Cargando…
Is D-dimer a reliable biomarker compared to ESR and CRP in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection?: a systematic review and meta-analysis
AIMS: The diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has always been challenging. Recently, D-dimer has become a promising biomarker in diagnosing PJI. However, there is controversy regarding its diagnostic value. We aim to investigate the diagnostic value of D-dimer in comparison to ESR and...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7640940/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33399473 http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.910.BJR-2020-0172.R2 |
_version_ | 1783605845575073792 |
---|---|
author | Chen, Xi Li, Hairui Zhu, Shibai Wang, Yiou Qian, Wenwei |
author_facet | Chen, Xi Li, Hairui Zhu, Shibai Wang, Yiou Qian, Wenwei |
author_sort | Chen, Xi |
collection | PubMed |
description | AIMS: The diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has always been challenging. Recently, D-dimer has become a promising biomarker in diagnosing PJI. However, there is controversy regarding its diagnostic value. We aim to investigate the diagnostic value of D-dimer in comparison to ESR and CRP. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched in February 2020 to identify articles reporting on the diagnostic value of D-dimer on PJI. Pooled analysis was conducted to investigate the diagnostic value of D-dimer, CRP, and ESR. RESULTS: Six studies with 1,255 cases were included (374 PJI cases and 881 non-PJI cases). Overall D-dimer showed sensitivity of 0.80 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 0.87) and specificity of 0.76 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.86). Sub-group analysis by excluding patients with thrombosis and hyper-coagulation disorders showed sensitivity of 0.82 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.90) and specificity of 0.80 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.88). Serum D-dimer showed sensitivity of 0.85 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.92), specificity of 0.83 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.90). Plasma D-dimer showed sensitivity of 0.67 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.73), specificity of 0.58 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.72). CRP showed sensitivity of 0.78 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.83), specificity of 0.81 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.87). ESR showed sensitivity of 0.68 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.73), specificity of 0.83 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.87). CONCLUSION: In patients without thrombosis or a hyper-coagulation disorder, D-dimer has a higher diagnostic value compared to CRP and ESR. In patients with the aforementioned conditions, D-dimer has higher sensitivity but lower specificity compared to ESR and CRP. We do not recommend the use of serum D-dimer in patients with thrombosis and hyper-coagulation disorders for diagnosing PJI. Serum D-dimer may perform better than plasma D-dimer. Further studies are needed to compare serum D-dimer and plasma D-dimer in arthroplasty patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2020;9(10):701–708. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7640940 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-76409402020-11-09 Is D-dimer a reliable biomarker compared to ESR and CRP in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection?: a systematic review and meta-analysis Chen, Xi Li, Hairui Zhu, Shibai Wang, Yiou Qian, Wenwei Bone Joint Res Systematic Review AIMS: The diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has always been challenging. Recently, D-dimer has become a promising biomarker in diagnosing PJI. However, there is controversy regarding its diagnostic value. We aim to investigate the diagnostic value of D-dimer in comparison to ESR and CRP. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched in February 2020 to identify articles reporting on the diagnostic value of D-dimer on PJI. Pooled analysis was conducted to investigate the diagnostic value of D-dimer, CRP, and ESR. RESULTS: Six studies with 1,255 cases were included (374 PJI cases and 881 non-PJI cases). Overall D-dimer showed sensitivity of 0.80 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 0.87) and specificity of 0.76 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.86). Sub-group analysis by excluding patients with thrombosis and hyper-coagulation disorders showed sensitivity of 0.82 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.90) and specificity of 0.80 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.88). Serum D-dimer showed sensitivity of 0.85 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.92), specificity of 0.83 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.90). Plasma D-dimer showed sensitivity of 0.67 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.73), specificity of 0.58 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.72). CRP showed sensitivity of 0.78 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.83), specificity of 0.81 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.87). ESR showed sensitivity of 0.68 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.73), specificity of 0.83 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.87). CONCLUSION: In patients without thrombosis or a hyper-coagulation disorder, D-dimer has a higher diagnostic value compared to CRP and ESR. In patients with the aforementioned conditions, D-dimer has higher sensitivity but lower specificity compared to ESR and CRP. We do not recommend the use of serum D-dimer in patients with thrombosis and hyper-coagulation disorders for diagnosing PJI. Serum D-dimer may perform better than plasma D-dimer. Further studies are needed to compare serum D-dimer and plasma D-dimer in arthroplasty patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2020;9(10):701–708. The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery 2020-10-22 /pmc/articles/PMC7640940/ /pubmed/33399473 http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.910.BJR-2020-0172.R2 Text en © 2020 Author(s) et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence, which permits the copying and redistribution of the work only, and provided the original author and source are credited. See https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Systematic Review Chen, Xi Li, Hairui Zhu, Shibai Wang, Yiou Qian, Wenwei Is D-dimer a reliable biomarker compared to ESR and CRP in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection?: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title | Is D-dimer a reliable biomarker compared to ESR and CRP in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection?: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full | Is D-dimer a reliable biomarker compared to ESR and CRP in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection?: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Is D-dimer a reliable biomarker compared to ESR and CRP in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection?: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Is D-dimer a reliable biomarker compared to ESR and CRP in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection?: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_short | Is D-dimer a reliable biomarker compared to ESR and CRP in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection?: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_sort | is d-dimer a reliable biomarker compared to esr and crp in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection?: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Systematic Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7640940/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33399473 http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.910.BJR-2020-0172.R2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT chenxi isddimerareliablebiomarkercomparedtoesrandcrpinthediagnosisofperiprostheticjointinfectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT lihairui isddimerareliablebiomarkercomparedtoesrandcrpinthediagnosisofperiprostheticjointinfectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT zhushibai isddimerareliablebiomarkercomparedtoesrandcrpinthediagnosisofperiprostheticjointinfectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT wangyiou isddimerareliablebiomarkercomparedtoesrandcrpinthediagnosisofperiprostheticjointinfectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT qianwenwei isddimerareliablebiomarkercomparedtoesrandcrpinthediagnosisofperiprostheticjointinfectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |