Why the study?
Does D-dimer testing accurately diagnose acute aortic syndrome in suspected subjects?
Does D-dimer testing accurately diagnose acute aortic syndrome in suspected subjects?
D-dimer has very good overall diagnostic accuracy for acute aortic syndrome, with levels <500 ng/ml largely decreasing the possibility of the condition.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports ruling out acute aortic syndrome with D-dimer <500 ng/ml; confirms high accuracy in pooled diagnostic meta-analysis.
Diagnostic test accuracy of D-dimer for acute aortic dissection (AAD) has not been evaluated by meta-analysis with the bivariate model methodology. Four databases were electrically searched. We included both case-control and cohort studies that could provide sufficient data concerning both sensitivity and specificity of D-dimer for AAD. Non-English language articles and conference abstract were allowed. Intramural hematoma and penetrating aortic ulcer were regarded as AAD. Based on 22 eligible articles consisting of 1140 AAD subjects and 3860 non-AAD subjects, the diagnostic odds ratio was 28.5 (95% CI 17.6-46.3, I(2) = 17.4%) and the area under curve was 0.946 (95% CI 0.903-0.994). Based on 833 AAD subjects and 1994 non-AAD subjects constituting 12 studies that used the cutoff value of 500 ng/ml, the sensitivity was 0.952 (95% CI 0.901-0.978), the specificity was 0.604 (95% CI 0.485-0.712), positive likelihood ratio was 2.4 (95% CI 1.8-3.3), and negative likelihood ratio was 0.079 (95% CI 0.036-0.172). Sensitivity analysis using data of three high-quality studies almost replicated these results. In conclusion, D-dimer has very good overall accuracy. D-dimer <500 ng/ml largely decreases the possibility of AAD. D-dimer >500 ng/ml moderately increases the possibility of AAD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Watanabe et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: