BACKGROUND: Point-of-care D-dimer tests have recently been introduced to enable rapid exclusion of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) without the need to refer a patient for conventional laboratory-based D-dimer testing. Before implementation in practice, however, the diagnostic accuracy of each test should be validated. METHODS: We analyzed data of 577 prospectively identified consecutive primary care patients suspected to have DVT, who underwent 5 point-of-care D-dimer tests-4 quantitative (Vidas®, Pathfast™, Cardiac®, and Triage®) and 1 qualitative (Clearview Simplify®)-and ultrasonography as the reference method. We evaluated the tests for the accuracy of their measurements and submitted a questionnaire to 20 users to assess the user-friendliness of each test. RESULTS: All D-dimer tests showed negative predictive values higher than 98%. Sensitivity was high for all point-of-care tests, with a range of 0.91 (Clearview Simplify) to 0.99 (Vidas). Specificity varied between 0.39 (Pathfast) and 0.64 (Clearview Simplify). The quantitative point-of-care tests showed similar and high discriminative power for DVT, according to calculated areas under the ROC curves (range 0.88-0.89). The quantitative Vidas and Pathfast devices showed limited user-friendliness for primary care, owing to a laborious calibration process and long analyzer warm-up time compared to the Cardiac and Triage. For the qualitative Clearview Simplify assay, no analyzer or calibration was needed, but interpretation of a test result was sometimes difficult because of poor color contrast. CONCLUSIONS: Point-of-care D-dimer assays show good and similar diagnostic accuracy. The quantitative Cardiac and Triage and the qualitative Clearview Simplify D-dimer seem most user-friendly for excluding DVT in the doctor's office.
BACKGROUND: Point-of-care D-dimer tests have recently been introduced to enable rapid exclusion of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) without the need to refer a patient for conventional laboratory-based D-dimer testing. Before implementation in practice, however, the diagnostic accuracy of each test should be validated. METHODS: We analyzed data of 577 prospectively identified consecutive primary care patients suspected to have DVT, who underwent 5 point-of-care D-dimer tests-4 quantitative (Vidas®, Pathfast™, Cardiac®, and Triage®) and 1 qualitative (Clearview Simplify®)-and ultrasonography as the reference method. We evaluated the tests for the accuracy of their measurements and submitted a questionnaire to 20 users to assess the user-friendliness of each test. RESULTS: All D-dimer tests showed negative predictive values higher than 98%. Sensitivity was high for all point-of-care tests, with a range of 0.91 (Clearview Simplify) to 0.99 (Vidas). Specificity varied between 0.39 (Pathfast) and 0.64 (Clearview Simplify). The quantitative point-of-care tests showed similar and high discriminative power for DVT, according to calculated areas under the ROC curves (range 0.88-0.89). The quantitative Vidas and Pathfast devices showed limited user-friendliness for primary care, owing to a laborious calibration process and long analyzer warm-up time compared to the Cardiac and Triage. For the qualitative Clearview Simplify assay, no analyzer or calibration was needed, but interpretation of a test result was sometimes difficult because of poor color contrast. CONCLUSIONS: Point-of-care D-dimer assays show good and similar diagnostic accuracy. The quantitative Cardiac and Triage and the qualitative Clearview Simplify D-dimer seem most user-friendly for excluding DVT in the doctor's office.
Authors: Annette Plüddemann; Matthew Thompson; Christopher P Price; Jane Wolstenholme; Carl Heneghan Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Marjolein J C Schot; Sanne van Delft; Antoinette M J Kooijman-Buiting; Niek J de Wit; Rogier M Hopstaken Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-05-18 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Angel M R Schols; Eline Meijs; Geert-Jan Dinant; Henri E J H Stoffers; Mariëlle M E Krekels; Jochen W L Cals Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-05-28 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Sanne van Delft; Annelijn Goedhart; Mark Spigt; Bart van Pinxteren; Niek de Wit; Rogier Hopstaken Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-08-08 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Jürgen H Prochaska; Bernd Frank; Markus Nagler; Heidrun Lamparter; Gerhard Weißer; Andreas Schulz; Lisa Eggebrecht; Sebastian Göbel; Natalie Arnold; Marina Panova-Noeva; Iris Hermanns; Antonio Pinto; Stavros Konstantinides; Hugo Ten Cate; Karl J Lackner; Thomas Münzel; Christine Espinola-Klein; Philipp S Wild Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-07-04 Impact factor: 4.379