Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing baseline D-dimer level in stroke patients with or without cancer: Strength of current evidence

Objectives

D-dimer levels are increased in stroke and cancer. Cancer patients are at a higher risk of stroke. However, the evidence is unclear if high D-dimer in stroke patients can suggest the diagnosis of concomitant cancer or the development of stroke in a cancer patient. The objective is to assess the evidence available on the baseline D-dimer level in stroke patients with and without cancer.

Materials and Methods

We conducted the systematic review and meta-analysis using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines. We searched PUBMED, Cochrane, ScienceDirect, and Scopus for potentially eligible articles published till June 2023. All the review steps were iterative and done independently by two reviewers. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale tool was used to assess the quality of included studies for case control and cohort studies and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality tool for cross-sectional studies. The qualitative synthesis is presented narratively, and quantitative synthesis is shown in the forest plot using the random effects model. I2 of more than 60% was considered as high heterogeneity.

Results

The searches from all the databases yielded 495 articles. After the study selection process, six papers were found eligible for inclusion in the qualitative and quantitative synthesis. In the present systematic review, 2651 patients with ischemic infarcts are included of which 404 (13.97%) patients had active cancer while 2247 (86.02%) did not. The studies included were of high quality and low risk of bias. There were significantly higher baseline D-dimer levels in stroke patients with cancer than in non-cancer patients with a mean difference of 4.84 (3.07-6.60) P < 0.00001.

Conclusion

D-dimer is a simple and relatively non-expensive biomarker that is increased to significant levels in stroke patients, who have cancer and therefore may be a tool to predict through screening for active or occult cancer in stroke patients.

Comparison of characteristics, management and outcomes in hospital-onset and community-onset stroke: a multi-centre registry-based cohort study of acute stroke

Objective

Hospital-onset stroke (HOS) is associated with poorer outcomes than community-onset stroke (COS). Previous studies have variably documented patient characteristics and outcome measures; here, we compare in detail characteristics, management and outcomes of HOS and COS.

Methods

A total of 1656 men (mean age ± SD = 73.1 years ± 13.2) and 1653 women (79.3 years ± 13.0), with data prospectively collected (2014–2016) from the Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme, were admitted with acute stroke in four UK hyperacute stroke units (HASU). Associations between variables were examined by chi-squared tests and multivariable logistic regression (COS as reference).

Results

There were 272 HOS and 3037 COS patients with mean ages of 80.2 years ± 12.5 and 76.4 years ± SD13.5 and equal sex distribution. Compared to COS, HOS had higher proportions ≥ 80 years (64.0% vs 46.4%), congestive heart failure (16.9% vs 4.9%), atrial fibrillation (25.0% vs 19.7%) and pre-stroke disability (9.6% vs 5.1%), and similar history of stroke, hypertension, diabetes, stroke type and severity of stroke. After age, sex and co-morbidities adjustments, HOS had greater risk of pneumonia: OR (95%CI) = 1.9 (1.3–2.6); malnutrition: OR = 2.2 (1.7–2.9); immediate thrombolysis complications: OR = 5.3 (1.5–18.2); length of stay on HASU > 3 weeks: OR = 2.5 (1.8–3.4); post-stroke disability: OR = 1.8 (1.4–2.4); and in-hospital mortality: OR = 1.8 (1.2–2.4), as well as greater support at discharge including palliative care: OR = 1.9 (1.3–2.8); nursing care: OR = 2.0 (1.3–4.0), help for daily living activities: OR = 1.6 (1.1–2.2); and joint-care planning: OR = 1.5 (1.1–1.9).

Conclusions

This detailed analysis of underlying differences in subject characteristics between patients with HOS or COS and adverse consequences provides further insights into understanding poorer outcomes associated with HOS.