and computed tomography. | journal=JAMA | year= 2006 | volume= 295 |issue= 2 | pages= 172-9 | pmid=16403929 | doi=10.1001/jama.295.2.172| pmc= |url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=16403929 }} </ref>
|-
| Patients with a high d-dimer level
| 1.5%
|-
| Patients with a normal d-dimer level
| 0.5%<ref name="pmid15858185">{{cite journal| author=Perrier A, Roy PM, Sanchez O, Le Gal G, Meyer G, Gourdier AL et al.|title=Multidetector-row computed tomography in suspected pulmonary embolism. | journal=N Engl J Med | year= 2005 | volume= 352|issue= 17 | pages= 1760-8 | pmid=15858185 | doi=10.1056/NEJMoa042905 | pmc=|url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=15858185}}  [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=16118905Review in: J Fam Pract. 2005 Aug;54(8):653, 657] </ref>
|}
*[[Pulmonary embolism CT#Multi-Detector CT|Multidetector CT]] is indicated in hemodynamically stable patients with a high clinical probability of PE and/or patients with elevated plasma [[d-dimer]] levels secondary to the lack of specificity.<ref name="pmid16403929">{{cite journal| author=van Belle A, Büller HR, Huisman MV, Huisman PM, Kaasjager K, Kamphuisen PW et al.| title=Effectiveness of managing suspected pulmonary embolism using an algorithm combining clinical probability, D-dimer testing, and computed tomography. | journal=JAMA | year= 2006 | volume= 295 | issue= 2 | pages= 172-9 | pmid=16403929 | doi=10.1001/jama.295.2.172 | pmc= | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=16403929  }} </ref><ref name="pmid19620439">{{cite journal| author=Gupta RT, Kakarla RK, Kirshenbaum KJ, Tapson VF| title=D-dimers and efficacy of clinical risk estimation algorithms: sensitivity in evaluation of acute pulmonary embolism. |journal=AJR Am J Roentgenol | year= 2009 | volume= 193 | issue= 2 | pages= 425-30 | pmid=19620439 |doi=10.2214/AJR.08.2186 | pmc= |url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=19620439 }} </ref>
*In patients with low-to-moderate suspicion of PE, a normal [[D-dimer]] level is considered sufficient to exclude the possibility of pulmonary embolism.<ref name="pmid8165626">{{cite journal |author=Bounameaux H, de Moerloose P, Perrier A, Reber G|title=Plasma measurement of D-dimer as diagnostic aid in suspected venous thromboembolism: an overview |journal=Thromb. Haemost.|volume=71 |issue=1 |pages=1-6 |year=1994 |pmid=8165626 |doi=}}</ref><ref name="pmid15096330">{{cite journal| author=Stein PD, Hull RD, Patel KC, Olson RE, Ghali WA, Brant R et al.| title=D-dimer for the exclusion of acute venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism: a systematic review. | journal=Ann Intern Med | year= 2004 | volume= 140 | issue= 8 | pages= 589-602 | pmid=15096330 | doi= | pmc= | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=15096330  }}  [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=15518461 Review in: ACP J Club. 2004 Nov-Dec;141(3):77] </ref><ref name="pmid20926499">{{cite journal| author=Bounameaux H, Perrier A, Righini M| title=Diagnosis of venous thromboembolism: an update. | journal=Vasc Med | year= 2010 | volume= 15 | issue= 5 | pages= 399-406 | pmid=20926499 | doi=10.1177/1358863X10378788 | pmc= | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=20926499  }} </ref>
=== Flowchart Summarizing the Role of D-dimer in the Diagnosis of PE ===
{{familytree/start |summary=Use of D-Dimer.}}
{{familytree | | | | GMa | GMa=Patients with suspection of [[Pulmonary embolism]]}}
{{familytree | |,|-|-|^|-|-|-|.| | | }}
{{familytree |JOE| | | | |SIS| | | JOE=Clinically Low or Moderate|SIS=Clinically High}}
{{familytree |,|^|-|.| | | | |!| }}
{{familytree |!| | |!| | | | |!| }}
{{familytree |!| | |ME| | |!|ME=D-Dimer Positive}}
{{familytree |!| | | |!| | | |!| }}
{{familytree |MOM| |!| | | |!| |MOM=D-Dimer Negative|}}
{{familytree | |!| | |!| | | |!| }}
{{familytree |GPa| |ME| |SIS|GPa=No treatment|ME=Further Tests|SIS=Further Tests}}
{{familytree/end}}
A new D-Dimer (DDMR) analyzer has shown to be more accurate in excluding patients with a low clinical pre-test probability.<ref name="pmid22245223">{{cite journal| author=Gosselin RC, Wu JR, Kottke-Marchant K, Peetz D, Christie DJ, Muth H et al.| title=Evaluation of the Stratus® CS Acute Care™ D-dimer assay (DDMR) using the Stratus® CS STAT Fluorometric Analyzer: A prospective multisite study for exclusion of pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis. | journal=Thromb Res | year= 2012 | volume=  | issue=  | pages=  | pmid=22245223 | doi=10.1016/j.thromres.2011.12.015 | pmc= | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=22245223  }} </ref>


