A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of D-dimer as a Rule-out Test for Suspected Acute Aortic Dissection

2015 ◽  
Vol 66 (4) ◽  
pp. 368-378 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen E. Asha ◽  
James W. Miers
CJEM ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (S1) ◽  
pp. S56-S56
Author(s):  
R. Ohle ◽  
H. Kareemi ◽  
J.J. Perry

Introduction: Acute aortic dissection (AAD) is difficult to diagnose and if missed carries a significant mortality rate. Our aim was to assess the accuracy of history, physical exam and plain radiographs compared to advanced imaging in the diagnosis of AAD in adults presenting to the ED with a clinical suspicion of AAD. Methods: We conducted a librarian assisted systematic review. Databases searched: Pubmed, Medline, Embase and the Cochrane database from 1968 to January 2016. No restrictions for language were imposed. Studies were reviewed and data extracted by two independent reviewers. AAD was defined by CTA, MRI or TEE Prospective and retrospective studies of patients presenting with a clinical suspicion of AAD were included. Case series were excluded. Studies were combined if low clinical and statistical heterogeonity (I2<30%). Study quality was assessed using the QUADAS tool. Bivariate random effects meta analyses using Revman 5 and SAS 9.3 was performed. Results: We identified 792 records: 61 selected for full text review, 13 included and a further 7 from reference searches. 20 studies with 4721 participants were included (mean QUADAS score 12/14 SD 1.2, Kappa 0.8). Prevalence of AAD ranged from 9.6-76.1% (mean 39.1% SD 17.1%). Mean diagnosis in those without AAD varied between studies with ACS (30.3% SD 30.1%), Anuerysm(12.4% SD 9.8%), Chest wall pain(18.1% SD 13.3%) and PE(7.9% SD 7.85%) being the most common. The clinical findings most suggestive of AAD were, neurological deficit (specificity 94% LR 4.1 [95% CI, 3.1-5.2], I2 0%, n=9), hypotension(specificity 94% LR 2.6 [95% CI 1.6-4.2], I2 0%, n=8), pulse deficit (specificity 92% LR 3.4 [95% CI 1.8-6.4], I2 0%, n=9) and syncope (specificity 92% LR 1.4 [95% CI 1.1-1.8], I2 10%, n=6). The most useful for identifying patients less likely to have AAD were an absence of a widened mediastinum (sensitivity 80% LR 0.3 [95% CI 0.2-0.5], I2 20%, n=13) and an AHA Aortic dissection risk score <1 (n=2 sensitivity 91%,99% LR 0.02,0.22, [95% CI 0.003-0.128, 95%CI 0.2-0.3]). Conclusion: Suspicion for AAD should be raised with syncope, hypotension and pulse or neurological deficit in the appropriate clinical setting. Conversely the absence of a widened mediastinum and a low ADD score decreases likelihood. Clinical exam alone cannot rule out acute aortic dissection but it can help risk stratify for further testing.


2013 ◽  
Vol 34 (suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 5939-5939
Author(s):  
P. Nazerian ◽  
F. Morello ◽  
S. Vanni ◽  
M. Castelli ◽  
M. G. Veglio ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
Vol 28 (24) ◽  
pp. 3067-3075 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Sodeck ◽  
H. Domanovits ◽  
M. Schillinger ◽  
M. P. Ehrlich ◽  
G. Endler ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 107 (8) ◽  
pp. 1227-1234 ◽  
Author(s):  
Avi Shimony ◽  
Kristian B. Filion ◽  
Salvatore Mottillo ◽  
Tara Dourian ◽  
Mark J. Eisenberg

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jian Yao ◽  
Tao Bai ◽  
Bo Yang ◽  
Lizhong Sun

Abstract Objective This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic value of D-dimer for acute aortic dissection (AAD) by the method of meta-analysis. Methods PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang databases from the establishment of the databases to December 2020 were systematically searched, and the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) system was used to evaluate the quality of the literature. STATA 15.0 software was applied to calculate the pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), positive likelihood ratio (+LR), negative likelihood ratio (−LR) to draw summary receiver operating characteristics (SROC) curve and calculate the area under the curve (AUC). Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were used to explore the source of heterogeneity. Results A total of 16 clinical studies were enrolled in this study, including 1135 patients. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the pooled sensitivity was 0.96 (95% CI 0.91–0.98), the pooled specificity was 0.70 (95% CI 0.57–0.81), and the pooled DOR was 56.57 (95% CI 25.11–127.44), the pooled +LR was 3.25 (95% CI 2.18–4.85), the pooled −LR was 0.06 (95% CI 0.03–0.12), and the AUC was 0.94 (95% CI 0.91–0.95). Meta-regression and subgroup analysis results showed that publication year, sample size and cutoff value might be sources of heterogeneity. When the concentration of D-dimer was less than or equal to 500 ng/ml, the sensitivity significantly increased. Conclusion D-dimer has an excellent diagnostic value for AAD. It is a useful tool for detecting suspected AAD because of the excellent pooled sensitivity. D-dimer ≤ 500 ng/ml increases the potential to identify the suspected patients with AAD.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shuangshuang Li ◽  
Pengcheng Du ◽  
Jian Dong ◽  
Jian Zhou ◽  
Zaiping Jing

Abstract ObjectiveTo clarify the relation between D-dimer and in-hospital mortality of acute aortic dissection, a meta-analysis was performed by summarizing all relevant studies.MethodsAll related studies were retrieved and identified in PubMed and Embase databases. Precise data was extracted from standard articles, such as sample size, odds ratio, and 95% confidence interval. Then pooled odds ratio (OR) accompanying 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using random model. Study heterogeneity examined by Q text and I2 statistic. Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the stability of the results. Publication bias was assessed by Egger’s test. ResultsTen studies (1954 patients) that met the inclusion criteria were included in this review. The results suggested a link between D-dimer and in-hospital mortality of acute aortic dissection (OR=1.17 95%CI=1.08-1.27). With higher of cutoff value of D-dimer, the closer for the mortality of AAD, with ORs (95% CIs) ranging from 1.13(1.09–1.16) to 4.12 (1.56–10.93). The relationship was also found in six Type A AAD studies without heterogeneity (OR=1.13 95%CI=1.08-1.18). According to sensitivity analysis, the link was stable after exclusion of one study at a time. Publication bias was find among studies (P=0.02). ConclusionsThe result of this meta-analysis indicated that D-dimer maybe a predictor in-hospital mortality of acute aortic dissection patients. What’s more, the higher of cutoff value of D-dimer, the stronger for the predictive ability.


2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (10) ◽  
pp. 1013-1027 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paolo Bima ◽  
Emanuele Pivetta ◽  
Peiman Nazerian ◽  
Mamoru Toyofuku ◽  
Riccardo Gorla ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document