4.6 Article

D-dimer, P-selectin, and microparticles: Novel markers to predict deep venous thrombosis - A pilot study

期刊

THROMBOSIS AND HAEMOSTASIS
卷 94, 期 6, 页码 1312-1317

出版社

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1160/TH05-06-0426

关键词

deep venous thrombosis; D-dimer; P-selectin; microparticles; clinical study

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL52779, HL70766, HL57346] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Current plasma markers for diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) allow for exclusion of the diagnosis, but lack adequate specificity to establish the diagnosis. Thus, a prospective study was performed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of plasma assays for D-dimer, soluble P-selectin (P-selectin), and total microparticles in patients with documented DVT by duplex ultrasound.Three groups of individuals were examined: 30 normals; 22 positive for DVT on duplex ultrasound (Group 2); and 21 symptomatic, but negative on duplex ultrasound for DVT (Group 3). Group I individuals had D-dimer values of 1.53 +/- 0.12 mg/l and P-selectin values of 0.34 +/- 0.05 ng/mg total protein. Group 2 vs. Group 3 individuals had D-dimer values of 7.57 +/- 2.03 vs. 3.19 +/- 0.7 mg/l, p=0.02; P-selectin values of 0.98 +/- 0.11 vs. 0.55 +/- 0.08 ng/mg total protein, p < 0.01; and microparticle values of 129 +/- 17% vs. 99 +/- 12% of control, p=ns. Using a logistic regression model with dichotomous variables, we determined a sensitivity of 73%, specificity of 81%, and accuracy of 77% when combining D-dimer, soluble P-selectin, and total microparticles to differentiate Group 2 from Group 3 patients. Logistic regression using continuous variables yielded similar results (p=0.05).This study demonstrates that plasma markers for DVT can be developed and achieve moderate sensitivity and specificity in diagnosing DVT However for clinical applicability, the sensitivity/specificity will need to be improved.These studies also suggest the importance of soluble P-selectin in assessing DVT in humans.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据