The role of D-dimer in periprosthetic joint infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Periprosthetic joint infections: state-of-the-art

In general, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is regarded as one of the most common complications of total joint arthroplasty (TJA) and may lead to surgical failure, revision surgery, amputation or death. Nowadays, PJI has become a global health concern, which brings a great burden to public healthcare. In addition, there are still obstacles to achieve high success rates in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of PJI. However, promising studies are also available with the advancements in biotechnology. This article will present an overview of the current methods used in the prevention, diagnosis and management of PJI while underlining the new technologies utilized.

Finding the Optimal Screening Test for Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Prospective Study

BACKGROUND

No single test has demonstrated absolute accuracy in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Serological markers are often used as screening tools to avoid unnecessary joint aspiration in cases with a low probability of infection. This study aimed to determine the utility of standard-of-care serological tests as a screening tool for PJI in patients undergoing revision arthroplasty.

METHODS

This prospective study enrolled 502 patients undergoing revision hip or knee arthroplasty between May 2017 and August 2021. A PJI was defined using a modified definition of the 2018 International Consensus Meeting criteria. Plasma D-dimer, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), and fibrinogen were measured preoperatively. There were 82 patients undergoing reimplantation who were excluded. Additionally, 8 patients who had an inconclusive International Consensus Meeting score were also excluded. Of the 412 included patients, 317 (76.9%) underwent revision for aseptic failure, and 95 (23.1%) had PJI. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to assess the diagnostic utility of each serological test. A pairwise comparison with Bonferroni correction was performed to determine whether the differences in areas under the curve (AUCs) between the tests were significant. Additional analyses were performed to find the threshold for each test that offered 100% sensitivity, allowing it to be the optimal screening test.

RESULTS

All 4 serological markers, D-dimer (AUC 0.860, sensitivity 81.3%, specificity 81.7%), CRP (AUC 0.862, sensitivity 90.4%, specificity 70.0%), ESR (AUC 0.833, sensitivity 73.9%, specificity 85.2%), and fibrinogen (AUC 0.798, sensitivity 74.7%, specificity 75.4%), demonstrated comparable accuracy for the diagnosis of PJI (all P > .05). When maximizing sensitivity to 100%, D-dimer demonstrated the highest specificity (AUC 0.860, specificity 40.2%), outperforming ESR (AUC 0.833, specificity 3.3%), fibrinogen (AUC 0.798, specificity 2.3%), and CRP (AUC 0.862, specificity 0%). A plasma D-dimer level of ≥ 244 ng/mL was identified as the optimal cutoff for use as a screening test.

CONCLUSIONS

Although plasma D-dimer demonstrated similar diagnostic accuracy as CRP, ESR, and fibrinogen, it outperformed all 3 aforementioned serological markers when used as a screening test for PJI.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II.

Ideal Timing of Reimplantation in Patients with Periprosthetic Knee Infection Undergoing 2-Stage Exchange: A Diagnostic Scoring System

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated appropriate thresholds for serum biomarkers, synovial fluid white blood cell (SF-WBC) count, and synovial fluid neutrophil (polymorphonuclear leukocyte [PMN]) percentage to predict infection in a patient group who underwent definitive reimplantation after receiving a continuous course of antibiotic therapy for chronic knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). These thresholds were then used to generate a scoring system to predict recurrence (or persistence) of infection.

METHODS

The study included 153 patients with a median age of 73 years (range, 46 to 91 years) who underwent 2-stage revision for chronic knee PJI. Staphylococci were identified at baseline in 107 (70%) of the patients. After the 96-week follow-up period, 12% (19) of the 153 patients had recurrence of the PJI. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to assess the predictive value of common serum biomarkers and SF aspiration before reimplantation, and the area under the curve (AUC) was evaluated. Variables that were significantly different between patients with and without infection recurrence were evaluated using a multivariable logistic regression model. A half-integer-point scoring system was created based on the final beta coefficients.

RESULTS

Regarding the prediction of recurrent infection, a D-dimer level of >1110 ng/mL yielded a sensitivity of 74%, specificity of 61%, and AUC of 0.69; an SF-WBC count of >934 cells/µL showed a sensitivity of 68%, specificity of 90%, and AUC of 0.79; and an SF-PMN percentage of >52% showed a sensitivity of 73%, specificity of 90%, and AUC of 0.82. The beta coefficients were approximated to 1.5 for the D-dimer level and to 2 for the SF-WBC count and SF-PMN percentage. A total score of >2 was used to classify patients with a high risk of infection recurrence. The ability to discriminate infection recurrence was demonstrated by an AUC of 0.90 (95% confidence interval: 0.82 to 0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a score of >2 on our proposed scoring system based on serum biomarkers, SF-WBC count, and SF-PMN percentage should not undergo reimplantation, as they are at a high risk for recurrent PJI. Patients with a score of ≤2 can undergo definitive reimplantation with the lowest risk of recurrence.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Plasma D-Dimer Is a Promising Marker to Guide Timing of Reimplantation: A Prospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Two-stage exchange arthroplasty remains the preferred surgical treatment for chronic periprosthetic joint infection. Currently, there is no single reliable marker to determine the optimal timing for reimplantation. The purpose of this prospective study was to assess the diagnostic utility of plasma D-dimer and other serological markers in predicting successful control of infection following reimplantation.

METHODS

This study enrolled 136 patients undergoing reimplantation arthroplasty between November 2016 and December 2020. Strict inclusion criteria were applied including the need for a two-week "antibiotic holiday" prior to reimplantation. A total of 114 patients were included in the final analysis. Plasma D-dimer, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), and fibrinogen were measured preoperatively. Treatment success was defined using the Musculoskeletal Infection Society Outcome-Reporting Tool. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to assess the prognostic accuracy of each biomarker in predicting failure following reimplantation at a minimum 1-year follow-up.

RESULTS

Treatment failure occurred in 33 patients (28.9%) at a mean follow-up of 3.2 years (range, 1.0 to 5.7). Median plasma D-dimer was significantly higher in the treatment failure group (1,604 versus 631 ng/mL, P < .001), whereas median CRP, ESR, and fibrinogen were not significantly different between the success and failure groups. Plasma D-dimer demonstrated the best diagnostic utility (area under the curve [AUC] 0.724, sensitivity 51.5%, specificity 92.6%), outperforming ESR (AUC 0.565, sensitivity 93.3%, specificity 22.5%), CRP (AUC 0.541, sensitivity 87.5%, specificity 26.3%), and fibrinogen (AUC 0.485, sensitivity 30.4%, specificity 80.0%). Plasma D-dimer level of ≥1,604 ng/mL was identified as the optimal cutoff that predicted failure following reimplantation.

CONCLUSION

Plasma D-dimer was superior to serum ESR, CRP, and fibrinogen in predicting failure after the second stage of a two-stage exchange arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection. Based on the findings of this prospective study, plasma D-dimer may be a promising marker in assessing the control of infection in patients undergoing reimplantation surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II.

Diagnosis of Periprosthetic Joint Infection: The Utility of Biomarkers in 2023

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a rare yet devastating complication following total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Early and accurate diagnosis of PJI is paramount in order to maximize the chances of successful treatment. However, we are yet to identify a single "gold standard" test for the diagnosis of PJI. As a result, the diagnosis of PJI is often challenging. Currently, the 2018 ICM definition of PJI is the only validated diagnostic criteria available. This article will review the importance of serum and synovial biomarkers in the diagnosis of PJI. In addition, it will provide a brief overview of the emerging modalities for the identification of infections in this setting.

Utility of D-dimer in total joint arthroplasty

As the number of patients receiving total joint replacements continues to rise, considerable attention has been directed towards the early detection and prevention of postoperative complications. While D-dimer has long been studied as a diagnostic tool in venous thromboembolism (VTE), this assay has recently received considerable attention in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). D-dimer values are substantially elevated in the acute postoperative period after total joint arthroplasty, with levels often exceeding the standard institutional cutoff for VTE (500 µg/L). The utility of D-dimer in detecting VTE after total joint replacement is currently limited, and more research to assess its value in the setting of contemporary prophylaxis protocols is warranted. Recent literature supports D-dimer as a good to excellent biomarker for the diagnosis of chronic PJI, especially when using serum sample technique. Providers should exercise caution when interpreting D-dimer levels in patients with inflammatory and hypercoagulability disorders, as the diagnostic value is decreased. The updated 2018 Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria, which includes D-dimer levels > 860 µg/L as a minor criterion, may be the most accurate for diagnosing chronic PJI to date. Larger prospective trials with transparent lab testing protocols are needed to establish best assay practices and optimal cutoff values for D-dimer in the diagnosis of PJI. This review summarizes the most current literature on the value of D-dimer in total joint arthroplasty and elucidates areas for future progress.