==References==
==References==

Revision as of 13:40, 25 September 2013

D-Dimer Microchapters

Home

Patient information

Overview

Historical Perspective

Physiology

Clinical Correlation

Causes of High D-dimer

Diagnostic Role in Thromboembolism

Prognostic Role in Mortality

Prognostic Role in Thromboembolism Occurence

Prognostic Role in Thromboembolism Recurrence

Prognostic Role in Non-Thromboembolism

Clinical Trials

Landmark Trials

Case #1

D-dimer diagnostic role in thromboembolism On the Web

Most recent articles

Most cited articles

Review articles

CME Programs

Powerpoint slides

Images

American Roentgen Ray Society Images of D-dimer diagnostic role in thromboembolism

All Images
X-rays
Echo & Ultrasound
CT Images
MRI

Ongoing Trials at Clinical Trials.gov

US National Guidelines Clearinghouse

NICE Guidance

FDA on D-dimer diagnostic role in thromboembolism

CDC on D-dimer diagnostic role in thromboembolism

D-dimer diagnostic role in thromboembolism in the news

Blogs on D-dimer diagnostic role in thromboembolism

Directions to Hospitals Treating D-dimer

Risk calculators and risk factors for D-dimer diagnostic role in thromboembolism

Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]

Overview

D-dimer and Thromboembolism

Abnormal Levels

Plasma D-dimer levels > 500 ng/mL are abnormal.[1]

Sensitivity and Specificity

Sensitivity[1]

ELISA (p=0.020), quantitative rapid ELISA (p=0.016) and semi-quantitative ELISA (p=0.047) are shown to be statistically superior to whole-blood agglutination.

Specificity[1]

Qualitative rapid ELISA has shown to be statistically superior to ELISA (p=0.004), quantitative rapid ELISA (p=0.002), semi-quantitative rapid ELISA (p=0.001), quantitative (p=0.005) and semi-quantitative latex agglutination assays (p=0.019).


Method Sensitivity (95% CI) Specificity (95% CI) Positive Likelihood Ratio (95% CI) Negative Likelihood Ratio (95% CI) Time to obtain Results
Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) 0.95 (0.85 to 1.00) NS NS 0.13 (0.03 to 0.58) ≥ 8 hours
Quantitative rapid ELISA 0.95 (0.83 to 1.00) NS NS 0.13 (0.02 to 0.84) 30 mins
Semi-Quantitative rapid ELISA 0.93 (0.79 to 1.00) NS NS 0.20 (0.04 to 0.96) 10 mins
Qualitative rapid ELISA NS 0.68 (0.50 to 0.87) NS 0.11 (0.01 to 0.93) 10 mins
Quantitative Latex Agglutination NS NS NS NS 10-15 mins
Semi-quantitative Latex Agglutination NS NS NS 0.17 (0.04 to 0.78) 5 mins
Whole-Blood Agglutination NS 0.74 (0.60 to 0.88) NS NS 2 mins

