| Literature DB >> 34295302 |
Peng Zhang1, Chun Wang2, Junhua Wu3, Shiliang Zhang1.
Abstract
Background: Stroke is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Over the past decade, plasma D-dimer levels have emerged as a biomarker for predicting stroke outcome. However, no consensus in the literature currently exists concerning its utility for predicting post-stroke functional outcome and mortality. Objective: To systematically review the effectiveness of plasma D-dimer levels for predicting functional outcome and mortality following stroke.Entities:
Keywords: D-dimer; cerebrovascular accident; morbidity; mortality; prognosis
Year: 2021 PMID: 34295302 PMCID: PMC8289899 DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2021.693524
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurol ISSN: 1664-2295 Impact factor: 4.003
Figure 1PRISMA flowchart for study inclusion.
Study details.
| Hou et al. ( | China | Prospective cohort study | 10,518 (3,283F, 7,235M) | 62.3 ± 11.4 | Ischemic | At admission | Modified Rankin scale score ≥ 3 | 12 months | 1.1 μg/mL | 1.59 (1.32–1.91, <0.001) | – | – |
| Ye et al. ( | China | Prospective cohort study | 236 (91F, 145M) | 70 | Ischemic | At admission | Modified Rankin scale score > 2 | 1-month | 0.45 mg/L | 2.07 (1.49–2.88, <0.001) | – | – |
| Liu et al. ( | China | Prospective cohort study | 489 | 70.1 ± 11.9 | Ischemic | – | – | 6 months | 1.83 ± 2.29 mg/L | – | – | 3.06 (1.61–5.83, <0.001) |
| Sato et al. ( | Japan | Prospective cohort study | 130 | – | Ischemic | At admission | Modified Rankin scale score ≥ 3 | 3 months | – | 3.31 (1.14–9.61, <0.028) | – | – |
| Wang et al. ( | China | Prospective cohort study | 1,485 (997F, 488M) | 63.9 ± 12.7 | Ischemic | At admission | Modified Rankin scale score ≥ 3 | 3 months | 0.93 ± 45.8 mg/L | 2.93 (1.91–4.50, <0.0001) | – | – |
| Zhou et al. ( | China | Retrospective cohort study | 1,332 (694F, 638M) | 65 ± 14 | Intracerebral | 1-h post admission | Modified Rankin scale score ≥ 3 | 3 months | – | 1.48 (1.08–2.06, 0.1) | 3 months | 2.01 (1.18–3.42, 0.1) |
| Hutanu et al. ( | Romania | Retrospective cohort study | 89 | 71.9 ± 10 | – | At admission | Modified Rankin scale score ≥ 3 | 3 months | 185.1 (185.06–245.06) ng/mL | 8.3 (1.4–47.6, 0.01) | – | – |
| Nezu et al. ( | Japan | Retrospective cohort study | 295 (143F, 152M) | 72 ± 13 | Cryptogenic ischemic stroke | – | – | – | – | – | 36 months | 1.35 (0.74–2.5, 0.33) |
| Fukuda et al. ( | Canada | Retrospective cohort study | 187 (37F, 150M) | 62.45 | Aneurysm, subarachnoid hemorrhage, intracerebral, intraventricular | At admission | Modified Rankin scale score ≥ 3 | 3 months | – | 1.5 (1.1–2.0, 0.003) | – | – |
| Liu et al. ( | China | Retrospective cohort study | 146 (89F, 57M) | 57 | Subarachnoid hemorrhage | At admission | Glasgow coma scale, world Federation of Neurosurgical Societies stage IV to V | 6 months | – | 2.67 (1.66–4.45, <0.01) | – | – |
| Hsu et al. ( | Taiwan | Retrospective cohort study | 347 (140F, 207M) | 67.6 ± 13.1 | Intracerebral | 24-h post stroke | Modified Rankin scale score ≥ 3 | 3 months | – | 1.9 (1.27–2.86, 0.002) | – | – |
| Chen et al. ( | Taiwan | Prospective cohort study | 43 (14F, 29M) | 56.6 ± 15 | Intraventricular | At admission | – | – | 43.1 ± 45.8 μg/mL | – | – | 30 (3–295, 0.0006) |
| Kim et al. ( | South Korea | Retrospective cohort study | 570 (214F, 356M) | 60.8 ± 13.6 | Cryptogenic ischemic stroke | At admission | – | – | – | – | 34.0 ± 22.8 months | 4.28 (1.79 – 10.27, 0.001) |
| Hu et al. ( | China | Retrospective cohort study | 259 (98F, 161M) | 58 ± 14 | Subarachnoid hemorrhage, intracerebral, intraventricular | At admission | Modified Rankin scale score ≥ 3 | 3 months | – | 2.72 (1.13–6.59, 0.02) | 7 days | 1.23 (1.01–1.50, 0.033) |
| Yang et al. ( | China | Prospective cohort study | 220 (93F, 127M) | 68 | Ischemic | At admission | Modified Rankin scale score ≥ 3 | 3 months | 1.36 (0.55–3.11) mg/L | 4.25 (1.93–9.28, 0.001) | – | – |
| Chiu et al. ( | Taiwan | Retrospective cohort study | 170 | 65.9 ± 12.6 | Intracerebral | At admission | Glasgow coma scale ≥ 2 | 72 h | 1,231.9 ± 1,595.5 ng/mL | – | 30 days | 2.72 (1.08–6.9, 0.002) |
| Krarup et al. ( | Norway | Retrospective cohort study | 449 (218F, 231M) | 80 | Ischemic | – | Scandinavian stroke scale ≥ 3 | 48 h | – | 0.99 (0.97–1.01, 0.34) | – | – |
| Üstündag et al. ( | Turkey | Retrospective cohort study | 91 (49F, 42M) | 64.5 ± 12.7 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0.51 (0.32–0.79, 0.003) |
| Delgado et al. ( | Spain | Retrospective cohort study | 98 (35F, 63M) | 61–80 | Intracerebral | At admission | NIH Stroke Scale ≥ 4 | 48 h | 1,780 (354–2,655) ng/mL | 6.8 (1.2–36.9, 0.02) | 3 months | 8.7 (1.4–54.1, 0.02) |
Risk of bias according to Cochrane's risk of bias assessment tool for included non-randomized controlled trials.
| Hou et al. ( | + | + | + | ? | + | – | + | 2b |
| Ye et al. ( | + | + | + | ? | + | – | + | 2b |
| Liu et al. ( | + | + | + | ? | + | – | + | 2b |
| Sato et al. ( | + | – | + | ? | + | – | + | 2b |
| Wang et al. ( | + | + | ? | + | + | ? | + | 2b |
| Zhou et al. ( | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | 2b |
| Hutanu et al. ( | + | – | + | + | ? | – | + | 2b |
| Nezu et al. ( | + | ? | + | – | + | ? | + | 2b |
| Fukuda et al. ( | + | ? | + | – | + | ? | + | 2b |
| Liu et al. ( | + | – | + | ? | + | – | + | 2b |
| Hsu et al. ( | + | ? | + | ? | + | + | + | 2b |
| Chen et al. ( | + | ? | + | – | + | ? | + | 2b |
| Kim et al. ( | + | ? | + | + | + | + | + | 2b |
| Hu et al. ( | + | + | + | + | + | + | – | 2b |
| Yang et al. ( | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | 2b |
| Chiu et al. ( | + | ? | + | + | + | + | + | 2b |
| Krarup et al. ( | + | ? | + | – | + | ? | + | 2b |
| Üstündag et al. ( | + | – | + | + | + | – | – | 2b |
| Delgado et al. ( | + | – | + | + | + | – | + | 2b |
Figure 2Risk of bias for non-randomized controlled trials according to the Cochrane risk of bias assessment.
Figure 3Publication bias as determined using Duval & Tweedy's trim and fill method.
Figure 4Forest plot for studies evaluating the impact of D-dimer level on post-stroke functional outcomes. Hazard ratios are presented as black boxes while 95% confidence intervals are presented as whiskers. A small hazard ratio represents a lower influence of D-dimer levels on stroke patient functional outcome while a higher hazard ratio represents a higher influence.
Figure 5Forest plot for studies evaluating the impact of D-dimer level on post-ischemic stroke functional outcomes. Hazard ratios are presented as black boxes while 95% confidence intervals are presented as whiskers. A small hazard ratio represents a lower influence of D-dimer levels on stroke patient functional outcome while a higher hazard ratio represents a higher influence.
Figure 6Forest plot for studies evaluating the impact of D-dimer level on post-intracerebral hemorrhage functional outcomes. Hazard ratios are presented as black boxes while 95% confidence intervals are presented as whiskers. A small hazard ratio represents a lower influence of D-dimer levels on stroke patient functional outcome while a higher hazard ratio represents a higher influence.
Figure 7Forest plot for studies evaluating the impact of D-dimer level on post-stroke functional outcomes for 3 months follow up. Hazard ratios are presented as black boxes while 95% confidence intervals are presented as whiskers. A small hazard ratio represents a lower influence of D-dimer levels on stroke patient functional outcome while a higher hazard ratio represents a higher influence.
Figure 8Forest plot for studies evaluating the impact of D-dimer level on post-intracerebral hemorrhage functional outcomes for 2 months follow up. Hazard ratios are presented as black boxes while 95% confidence intervals are presented as whiskers. A small hazard ratio represents a lower influence of D-dimer levels on stroke patient functional outcome while a higher hazard ratio represents a higher influence.
Figure 9Forest plot for studies evaluating the impact of D-dimer level on post-stroke mortality outcomes. Hazard ratios are presented as black boxes while 95% confidence intervals are presented as whiskers. A small hazard ratio represents a lower influence of D-dimer levels on stroke patient functional outcome while a higher hazard ratio represents a higher influence.
Figure 10Forest plot for studies evaluating the impact of D-dimer level on post-cryptogenic ischemic stroke mortality outcomes. Hazard ratios are presented as black boxes while 95% confidence intervals are presented as whiskers. A small hazard ratio represents a lower influence of D-dimer levels on stroke patient functional outcome while a higher hazard ratio represents a higher influence.
Figure 11Forest plot for studies evaluating the impact of D-dimer level on post-intracerebral hemorrhage mortality outcomes. Hazard ratios are presented as black boxes while 95% confidence intervals are presented as whiskers. A small hazard ratio represents a lower influence of D-dimer levels on stroke patient functional outcome while a higher hazard ratio represents a higher influence.
Figure 12Forest plot for studies evaluating the impact of D-dimer level on post-stroke mortality outcomes at 3 months follow up. Hazard ratios are presented as black boxes while 95% confidence intervals are presented as whiskers. A small hazard ratio represents a lower influence of D-dimer levels on stroke patient functional outcome while a higher hazard ratio represents a higher influence.