Cargando…

Comparison of D-dimer with CRP and ESR for diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection

BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of several biomarkers, the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) continues to be challenging. Serum D-dimer assessment is a widely available test that detects fibrinolytic activities and has been reported as an inflammatory biomarker. However, quite a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Xiong, Longjiang, Li, Siyun, Dai, Min
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6664511/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31358018
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-019-1282-y
_version_ 1783439898422804480
author Xiong, Longjiang
Li, Siyun
Dai, Min
author_facet Xiong, Longjiang
Li, Siyun
Dai, Min
author_sort Xiong, Longjiang
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of several biomarkers, the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) continues to be challenging. Serum D-dimer assessment is a widely available test that detects fibrinolytic activities and has been reported as an inflammatory biomarker. However, quite a few articles have reported the diagnostic efficiency of D-dimer for PJI. METHODS: This prospective study enrolled patients who had undergone total joint arthroplasty, were suspected of PJI, and also prepared for revision arthroplasty. PJI was defined using the Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria. In all patients, serum D-dimer level, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and C-reactive protein (CRP) level were measured preoperatively. We then compared the diagnostic efficiency of these three biomarkers. RESULTS: The median D-dimer level was significantly higher (p < 0.001) for the patients with PJI than for the patients with aseptic failure. With a sensitivity of 80.77% (95% CI, 65.62 to 95.92%) and a specificity of 79.63% (95% CI, 68.89 to 90.37%), the diagnostic efficiency of D-dimer did not outperform serum CRP (with a sensitivity of 84.61% and specificity of 64.81%) and ESR (with a sensitivity of 73.08% and specificity of 90.47%). CONCLUSIONS: Serum D-dimer as a marker for the diagnosis of PJI still requires more large-scale and detailed clinical trials.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6664511
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66645112019-08-05 Comparison of D-dimer with CRP and ESR for diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection Xiong, Longjiang Li, Siyun Dai, Min J Orthop Surg Res Research Article BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of several biomarkers, the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) continues to be challenging. Serum D-dimer assessment is a widely available test that detects fibrinolytic activities and has been reported as an inflammatory biomarker. However, quite a few articles have reported the diagnostic efficiency of D-dimer for PJI. METHODS: This prospective study enrolled patients who had undergone total joint arthroplasty, were suspected of PJI, and also prepared for revision arthroplasty. PJI was defined using the Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria. In all patients, serum D-dimer level, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and C-reactive protein (CRP) level were measured preoperatively. We then compared the diagnostic efficiency of these three biomarkers. RESULTS: The median D-dimer level was significantly higher (p < 0.001) for the patients with PJI than for the patients with aseptic failure. With a sensitivity of 80.77% (95% CI, 65.62 to 95.92%) and a specificity of 79.63% (95% CI, 68.89 to 90.37%), the diagnostic efficiency of D-dimer did not outperform serum CRP (with a sensitivity of 84.61% and specificity of 64.81%) and ESR (with a sensitivity of 73.08% and specificity of 90.47%). CONCLUSIONS: Serum D-dimer as a marker for the diagnosis of PJI still requires more large-scale and detailed clinical trials. BioMed Central 2019-07-29 /pmc/articles/PMC6664511/ /pubmed/31358018 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-019-1282-y Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Xiong, Longjiang
Li, Siyun
Dai, Min
Comparison of D-dimer with CRP and ESR for diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection
title Comparison of D-dimer with CRP and ESR for diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection
title_full Comparison of D-dimer with CRP and ESR for diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection
title_fullStr Comparison of D-dimer with CRP and ESR for diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of D-dimer with CRP and ESR for diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection
title_short Comparison of D-dimer with CRP and ESR for diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection
title_sort comparison of d-dimer with crp and esr for diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6664511/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31358018
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-019-1282-y
work_keys_str_mv AT xionglongjiang comparisonofddimerwithcrpandesrfordiagnosisofperiprostheticjointinfection
AT lisiyun comparisonofddimerwithcrpandesrfordiagnosisofperiprostheticjointinfection
AT daimin comparisonofddimerwithcrpandesrfordiagnosisofperiprostheticjointinfection