D-Dimer Measurement and Laboratory Feedback

Advancements in electrochemical immunosensors towards point-of-care detection of cardiac biomarkers

Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death worldwide, with mortality rates increasing annually. This underscores the urgent need for accurate diagnostic and monitoring tools. Electrochemical detection has emerged as a promising method for swiftly and precisely measuring specific biomarkers in bodily fluids. This approach is not only cost-effective and efficient compared to traditional clinical methods, but it can also be tailored to detect individual biomarkers, which makes it particularly well-suited for point-of-care (POC) applications. The ability to conduct testing at the point of care is crucial for timely interventions and personalized disease management, empowering healthcare providers to tailor treatment plans based on real-time biomarker data. Thanks to recent advancements in nanomaterials, we've seen significant progress in electrochemical detection, leading to the development of specialized rapid immunoassay systems. These systems utilize specific antibodies to target molecules, expanding the range of detectable biomarkers. This innovation has the potential to revolutionize the diagnosis and treatment of cardiovascular diseases by enhancing detection sensitivity and specificity. Ultimately, these advancements aim to improve patient outcomes by enabling earlier diagnosis, more precise monitoring, and personalized therapeutic interventions, which will contribute to more effective management of cardiovascular health globally.

D-dimers-"Normal" Levels versus Elevated Levels Due to a Range of Conditions, Including "D-dimeritis," Inflammation, Thromboembolism, Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation, and COVID-19

D-dimers reflect a breakdown product of fibrin. The current narrative review outlines how D-dimers can arise in normal individuals, as well as in patients suffering from a wide range of disease states. D-dimers in normal individuals without evident thrombosis can arise from background fibrinolytic activity in various tissues, including kidney, mammary and salivary glands, which ensures smooth flow of arising fluids where any blood contamination could be immediately lysed. In addition, healthy individuals can also regularly sustain minor injuries, often unbeknown to them, and wound healing follows clot formation in these situations. D-dimers can also arise in anxiety and following exercise, and are also markers of inflammation. Lung inflammation (triggered by microbes or foreign particles) is perhaps also particularly relevant, since the hemostasis system and fibrinolysis help to trap and remove such debris. Lung inflammation in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) may contribute to D-dimer levels additive to thrombosis in patients with COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019). Indeed, severe COVID-19 can lead to multiple activation events, including inflammation, primary and secondary hemostasis, and fibrinolysis, all of which may contribute to cumulative D-dimer development. Finally, D-dimer testing has also found a role in the diagnosis and triaging of the so-called (COVID-19) vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia.

The role of D-dimer in periprosthetic joint infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The current literature on diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) provides controversial evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of D-dimer. Therefore, this critical literature search and meta-analysis was aimed to summarize the diagnostic accuracy of D-dimer for diagnosing PJI.

CONTENT

We searched MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science, for studies on D-dimer for diagnosing PJI, according to the PRISMA flowchart. QUADAS was used for assessing study quality. Sensitivity, specificity, positive (PLR) and negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were analyzed using bivariate diagnostic random-effects model. The area under the receiver-operating curve (AUC-ROC) was calculated. Subgroup analysis and univariate meta-regression were carried out for detecting potential sources of heterogeneity.

SUMMARY

We included 12 articles, totaling 1,818 patients (539 with PJI). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of D-dimer for diagnosing PJI were 0.739 (95% CI: 0.616-0.833) and 0.785 (95% CI: 0.679-0.863). The pooled PLR, NLR, DOR were 3.359 (95% CI, 2.340-4.821), 0.295 (95% CI, 0.180-0.484), and 11.787 (95% CI, 5.785-24.018). The cumulative ROC plot displayed an AUC of 0.688 (95% CI, 0.663-0.713; p<0.001). No threshold effects could be observed. The type of blood sample was identified as possible source of heterogeneity for DOR (p=0.01).

OUTLOOK

Evidence emerged from this meta-analysis suggests that D-dimer displays sufficient diagnostic accuracy to rule out PJI. The type of blood sample (plasma vs. serum) and the study design could influence the results in terms of DOR and sensitivity. However, further perspective studies would be needed to validate its potential diagnostic usefulness.

