Why the study?
Do rapid D-dimer assays (Instant IA D-dimer and STA-Liatest DDi) perform comparably to reference microplate ELISA in diagnosing pulmonary embolism in patients with clinical suspicion?
Do rapid D-dimer assays (Instant IA D-dimer and STA-Liatest DDi) perform comparably to reference microplate ELISA in diagnosing pulmonary embolism in patients with clinical suspicion?
STA-Liatest DDi is a reliable rapid quantitative alternative to microplate ELISA for excluding pulmonary embolism, whereas the semiquantitative Instant IA D-dimer suffers from inter-reader variability.
STA-Liatest DDi may support rapid PE exclusion comparable to ELISA; leaves open prospective validation of Instant IA amid reader discordance.
A semiquantitative enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) test (Instant IA D-dimer) and a new quantitative rapid and individual test (STA-Liatest DDi) were compared with the reference microplate ELISA (Asserachrom D-Di) for D-dimer testing in 142 patients clinically suspected of pulmonary embolism, on the basis of clinical symptoms and signs, electrocardiogram, blood gases and chest X-Ray abnormalities. The cut-off value for the quantitative tests was 500 ng/ml and Instant IA was interpreted by three readers. Pulmonary embolism was confirmed by lung scan or angiography in 60 patients (42%). The sensitivities of ELISA and STA-Liatest DDi were 92% [95% confidence interval (CI) 82-97%] and 93% (95% CI 84-98%), respectively. The three readings of Instant IA D-dimer disagreed in 27 (19%) of the patients and sensitivity varied from 83 to 93% according to the readers. In the 115 patients with concordant readings, sensitivity was 92% (95% CI 82-98%). These results suggest that STA Liatest DDi may be used instead of microplate ELISA for the exclusion of pulmonary embolism, whereas the use of Instant IA D-dimer for this purpose is limited by the number of discordant results.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Meyer et al. (1998) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: