possible role of soluble fibrin monomer complex after gastroenterological surgery

Role of D-dimer and Fibrinogen in the Diagnosis of Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The diagnostic potential of D-dimer and fibrinogen to detect periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip and knee is not well-understood. The aim of this study was to determine whether D-Dimer and fibrinogen can be used as effective biomarkers to screen PJI. A systematic review of the literature indexed in Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Google Scholar databases was performed. All studies using D-dimer levels in serum or plasma, or fibrinogen levels in plasma, for the diagnosis of PJI were included. Meta-analysis estimates, including sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratios (DOR), and the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUSROC), were calculated using a random-effects model, and used to assess the diagnostic accuracy of these biomarkers. A total of nine studies were analyzed, and their quality was considered to be acceptable. D-dimer gave a limited diagnostic value if serum and plasma combined: sensitivity (0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.63 to 0.87]), specificity (0.67, 95% CI [0.54 to 0.78]), DOR (6.81, 95% CI [2.67 to 17.37]), and AUSROC (0.78, 95% CI [0.74 to 0.82]). Plasma D-dimer levels were associated with less satisfactory sensitivity (0.65, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.71), specificity (0.58, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.66), DOR (2.52, 95% CI 1.64 to 3.90), and AUSROC (0.65, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.69). Serum D-dimer levels showed higher corresponding values of 0.89 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.94), 0.76 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.89), 24.24 (95% CI 10.07 to 58.32), and 0.91 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.93). Plasma fibrinogen showed acceptable corresponding values of 0.79 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.85), 0.73 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.85), 10.14 (95% CI 6.16 to 16.70), and 0.83 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.86). Serum D-dimer may be an effective marker for the diagnosis of PJI in hip and knee arthroplasty patients, and it may show higher diagnostic potential than plasma fibrinogen. Plasma D-dimer may have limited diagnostic potential.

Concentration of fibrin monomer in pregnancy and during the postpartum period

Background

D-dimer increases during pregnancy and is problematic to use in the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism. Fibrin monomer represents an alternative biomarker for venous thromboembolism. However, to be useful in pregnancy, the fibrin monomer concentration should be stable throughout pregnancy and during postpartum.

Methods

To describe the course of fibrin monomer concentration during pregnancy and the postpartum period in healthy pregnant women and to compare their within-subject biological variation (CVI) with non-pregnant women. Blood samples were obtained every fourth week during pregnancy and three samples after delivery in 20 healthy women and every fourth week during a 40-week period in 19 healthy non-pregnant women. Fibrin monomer (STA Liatest FM, Stago) was analysed in duplicates for all samples. Concentrations of fibrin monomer in pregnant and non-pregnant women were compared and the CVI for fibrin monomer was calculated.

Results

The median fibrin monomer concentration in pregnant women was 6.2 mg/L (2.5 and 97.5 percentiles 3.7–10.8 mg/L) and in non-pregnant women 4.8 mg/L (3.6–8.2) ( P < 0.01). The fibrin monomer concentration was relatively stable during pregnancy, although a few unexplained high fibrin monomer concentrations were found during pregnancy/postpartum. Fibrin monomer CVI in pregnancy and postpartum was 20.6% (95% CI 18.3, 23.5) and in non-pregnant 16.1% (13.7, 18.9).

Conclusions

For clinical purposes, fibrin monomer concentration can be considered stable during pregnancy, although it is slightly higher than in non-pregnant women. Pregnant and non-pregnant women have the same CVI. The suitability of fibrin monomer in venous thromboembolism diagnosis in pregnant women should be validated in further studies.

Is laparoscopic colorectal surgery with continuation of antiplatelet therapy safe without increasing bleeding complications?

PURPOSE

The number of patients on antiplatelet therapy (APT) who need surgery is increasing; however, it is unclear whether APT should be continued for abdominal surgery, particularly laparoscopic colorectal surgery. We investigated the safety of continuing APT for patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

METHODS

We collected retrospective data from 529 patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery at Hiroshima University between January, 2013 and December, 2018. We analyzed information related to APT. Thirty-six pairs were matched by the propensity score method between patients on APT (APT+) and those not on APT (APT-). We compared the surgical outcomes of both groups.

RESULTS

Among 463 patients eligible for the study, 48 were on APT for cerebrovascular or cardiovascular disease, and 36 continued to take aspirin. In the case-matched comparison, the amount of intraoperative blood loss in the APT+ group was not significantly higher than that in the APT- group, and the incidences of bleeding complications, thromboembolic complications, and other complications were not significantly different between the groups.

CONCLUSION

In a case-matched comparison, continuation of aspirin during laparoscopic colorectal surgery did not increase perioperative complications. In laparoscopic colorectal surgery, continuation of aspirin is an acceptable strategy for patients with thromboembolic risk caused by interruption of APT.