PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
January 22, 2015Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation33 citations

Clinical evaluation of eight different D-dimer tests for the exclusion of deep venous thrombosis in primary care patients

View Full Paper
RERob F. M. Oude ElferinkALAnnemarieke E. LootCKChantal G. J. Van De Klashorst

Key Result

Eight different D-dimer tests displayed sensitivities ranging from 91% to 100% and a negative predictive value of ≥99% for ruling out proximal DVT in primary care patients.

Study Design

Type

Observational (n=290)

Structured PICO

Do various D-dimer tests accurately exclude deep venous thrombosis in primary care patients with suspected DVT?

P
Population
290 prospectively identified consecutive primary care patients with suspected deep venous thrombosis.
E
Exposure
Eight different D-dimer tests (seven quantitative: Vidas, Innovance CA1500 and BCS, Pathfast, HemosIL HS500, Tina-quant, AQT90, Liatest; one qualitative: Simplify)
C
Comparator
Compression ultrasonography (reference standard for DVT diagnosis)
O
Outcome
Diagnostic performance (sensitivity and negative predictive value) for the exclusion of DVTsurrogate

Despite analytical differences, multiple D-dimer assays demonstrate excellent negative predictive value for safely ruling out DVT in low-risk primary care patients.

Abstract

D-dimer tests are an essential element in the diagnostic work-up of deep venous thrombosis (DVT). However, the poor standardization amongst assays necessitates clinical validation before implementation in daily practice. We therefore evaluated the analytical and diagnostic performance of eight D-dimer tests in a representative group of 290 prospectively identified consecutive primary care patients with suspected DVT. Seven quantitative D-dimer assays, and a qualitative test, Simplify, were evaluated. Correlation between assays was generally poor and several assays showed a significant bias in the method comparison. Nevertheless, the Vidas D-dimer, Innovance D-dimer (CA1500 and BCS), Pathfast D-dimer, and HemosIL HS500 (ACL TOP), all displayed 100% (95% CI: 85-100%) sensitivity. Tina-quant (Modular), AQT90 D-dimer, and Liatest (STA(®)) D-dimer tests showed a slightly lower sensitivity of 95% (78-100%). and the Simplify test reached a sensitivity of 91% (72-99%) that was further improved in combination with a clinical decision rule to 95% (76-100%). In concert with the low (8.2%) prevalence of proximal DVT, diagnosed by compression ultrasonography, in our study, all test reached a negative predictive value (NPV) of at least 99%. The user friendliness of the assays differed mainly by stability of reagents, calibration frequency, time required to obtain a test result and costs of a test. In conclusion, despite considerable analytical differences, in our low-risk population all tests evaluated displayed an excellent NPV. In combination with a validated clinical decision rule to identify low-risk patients, even a straightforward POC solution could safely and cost-efficiently rule out DVT.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Elferink et al. (2015) conducted an observational in suspected deep venous thrombosis (DVT) (n=290). Eight different D-dimer tests vs. Compression ultrasonography was evaluated on Sensitivity and negative predictive value for proximal DVT. Eight different D-dimer tests displayed sensitivities ranging from 91% to 100% and a negative predictive value of ≥99% for ruling out proximal DVT in primary care patients.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a78db5912b78394d701f274https://doi.org/10.3109/00365513.2014.993697
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper