head JofIMAB
Journal of IMAB - Annual Proceeding (Scientific Papers)
Publisher: Peytchinski Publishing Ltd.
ISSN: 1312-773X (Online)
Issue: 2021, vol. 27, issue1
Subject Area: Medicine
DOI: 10.5272/jimab.2021271.3539
Published online: 22 January 2021

Original article

J of IMAB. 2021 Jan-Mar;27(1):3539-3542
Irena I. GenchevaORCID logo Corresponding Autoremail,
Department of Clinical Laboratory, Clinical Immunology and Allergology, Medical University - Pleven, Bulgaria.

Introduction: D - dimer is a product released during the process of blood clotting and degradation, which can be measured by blood sample analysis. There is usually the minimal activity of the pro/anticoagulant system in the human body, which generates low levels of D-dimer in healthy individuals. Normal values for plasma D-dimer are ≤ 0.50 mg / l.
Aim: The aim of the present study is to determine to what extent the quantitative and qualitative method for determination of D - dimer can be interchangeable and what is their diagnostic reliability in the normal and pathological area of measurement.
Materials and methods: We studied the levels of D-dimer by two methods - quantitative and qualitative, in 91 patients aged 25 to 86 years, of which 59 men and 32 women. To determine the D-dimer, we used venous blood taken in a vacuette containing sodium citrate. We used a Roche test for quantitative determination and a Latex agglutination test for qualitative determination.
Results: It was found that in positive samples above 0.5 mg/l, there is a very high percentage of coincidence. There is a discrepancy in the values obtained by the two methods at the negative values below 0.5 mg/l. We determined the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of both methods.
Conclusion: The correlation in the results of the two methods is very good, but the quantification of D-dimer is more specific and accurate. We recommend that the value of 0.5 mg/l should be used as a cut off value for D-dimer.

Keywords: D-dimer, qualitative, quantitative, cut off,

pdf - Download FULL TEXT /PDF 849 KB/
Please cite this article as: Gencheva II. Comparative analysis of the quantitative and qualitative method for determination of D - dimer. J of IMAB. 2021 Jan-Mar;27(1):3539-3542.
DOI: 10.5272/jimab.2021271.3539

Corresponding AutorCorrespondence to: Irena I. Gencheva, Department of Clinical laboratory, Clinical immunology and alergology, Medical University – Pleven; 7, Dame Gruev Str., 5800 Pleven, Bulgaria; E-mail: gencheva1677@gmail.com

1. 1. Reber G, De Moerloose P. Standartization of D-dimer testing. In: Quality in laboratory hemostasis and thrombosis. Kitchen S, Olson JD, Preston FE. (Editors). 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons. 2013. Chapter 13. pp.136-146.   [Crossref]
2. Thachil J, Lippi G, Favaloro EJ. D-dimer testing: laboratory aspects and current issues. Methods Mol Biol. 2017; 1646:91-104. [PubMed] [Crossref]
3. Ginsberg JS, Wells PS, Kearon C, Anderson D, Crowther M, Weitz JI, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of a rapid whole-blood assay for D-dimer in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. Ann Intern Med. 1998 Dec 15;129(12):1006-11. [PubMed] [Crossref]
4. Tripodi A. D-dimer testing in laboratory practice. Clin Chem. 2011 Sep;57(9):1256-62. [PubMed] [Crossref]
5. Harper PL, Theakston E, Ahmed J, Ockelford P. D-dimer concentration increases with age reducing the clinical value of the D-dimer assay in the elderly. Intern Med J. 2007 Sep; 37(9):607-13. [PubMed] [Crossref]
6. Legnani C, Palareti G, Cosmi B, Cini M, Tosetto A, Tripodi  A. Different cut-off values of quantitative D-dimer methods to predict the risk of venous thromboembolism recurrence: a post-hoc analysis of the PROLONG study. Haematologica. 2008 Jun;93(6):900-7. [PubMed] [Crossref]
7. Stegnar M, Božič M. Determination of D-dimer by different quantitative assays – A harmonization exercise. Biochemia Medica. 2008; 18(2):216-23. [Internet]
8. Dempfle CE. D-dimer: standardization versus harmonization. Thromb Haemost. 2006 Mar;95(3):399-400. [PubMed] [Crossref]
9.  Meijer P, Kluft C. The harmonization of quantitative test results of different D-dimer methods. Semin Vasc Med. 2005 Nov;5(4):321-7. [PubMed] [Crossref]
10. Longstaff C, Adcock D, Olson JD, Jennings I, Kitchen S, Mutch N, et al. Harmonisation of D-dimer - A call for action. Thromb Res. 2016; 137:219-220. [Crossref]
11. Ekelund S, Eliasen MM. D-dimer assays - pitfalls of analytical comparisons. acutecaretesting.org. May 2016. [Internet]
12. Linkins L-A, Takach Lapner S. Review of D-dimer testing: Good, Bad, and Ugly. Int J Lab Hematol. 2017 May;39 Suppl 1:98-103. [PubMed] [ target="_blank"Crossref]
13. Favresse J, Lippi G, Roy PM, Chatelain B, Jacqmin H, Cate HT, et al. D-dimer: Preanalytical, analytical, postanalytical variables, and clinical applications. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci. 2018 Dec;55(8):548-577. [PubMed] [Crossref]
14. Nelson CM, Wright GS, Silbaugh TR, Cota LJ. Improving D-dimer Positive Predictive Value for Outpatients with Suspected Deep Vein Thrombosis. Perm J. 2009 Winter;13(1):4-7. [PubMed] [Crossref].

Received: 02 October 2019
Published online: 22 January 2021

back to Online Journal