Effect of D-dimer combined with risk score in screening of acute aortic dissection / 中国中西医结合急救杂志

ABSTRACT

Objective To discuss the diagnostic value of a diagnostic strategy combining D-dimer and aortic dissection detection risk score (ADDRS) for patients with acute aortic dissection (AAD). Methods The clinical data of 750 patients with suspected AAD in emergency department of Zhongda Hospital Affiliated to Southeast University from January 2016 to January 2018 were retrospectively analyzed, including medical history, gender, age, chief complaint, physical examination, diagnostic imaging data and D-dimer levels on admission. ADDRS = 0 was defined as low risk group, ADDRS = 1 as medium risk group, ADDRS≤1 as non-high risk group,whereas ADDRS > 1 as high risk group. The clinical characteristics of AAD and non-AAD patients, ADDRS, D-dimer, and the diagnostic ability of D-dimer (the cutoff value of 500 μg/L) for AAD in different risk groups were observed. Results AAD was diagnosed in 79 of 750 (10.53%) patients. Of the 256 (34.13%) patients in low risk group, 5 patients were diagnosed with AAD. The medium risk group had 337 (44.93%) patients, including 44 cases with AAD. The high risk group had 157 (20.93%) patients, including 30 cases with AAD. In AAD patients, the proportion of male and hypertension, the incidence of ADDRS risk markers (including abrupt onset of pain, severe pain intensity, ripping or tearing pain, pulse deficit or systolic blood pressure differential of upper limb, focal neurological deficit, recent aortic manipulation, known thoracic aortic aneurysm) and the D-dimer levels in AAD group were significantly higher than those of non-AAD patients [male 82.28% (65/79) vs. 59.76% (401/671), hypertension 81.01% (64/79) vs. 41.43% (278/671), abrupt onset of pain 78.48% (62/79) vs. 39.94% (268/671), severe pain intensity 78.48% (62/79) vs. 50.52% (339/671), ripping or tearing pain 32.91% (26/79) vs. 0.75% (5/671), pulse deficit or systolic blood pressure differential of upper limb 15.19% (12/79) vs. 0.15% (1/671), focal neurological deficit 7.59% (6/79) vs. 1.64% (11/671), recent aortic manipulation 6.33% (5/79) vs. 0.30% (2/671), known thoracic aortic aneurysm 15.19% (12/79) vs. 0.30% (2/671), D-dimer (μg/L) 1 160 (588, 3 340) vs 135 (56, 478), all P < 0.05], the proportion of diabetics was significantly lower than that of non-AAD patients [7.59% (6/79) vs. 18.78% (126/671), P < 0.05]. The positive predictive values of D-dimer for AAD diagnosis in the low risk group and the non-high-risk groups (including low and medium risk groups) were lower than that in the high risk group (8.62%, 26.32% vs. 40.91%), the negative predictive values of D-dimer were higher in the low risk group and non-high-risk groups than that in the high risk group (100.00%, 99.05% vs. 96.70%), missed diagnosis rates were higher than that in high risk group (0, 0.95%, vs. 3.30%). Conclusion In the high risk group, D-dimer≥500 μg/L is helpful for diagnosis of AAD; and in low risk group or non-high-risk group, D-dimer < 500 μg/L can efficiently and accurately exclude AAD.