4.3 Article

Evaluation of the Value of d-Dimer, P-Selectin, and Platelet Count for Prediction of Portal Vein Thrombosis After Devascularization

期刊

CLINICAL AND APPLIED THROMBOSIS-HEMOSTASIS
卷 22, 期 5, 页码 471-475

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1076029615569273

关键词

devascularization; portal vein thrombosis; d-dimer; P-selectin; platelet count

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/Aim: To evaluate the value of d-dimer, P-selectin, and platelet count in patients with cirrhotic portal hypertension (PHT) for prediction of portal vein thrombosis (PVT) after devascularization. Methods: A total of 137 patients with cirrhotic PHT who undergone devascularization from January 2012 to April 2014 were retrospectively reviewed, all of them were divided into 2 groups (PVT group and non-PVT group) by Doppler ultrasonography (DU) examination. The level of d-dimer, P-selectin, and platelet count was tested during the perioperative period. Results: In all, 38 (27.7%) patients were found to have PVT by DU examination postoperatively. In contrast to the non-PVT group, the level of d-dimer, P-selectin, and platelet count in the PVT group was much higher significantly at 1, 3, and 7 days after devascularization. (P < .05). However, in the 15 days after surgery, the difference in P-selectin between the 2 groups was not significant (P = .260). It was shown that the highest sensitivity of the 3 markers for PVT was d-dimer, the highest specificity belonged to P-selectin. The area under receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve of P-selectin was the biggest of the 3 markers. When the 3 markers were combined to be used to diagnose PVT, the sensitivity was increased to 0.907, with a slight drop of specificity to 0.693, the area under the ROC curve was 0.927. Conclusion: The level of d-dimer, P-selectin, and platelet count might be good candidate predictive markers for PVT in patients with cirrhotic PHT after devascularization. The combined test of the 3 markers can increase the value of prediction.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据