4.6 Article

Limitations of D-dimer testing in unselected inpatients with suspected venous thromboembolism

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
卷 114, 期 4, 页码 276-282

出版社

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9343(02)01520-6

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To determine the utility and limitations of D-dimer testing for the evaluation of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients. METHODS: We performed D-dimer testing by four different methods in unselected inpatients undergoing radiologic evaluation for possible venous thromboembolism. We included patients with a history of malignancy, recent surgery, thrombosis, and anticoagulation treatment. C-reactive protein levels were assayed as a measure of inflammation. RESULTS: Of 45 patients with radiographically proven proximal deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, 43 had elevated D-dimer levels by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (sensitivity, 96%); the specificity of the test was 23% (36/157). The qualitative non-ELISA tests had higher specificities, but their sensitivities were <70%. Nineteen patients (42%) with thrombosis had false-negative D-dimer tests by at least one assay. The specificity of the tests decreased with increasing duration of hospitalization, increasing age, and increasing C-reactive protein levels. D-dimer testing had little or no utility in distinguishing patients with thrombosis from those without in patients who had been hospitalized for more than 3 days, were older than 60 years, or had C-reactive protein levels in the highest quartile. CONCLUSION: In unselected inpatients, D-dimer testing has limited clinical utility because of its poor specificity. This is particularly true for older patients, those who have undergone prolonged hospitalization, and those with markedly elevated C-reactive protein levels. In some patient subsets, a negative non-ELISA D-dimer test cannot discriminate between inpatients with and without thrombosis. (C) 2003 by Excerpta Medica Inc.

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