4.7 Article

D-dimer in acute aortic dissection

Journal

CHEST
Volume 123, Issue 5, Pages 1375-1378

Publisher

AMER COLL CHEST PHYSICIANS
DOI: 10.1378/chest.123.5.1375

Keywords

aorta; coagulation; d-dimer; dissection

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Study objective: Laboratory testing plays a minor role in the assessment of aortic dissection. Its main value is in the exclusion of other diseases. Following an incidental observation, we systematically investigated the relationship between elevated d-dimer levels and acute aortic dissection. Design: We prospectively tested d-dimer levels in patients with suspected acute aortic dissection (10 patients). In addition, we investigated 14 patients who had received a confirmed diagnosis of thoracic aortic dissection during the previous 5 years, in whom d-dimer testing had been performed for differential diagnosis. Thirty-five patients with acute chest pain of other origin served as a control group. Setting: Tertiary referral hospital. Patients: Twelve patients had type A dissection (Stanford classification), and 12 patients had type B. Measurements and results: A d-dimer analysis was performed (Tina-quant assay; Roche Diagnostics; Mannheim, Germany) [normal limit of the assay, 0.5 mug/mL]. The result of the d-diemer test was positive (ie, > 0.5 mug/mL) in all patients (sensitivity of the test, 100%) with a mean value of 9.4 mug/mL and a range of 0.63 to 54.7 mug/mL. The degree of the elevation was correlated to the delay from the onset of symptoms to laboratory testing (mean, 12.6 h; range, 1 to 120 h) and showed a trend to the extent of the dissection, but not to the outcome (14 patients could be discharged; 10 patients died). Conclusions: Based on our observation, we suggest that testing for d-diemer should be part of the initial assessment of patients with chest pain, especially if aortic dissection is suspected. A negative test result makes the presence of the disease unlikely.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available