1998Blood Coagulation & FibrinolysisRequires access

Diagnostic value of two rapid and individual D-dimer assays in patients with clinically suspected pulmonary embolism

Guy Meyer, A Fischer, M. A. Collignon, Abdelhamid Benazzouz, F. Monge, H Sors, Emmanuelle de Raucourt

Open publisher page 22 citations

Abstract

A semiquantitative enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) test (Instant IA D-dimer) and a new quantitative rapid and individual test (STA-Liatest DDi) were compared with the reference microplate ELISA (Asserachrom D-Di) for D-dimer testing in 142 patients clinically suspected of pulmonary embolism, on the basis of clinical symptoms and signs, electrocardiogram, blood gases and chest X-Ray abnormalities. The cut-off value for the quantitative tests was 500 ng/ml and Instant IA was interpreted by three readers. Pulmonary embolism was confirmed by lung scan or angiography in 60 patients (42%). The sensitivities of ELISA and STA-Liatest DDi were 92% [95% confidence interval (CI) 82-97%] and 93% (95% CI 84-98%), respectively. The three readings of Instant IA D-dimer disagreed in 27 (19%) of the patients and sensitivity varied from 83 to 93% according to the readers. In the 115 patients with concordant readings, sensitivity was 92% (95% CI 82-98%). These results suggest that STA Liatest DDi may be used instead of microplate ELISA for the exclusion of pulmonary embolism, whereas the use of Instant IA D-dimer for this purpose is limited by the number of discordant results.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

A semiquantitative enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) test (Instant IA D-dimer) and a new quantitative rapid and individual test (STA-Liatest DDi) were compared with the reference microplate ELISA (Asserachrom D-Di) for D-dimer testing in 142 patients clinically suspected of pulmonary embolism, on the basis of clinical symptoms and signs, electrocardiogram, blood gases and chest X-Ray abnormalities. The cut-off value for the quantitative tests was 500 ng/ml and Instant IA was interpreted by three readers. Pulmonary embolism was confirmed by lung scan or angiography in 60 patients (42%). The sensitivities of ELISA and STA-Liatest DDi were 92% [95% confidence interval (CI) 82-97%] and 93% (95% CI 84-98%), respectively. The three readings of Instant IA D-dimer disagreed in 27 (19%) of the patients and sensitivity varied from 83 to 93% according to the readers. In the 115 patients with concordant readings, sensitivity was 92% (95% CI 82-98%). These results suggest that STA Liatest DDi may be used instead of microplate ELISA for the exclusion of pulmonary embolism, whereas the use of Instant IA D-dimer for this purpose is limited by the number of discordant results.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 22 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

A semiquantitative enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) test (Instant IA D-dimer) and a new quantitative rapid and individual test (STA-Liatest DDi) were compared with the reference microplate ELISA (Asserachrom D-Di) for D-dimer testing in 142 patients clinically suspected of pulmonary embolism, on the basis of clinical symptoms and signs, electrocardiogram, blood gases and chest X-Ray abnormalities. The cut-off value for the quantitative tests was 500 ng/ml and Instant IA was interpreted by three readers. Pulmonary embolism was confirmed by lung scan or angiography in 60 patients (42%). The sensitivities of ELISA and STA-Liatest DDi were 92% [95% confidence interval (CI) 82-97%] and 93% (95% CI 84-98%), respectively. The three readings of Instant IA D-dimer disagreed in 27 (19%) of the patients and sensitivity varied from 83 to 93% according to the readers. In the 115 patients with concordant readings, sensitivity was 92% (95% CI 82-98%). These results suggest that STA Liatest DDi may be used instead of microplate ELISA for the exclusion of pulmonary embolism, whereas the use of Instant IA D-dimer for this purpose is limited by the number of discordant results.

Key concepts: Pulmonary embolism, Medicine, D-dimer, Confidence interval, Pulmonary angiography, Internal medicine, Embolism, Respiratory disease

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Diagnostic value of two rapid and individual D-dimer assays in patients with clinically suspected pulmonary embolism — Research Paper | ScholarLens