[Not Available]

Zusammenfassung. Verbessertes Verständnis der menschlichen Physiologie und technische Fortschritte haben zu einer breiten Verwendung von Labordiagnostik in der klinischen Aufarbeitung eines Patienten geführt. Diese Entwicklungen gingen jedoch mit der Verbreitung von falschen Mythen und Missverständnissen einher, die humane und ökonomische Ressourcen konsumieren sowie das klinische Denken und – nicht zuletzt – den Patienten gefährden. Das Ziel dieses Artikels ist es daher, eine Übersicht über typische Beispiele von falschen Dogmen über in der Notfallmedizin häufig verwendete Laborwerte zu geben.

D-Dimer Testing: Laboratory Aspects and Current Issues

D-dimer has become one of the commonly requested coagulation tests, especially in the venous thromboembolism rule out setting. Appropriate D-dimer testing has significantly decreased the number of radiological investigations in this clinical scenario. D-dimer testing also plays an important role in the diagnostic process of the systemic coagulation disorders, especially disseminated intravascular coagulation in conjunction with other coagulation tests. However, widespread D-dimer testing without good understanding of the technical issues related to the test has recently caused some concerns. This review aims to address the basic physiology of D-dimer formation, the different methods available for its routine assessment, the current problems that both clinicians and laboratory scientists face with this test, and the important need for harmonization of commercial immunoassays.

D-dimer is not elevated in asymptomatic high altitude climbers after descent to 5340 m: the Mount Everest Deep Venous Thrombosis Study (Ev-DVT)

We performed this study to determine the prevalence of elevated D-dimer, a marker for deep venous thrombosis (DVT), in asymptomatic high altitude climbers. On-site personnel enrolled a convenience sample of climbers at Mt. Everest Base Camp (Nepal), elevation 5340 m (17,500 ft), during a single spring climbing season. Subjects were enrolled after descent to base camp from higher elevation. The subjects completed a questionnaire to evaluate their risk factors for DVT. We then performed a D-dimer test in asymptomatic individuals. If the D-dimer test was negative, DVT was considered ruled out. Ultrasound was available to perform lower-extremity compression ultrasounds to evaluate for DVT in case the D-dimer was positive. We enrolled 76 high altitude climbers. None had a positive D-dimer test. The absence of positive D-dimer tests suggests a low prevalence of DVT in asymptomatic high altitude climbers.

Relationship between disease severity and D-dimer levels measured with two different methods in pulmonary embolism patients

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is diagnosed with increasing frequency nowadays due to advances in the diagnostic methods and the increased awareness of the disease. There is a tendency to use non invasive diagnostic methods for all diseases. D-dimer is a fibrin degradation product. We aimed to detect the relationship between disease severity and the D-dimer levels measured with two different methods. We compared D-dimer levels in cases of massive vs. non-massive PE. A total of 89 patients who were diagnosed between 2006 and 2008 were included in the study. Group 1 included patients whose D-dimer levels were measured with the immunoturbidimetric polyclonal antibody method (D-dimerPLUS^®), while Group 2 patients made use of the immunoturbidimetric monoclonal antibody method (InnovanceD-DIMER^®). In each group, the D-dimer levels of those with massive and non-massive PE were compared, using the Mann Whitney U test. The mean age of Group 1 (25 F/26 M) was 56.0 ± 17.9 years, and that of Group 2 (22 F/16 M) was 52.9 ± 17.9 years. There was no statistical difference in gender and mean age between the two groups (p > 0.05). In Group 1, the mean D-dimer level of massive cases (n = 7) was 1444.9 ± 657.9 μg/L and that of nonmassive PE (n = 34) was 1304.7 ± 350.5 μg/L (p > 0.05). In Group 2, the mean D-dimer level of massive cases (n = 6) was 9.7 ± 2.2 mg/L and that of non-massive PE (n = 32) was 5.9 ± 1.3 mg/L (p < 0.05). The mean D-dimer levels of massive cases as measured with the immunoturbidimetric monoclonal antibody method were significantly higher. Pulmonary embolism patients whose D-dimer levels are higher (especially higher than 6.6 mg/L) should be considered as possibly having massive embolism. Diagnostic procedures and management can be planned according to this finding.