Plasma D-Dimer Is Noninferior to Serum C-Reactive Protein in the Diagnosis of Periprosthetic Joint Infection

BACKGROUND

No single test has demonstrated absolute accuracy in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Serological markers are often used as screening tools in the workup of patients with suspected PJI. This study aimed to determine the diagnostic utility of plasma D-dimer for PJI in a variety of clinical scenarios.

METHODS

This prospective study enrolled 502 patients undergoing revision hip or knee arthroplasty. PJI was defined per a modified version of the 2018 International Consensus Meeting (ICM) criteria. Plasma D-dimer, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), and fibrinogen were measured preoperatively. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to assess the utility of each biomarker in the diagnosis of PJI. Pairwise comparison with Bonferroni correction was performed to determine whether the differences in areas under the curve (AUCs) between the markers were significant.

RESULTS

Of the 412 patients included, 317 (76.9%) did not have an infection (aseptic group) and 95 (23.1%) had an infection (PJI group). All 4 serological markers, D-dimer (AUC, 0.860; sensitivity, 81.3%; specificity, 81.7%), CRP (AUC, 0.862; sensitivity, 90.4%; specificity, 70.0%), ESR (AUC, 0.833; sensitivity, 73.9%; specificity, 85.2%), and fibrinogen (AUC, 0.798; sensitivity, 74.7%; specificity, 75.4%), demonstrated comparable accuracy for the diagnosis of PJI (all p > 0.05). When examining the performance of the different inflammatory markers in diagnosing infection caused by indolent organisms, D-dimer demonstrated the highest sensitivity at 93.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that plasma D-dimer was noninferior to serum CRP and ESR in the diagnosis of PJI and may be a useful adjunct when screening patients undergoing revision total joint arthroplasty.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The combined evaluation of fibrinogen and D-dimer levels are a helpful tool to exclude periprosthetic knee infection

This retrospective study was undertaken to (i) define the most appropriate thresholds for serum d-dimer and fibrinogen for differentiating aseptic failure from periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and (ii) evaluate the predictive value of our d-dimer and fibrinogen threshold compared to previously proposed thresholds. This observational cohort study included consecutive patients who had undergone total knee arthroplasty (TKA) revision between January 2019 and December 2020. International Consensus Meeting diagnostic criteria were used to identify patients affected by the prosthetic infection. Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses assessed the predictive value of the parameters, and the areas under the curves were evaluated. We included 125 patients with a median age of 69 years (53-82) affected by painful TKA. Fifty-seven patients (47%) had PJI. Patients with PJI had higher median d-dimer, fibrinogen, ESR, and CRP when compared to patients believed to be free of PJI. The best threshold values for d-dimer and fibrinogen were 1063 ng/ml (sensitivity 0.72, specificity 0.74) and 420 mg/dl (sensitivity 0.67 and specificity 0.82), respectively. A d-dimer level >1063 ng/ml combined with a fibrinogen level >420 mg/dl had a sensitivity of 0.52, and a specificity of 0.90. We found that an increased d-dimer beyond 1063 ng/ml showed a better predictive value than the previously proposed threshold. The combined determination of d-dimer and fibrinogen displayed high specificity and should be considered an excellent tool to rule out an infection. The accuracy of the proposed cutoffs is more effective than previously reported.

Diagnostic Performance of Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio, Monocyte to Lymphocyte Ratio, Platelet to Lymphocyte Ratio, and Platelet to Mean Platelet Volume Ratio in Periprosthetic Hip and Knee Infections: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The current literature on the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection provides controversial evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of MLR, NLR, PVR, and PLR. Therefore, this critical literature search and meta-analysis was aimed to summarize the diagnostic accuracy of these biomarkers for the diagnosis of hip and knee prosthetic infection. According to the PRISMA flowchart, we searched MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science, for studies on these ratios for diagnosing PJI. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and AUC were analyzed. We included 11 articles in our meta-analysis, including 7537 patients who underwent total hip and knee arthroplasties; among these, 1974 (26%) patients reported a joint infection. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.72 and 0.74, respectively, for NLR, 0.72 and 0.77 for PVR, and 0.77 and 0.75 for PLR. The sensitivity of MLR ranges from 0.54 to 0.81, while the specificity ranges from 0.78 to 0.81. Regarding the evaluation of AUCs, the best diagnostic performance was achieved by MLR (AUC = 0.77) followed by PLR (AUC = 0.75), NLR (AUC = 0.73), and PVR (AUC = 0.70). This meta-analysis demonstrates a fair diagnostic accuracy of these ratios, thus not being useful as a screening tool.

