Abbott D-dimer assay: analytical performance and diagnostic accuracy in management of venous thromboembolism

Abstract

This study aimed to assess analytical characteristics and diagnostic accuracy in management of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in the Emergency Department (ED) of the Abbott D-dimer assay applied on the Alinity c clinical chemistry analyzer (Abbott Laboratories, Chicago, IL) compared to the INNOVANCE D-dimer assay (Siemens Healthineers, Marburg, Germany). Precision was determined at three concentration levels following the CLSI EP15-A3 protocol. Method comparison and diagnostic accuracy were assessed using samples obtained from 85 patients who were referred for diagnostic imaging and D-dimer testing due to clinically suspected VTE. Within-run coefficients of variation (CVs) were 3.0%, 0.5% and 0.5% at D-dimer concentrations of 0.54, 1.42 and 2.68 mg/L FEU, while respective between-run CVs were 2.0%, 3.4% and 2.7%, hence fulfilling the desirable biological variation criteria for imprecision (<12.6%). Passing–Bablok regression analysis yielded a small proportional difference between the two compared assays (y = 1.09 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01–1.18) x + 0.09 (95%CI: –0.09 to 0.16)), while Bland–Altman analysis showed significant negative absolute (–0.6 mg/L FEU, 95%CI: –0.9 to −0.3) and relative mean bias (–14.1%, 95%CI: –20.3 to −7.9). Spearman’s ρ was 0.979 (95%CI: 0.967–0.986). Inter-assay agreement relative to the cut-off was 92% (kappa coefficient = 0.547 (95%CI: 0.255–0.839)). Diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the Abbott assay were 100%, 9.2%, 25.3% and 100%, respectively, compared to the following data for the INNOVANCE assay: 95.0%, 15.4%, 25.7% and 90.9%. Abbott D-dimer assay has shown excellent analytical precision, high comparability with the INNOVANCE D-dimer and high NPV at manufacturer’s cut-off.

Keywords:

• D-dimers
• verification study
• immunoturbidimetry
• diagnostic accuracy
• thromboembolism

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).