Haemostatic envenomation (HE) — comprising venom-induced coagulopathy, thrombocytopenia, and systemic bleeding — is the principal determinant of snakebite morbidity in South Asia. Conventional coagulation tests lack sensitivity for early haemostatic activation; D-dimer has been proposed as a rapid triage biomarker, but data from Indian emergency settings are lacking. We conducted a prospective diagnostic accuracy study (JMMC&RI, Thrissur, Kerala; March–December 2022; n=96 consecutive snakebite patients). The primary aim was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of admission point of care D-dimer for identifying HE. Secondary aims were to compare its performance with standard coagulation tests and to evaluate it against the broader composite outcome — clinically significant envenomation (CSE). HE was defined as modified Lee–White clotting time (MLW) ≥15 min, failed 20-minute whole-blood clotting test (20WBCT), INR ≥1.4, fibrinogen <100 mg/dL, platelet count <100 ×10 9 /L, or systemic haemotoxic bleeding. Comparators were MLW/20WBCT, prothrombin time, INR, aPTT, fibrinogen, and platelet count. Thirty-three patients (34.4%) met HE criteria. At the Youden-optimal threshold of 620 ng/mL, D-dimer achieved sensitivity 87.9% (95% CI: 72.7–95.2%), specificity 79.0% (67.4–87.3%), PPV 69.0% (54.0–80.9%), NPV 92.5% (82.1–97.0%), LR+ 4.19, LR− 0.153, and accuracy 82.1% (73.2–88.5%). AUC was 0.874 (0.791–0.957) — highest among all comparators: MLW 0.763, WBCT 0.652, aPTT 0.544, fibrinogen 0.728, platelet count 0.681, INR 0.646, and PT 0.615. D-dimer ≥620 ng/mL was the strongest independent predictor of HE (OR 22.04; 95% CI: 6.13–79.25; p<0.001). Three of four patients with delayed coagulopathy had D-dimer ≥620 ng/mL at admission. Against the broader clinically significant envenomation (CSE) endpoint (n=52, 54.2%), AUC was 0.885 (0.816–0.954) at 139 ng/mL (sensitivity 88.2%, specificity 81.8%). Admission D-dimer demonstrated higher discriminatory performance for HE than all standard coagulation comparators. Its NPV of 92.5% supports potential utility as a rapid rule-out biomarker. These findings are exploratory and require external validation before clinical implementation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mathew et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: