Literature DB >> 26258679

What is the most reliable marker in the differential diagnosis of pulmonary embolism and community-acquired pneumonia?

Hale Ateş1, İhsan Ateş, Bülent Bozkurt, Hüseyin Tuğrul Çelik, Duygu Özol, Zeki Yldrm.   

Abstract

Because of similar clinical manifestations and laboratory findings, differential diagnosis of pulmonary embolism and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is generally difficult. Therefore, this study was conducted to find good markers for the easy, cheap, and fast differential diagnosis of pulmonary embolism and CAP. Thirty-four patients diagnosed with pulmonary embolism and 38 patients with CAP who were admitted to either emergency department or chest diseases outpatient clinic were included in this study. On admission and third day, complete blood count, C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate, procalcitonin (PCT), and D-dimer levels of each patient were measured. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) was calculated using the formula NLR = neutrophil count/lymphocyte count. NLR/D-dimer and PCT/D-dimer ratios were also calculated. First day neutrophil count (P = 0.005), NLR (P = 0.002), CRP (P < 0.001), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (P < 0.001), PCT (P < 0.001), NLR/D-dimer (P < 0.001), and PCT/D-dimer (P < 0.001) levels were higher in patients with CAP compared with patients with pulmonary embolism. In stepwise logistic regression analysis done with all the parameters used for the differential diagnosis of pulmonary embolism and CAP, CRP, PCT/D-dimer, and NLR/D-dimer were found to be independent predictive factors for the presence of CAP. Among these factors, NLR/D-dimer ratio was found to be the most sensitive (97.4%) to have the highest negative predictive value 96.7% and to be the most accurate (area under curve = 0.921) (91.7%) parameter for the differential diagnosis of pulmonary embolism and CAP. In this study, NLR/D-dimer ratio was found to be more sensitive and more selective with negative predictive value and area under curve for the differential diagnosis of pulmonary embolism and CAP compared with other laboratory tests.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26258679     DOI: 10.1097/MBC.0000000000000391

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis        ISSN: 0957-5235            Impact factor:   1.276


  5 in total

1.  Diagnostic validity of hematologic parameters in evaluation of massive pulmonary embolism.

Authors:  Hale Ates; Ihsan Ates; Harun Kundi; Fatma Meric Yilmaz
Journal:  J Clin Lab Anal       Date:  2016-10-06       Impact factor: 2.352

2.  Choice of marker for assessment of RV dysfunction in acute pulmonary embolism : NT-proBNP, pulmonary artery systolic pressure, mean arterial pressure, or blood pressure index.

Authors:  H Ates; I Ates; H Kundi; F M Yilmaz
Journal:  Herz       Date:  2016-12-13       Impact factor: 1.443

Review 3.  Non-infectious mimics of community-acquired pneumonia.

Authors:  Andrew D Black
Journal:  Pneumonia (Nathan)       Date:  2016-04-12

4.  Infrared Spectroscopy in Differential Diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism.

Authors:  O V Krasnikova; S V Nemirova; A P Medvedev; A S Gordetsov
Journal:  Sovrem Tekhnologii Med       Date:  2020-06-28

5.  Value of D-dimer in predicting various clinical outcomes following community-acquired pneumonia: A network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jiawen Li; Kaiyu Zhou; Hongyu Duan; Peng Yue; Xiaolan Zheng; Lei Liu; Hongyu Liao; Jinlin Wu; Jinhui Li; Yimin Hua; Yifei Li
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-02-23       Impact factor: 3.240

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.