“Unexpected” Infections in Revision Arthroplasty for Aseptic Loosening

Background. Data from the national registers of arthroplasty showed that about 12% of hip and knee arthroplasty undergo revision within 10 years after the primary surgery. The leading cause of hip revisions is aseptic loosening of components, knee joint periprosthetic infection (PPI). Some of the infectious complications, including those related to mechanical causes, remain out of sight. The aim of the study was to identify the frequency of unexpected infections during revision knee and hip arthroplasty performed for aseptic complications of any etiology. Materials and Methods. 839 cases of revision arthroplasty of knee and hip joints were analyzed, including 485 aseptic revisions in 450 patients. Clinical, X-ray, laboratory (complete blood count and comprehensive metabolic panel, coagulation panel) methods, synovial fluid analysis and microbiological examination of punctures, including intraoperative ones, were used. The ICM and EBJIS (European Bone and Joint Infections Society) consensus recommendations were used as criteria for assessing the presence of infection. Results. The average age of patients at the time of the revision was 61.7 years. The hip joint prevailed (59.4%), knee joint 40.6%. The growth of microorganisms in the intraoperative biomaterial was detected in 2.08% of observations: in 10 out of 287 patients after aseptic revision of the hip joints and in none of the 198 revisions of the knee joints. In 8 out of 10 cases, the causative agents were coagulase-negative staphylococci, including 6 MRSE; in two cases, anaerobic bacteria. All revisions were carried out by a one-stage method. Patients with detected PPI underwent systemic antibacterial therapy. At the stage of catamnesis, reinfection was assumed in one of the 10 identified cases of PPI, the patient did not show up for revision. In control 63% of the group of the other (aseptic) 470 patients, PPI developed in 4 cases, two-stage revisions were carried out. Conclusions. The frequency of infections accidentally detected during aseptic revisions of large joints was 2.08%. Three-time examination of joint punctures, including intraoperative, provides additional opportunities for the diagnosis of PPI during aseptic revision, and also allows you to choose the optimal stage of revision treatment. The experience gained makes it possible in certain cases to perform one-stage revision in the treatment of PPI.

“Unexpected” Infections in Revision Arthroplasty for Aseptic Loosening

Background. Data from the national registers of arthroplasty showed that about 12% of hip and knee arthroplasty undergo revision within 10 years after the primary surgery. The leading cause of hip revisions is aseptic loosening of components, knee joint periprosthetic infection (PPI). Some of the infectious complications, including those related to mechanical causes, remain out of sight. The aim of the study was to identify the frequency of unexpected infections during revision knee and hip arthroplasty performed for aseptic complications of any etiology. Materials and Methods. 839 cases of revision arthroplasty of knee and hip joints were analyzed, including 485 aseptic revisions in 450 patients. Clinical, X-ray, laboratory (complete blood count and comprehensive metabolic panel, coagulation panel) methods, synovial fluid analysis and microbiological examination of punctures, including intraoperative ones, were used. The ICM and EBJIS (European Bone and Joint Infections Society) consensus recommendations were used as criteria for assessing the presence of infection. Results. The average age of patients at the time of the revision was 61.7 years. The hip joint prevailed (59.4%), knee joint 40.6%. The growth of microorganisms in the intraoperative biomaterial was detected in 2.08% of observations: in 10 out of 287 patients after aseptic revision of the hip joints and in none of the 198 revisions of the knee joints. In 8 out of 10 cases, the causative agents were coagulase-negative staphylococci, including 6 MRSE; in two cases, anaerobic bacteria. All revisions were carried out by a one-stage method. Patients with detected PPI underwent systemic antibacterial therapy. At the stage of catamnesis, reinfection was assumed in one of the 10 identified cases of PPI, the patient did not show up for revision. In control 63% of the group of the other (aseptic) 470 patients, PPI developed in 4 cases, two-stage revisions were carried out. Conclusions. The frequency of infections accidentally detected during aseptic revisions of large joints was 2.08%. Three-time examination of joint punctures, including intraoperative, provides additional opportunities for the diagnosis of PPI during aseptic revision, and also allows you to choose the optimal stage of revision treatment. The experience gained makes it possible in certain cases to perform one-stage revision in the treatment of PPI.