Hemodynamically Stable Patients

Incidence of Thromboembolic Events in Hemodynamically Stable Patients

Condition Incidence of thromboembolic event (%)
Patients not receiving anticoagulation with negative CT findings. 1.5%[2][3]
Patients with a high d-dimer level 1.5%
Patients with a normal d-dimer level 0.5%[2]
  • Multidetector CT is indicated in hemodynamically stable patients with a high clinical probability of PE and/or patients with elevated plasma d-dimer levels secondary to the lack of specificity.[3][4]
  • In patients with low-to-moderate suspicion of PE, a normal D-dimer level is considered sufficient to exclude the possibility of pulmonary embolism.[5][1][6]

Flowchart Summarizing the Role of D-dimer in the Diagnosis of PE

 
 
 
Patients with suspection of Pulmonary embolism
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Clinically Low or Moderate
 
 
 
 
Clinically High
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
D-Dimer Positive
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
D-Dimer Negative
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
No treatment
 
Further Tests
 
Further Tests


A new D-Dimer (DDMR) analyzer has shown to be more accurate in excluding patients with a low clinical pre-test probability.[7]

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Stein PD, Hull RD, Patel KC, Olson RE, Ghali WA, Brant R, Biel RK, Bharadia V, Kalra NK (2004). "D-dimer for the exclusion of acute venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism: a systematic review". Annals of Internal Medicine. 140 (8): 589–602. PMID 15096330. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help); |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Perrier A, Roy PM, Sanchez O, Le Gal G, Meyer G, Gourdier AL; et al. (2005). "Multidetector-row computed tomography in suspected pulmonary embolism". N Engl J Med. 352 (17): 1760–8. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa042905. PMID 15858185. in: J Fam Pract. 2005 Aug;54(8):653, 657
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 van Belle A, Büller HR, Huisman MV, Huisman PM, Kaasjager K, Kamphuisen PW; et al. (2006). "Effectiveness of managing suspected pulmonary embolism using an algorithm combining clinical probability, D-dimer testing, and computed tomography". JAMA. 295 (2): 172–9. doi:10.1001/jama.295.2.172. PMID 16403929.
  4. ↑ Gupta RT, Kakarla RK, Kirshenbaum KJ, Tapson VF (2009). "D-dimers and efficacy of clinical risk estimation algorithms: sensitivity in evaluation of acute pulmonary embolism". AJR Am J Roentgenol. 193 (2): 425–30. doi:10.2214/AJR.08.2186. PMID 19620439.
  5. ↑ Bounameaux H, de Moerloose P, Perrier A, Reber G (1994). "Plasma measurement of D-dimer as diagnostic aid in suspected venous thromboembolism: an overview". Thromb. Haemost. 71 (1): 1–6. PMID 8165626.
  6. ↑ Bounameaux H, Perrier A, Righini M (2010). "Diagnosis of venous thromboembolism: an update". Vasc Med. 15 (5): 399–406. doi:10.1177/1358863X10378788. PMID 20926499.
  7. ↑ Gosselin RC, Wu JR, Kottke-Marchant K, Peetz D, Christie DJ, Muth H; et al. (2012). "Evaluation of the Stratus® CS Acute Care™ D-dimer assay (DDMR) using the Stratus® CS STAT Fluorometric Analyzer: A prospective multisite study for exclusion of pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis". Thromb Res. doi:10.1016/j.thromres.2011.12.015. PMID 22245223.

Template:WH Template:WS

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidoc.org/index.php?title=D-dimer_diagnostic_role_in_thromboembolism&oldid=907494"