The role of fibrin monomers in optimizing the diagnostic work-up of deep vein thrombosis
Utrecht University, Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands Thrombosis and Haemostasis
(Impact Factor: 4.98).
06/2007; 97(5):807-13. DOI: 10.1160/TH06-04-0222
Despite the use of a clinical score and D-dimers to exclude deep vein thrombosis (DVT), the majority of patients still need repeated ultrasound (US). The aim of the study was to investigate whether fibrin monomers (FMs), as markers of thrombin generation, have additional value in the diagnosis of DVT. This is a posthoc analysis of 464 outpatients, participants in a management study using D-dimers (Tina-Quant and a clinical score in the exclusion of DVT. Two new FM assays (Auto LIA-FM and IATRO SF, Japan) were performed. Overall sensitivity, negative predictive value (NPV) and specificity of the D-dimer test were 98%, 98% and 42%. The optimal cut-off point for the Auto LIA-FM test was <or=3 microg/ml with values of 88%, 88% and 59%, respectively. The IATRO SF test had an optimal cut-off point of <or=2 microg/ml with values of 92%, 81 and 22%, respectively. The NPV of a non-high clinical score and a normal D-dimer (n=97) was 100%. In patients with a high clinical score (n=160), the NPV of the D-dimer was 88%. In these patients, a single US combined with a normal D-dimer or FM test had an equal NPV as serial US (100 versus 98%, respectively) and lead to a reduction in the need for US by 36-53%, respectively. In patients with abnormal D-dimer concentrations (n=343), a normal US combined with a normal Auto LIA-FM test had a NPV of 97%, which was also true for serial US. This could lead to a reduction in the need for US by 45%. The present studied FMs are inferior to the Tina-Quant D-dimer test when used as primary screening tool to exclude DVT. Adding these FMs to patients with a normal Tina-Quant D-dimer has no benefit. In patients with a high pretest clinical probability score, a single US in combination with a normal D-dimer or FM test might be as safe as serial US. In patients with abnormal D-dimer concentrations and a normal US, a normal FM test might be able to replace the second US.
Available from: Thomas Wakefield
- "While fi brin monomers more recently are felt to be inferior to D-dimer assays as a primary screening tool for DVT, they may aid in this diagnosis when combined with both ultrasound and D-dimer assays.  Conclusion "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Primary and recurrent venous thromboembolic disease (VTE, deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism) remain a significant source of morbidity and mortality in the hospitalized patient. Non-specific subjective complaints and lack of specific objective findings related to acute deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) complicate the diagnosis. There remains no single serum marker available to exclusively confirm the diagnosis of VTE. While D-dimer is highly sensitive and useful for diagnostic exclusion, it lacks the specificity necessary for diagnostic confirmation resulting in the need for a variety of additional studies (i.e.: duplex ultrasound, venography, V/Q scanning, helical thoracic and pelvic CT scans and pulmoary angiography). There is evolving research supporting the utility of various plasma markers as novel "biomarkers" for VTE including selectins, microparticles, interleukin-10 and other cytokines. This review attempts to examine recent literature assessing the utility of P-selectin, microparticles, D-dimer, E-selectin, thrombin, interleukins and fibrin monomers in the diagnosis and guidance of therapy for VTE.
Biomarker insights 02/2008; 3:93-100.
Available from: B. Alamdary Badlou
Available from: Jelena Kotur
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Many studies have investigated the clinical accuracy of the D-dimer test in combination with pretest probability score for deep venous thrombosis (DVT) exclusion. However, few have evaluated its potential when combined with additional markers such as fibrin monomer. The aim of this study was to test the incremental usefulness of fibrin monomer for DVT screening in a bi-marker approach. This was achieved by adding the fibrin monomer to logistic models that included different D-dimer tests. Plasma concentrations of D-dimer and fibrin monomer were measured in 96 outpatients suspected of having DVT and in 76 patients selected from the total patient group according to pretest probability score (termed the DVT-unlikely group). We constructed receiver operating characteristic curves for three different D-dimer assays. Predictive probabilities from different logistic regression models and pair-wise comparisons of the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) were calculated without and with fibrin monomer included in the models. For all three D-dimer assays, the AUCs were higher in the DVT-unlikely group compared with AUCs in the total patient group [but the differences were without statistical significance (P > 0.05)]. The calculated fibrin monomer AUCs (0.724 in the total patient group and 0.683 in the DVT-unlikely group) were lower than the D-dimer tests' AUCs. The AUCs obtained from logistic regression models that included the three D-dimer tests in the total patient group and the DVT-unlikely group were significantly increased when fibrin monomer was included in the model to such an extent that the AUCs for one of them indicated outstanding discriminative abilities. Simultaneous D-dimer and fibrin monomer determination provides a more valuable approximation for DVT exclusion compared with just D-dimer analysis. Bearing in mind that the fibrin monomer assay is now both more practical and more suited for routine clinical use, fibrin monomer determination could be a more commonly used parameter together with D-dimer and pretest probability score for DVT diagnosis in the future.
Blood coagulation & fibrinolysis: an international journal in haemostasis and thrombosis 09/2009; 20(7):546-51. DOI:10.1097/MBC.0b013e32832e0605 · 1.40 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.