{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2024,1,30]],"date-time":"2024-01-30T00:24:42Z","timestamp":1706574282359},"reference-count":0,"publisher":"Pasifika Medical Association","issue":"1589","content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["NZMJ"],"abstract":"<jats:p>aim: In patients with suspected venous thromboembolism, an elevated D-dimer level provides an important branch-point in the management pathway. This study compared two D-dimer assays, INNOVANCE\u00ae DDimer (Innovance) and STA\u00ae-Liatest\u00ae D-Di Plus (Liatest), to assess potential impact on clinical management. method: Reflecting current practice in Waitemat\u0101, Auckland, we compared paired samples from 805 patients referred to hospital following a community D-dimer test. Samples were determined to be positive or negative using a 500\u03bcg\/L fibrinogen equivalent units (FEU), and age-adjusted cut-offs. results: In the Innovance assay, 2% of samples had a result &lt;500\u03bcg\/L FEU. In contrast, by Liatest, 18% were below 500\u03bcg\/L. This positive bias of Innovance was amplified with use of age-adjusted cut-offs; 23% of samples with an elevated Innovance result showed a normal result by Liatest. On average, the Innovance values were 22% higher than Liatest. Results suggestive of interference from heterophile antibodies were seen in 6% of sample-pairs. conclusion: Innovance D-dimer test yielded higher values than Liatest and experienced interference from suspected heterophile antibodies. Discrepancies in nearly a quarter of patients may be leading to substantial under or over investigation, inefficient use of resources and clinical confusion.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.26635\/6965.6302","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2024,1,29]],"date-time":"2024-01-29T22:26:17Z","timestamp":1706567177000},"page":"12-19","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Discrepancies between two D-dimer assays and impact on clinical decisions; a retrospective analysis of samples tested in community and hospital-based laboratories in Auckland"],"prefix":"10.26635","volume":"137","author":[{"given":"Melanie","family":"Adriaansen","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Ian","family":"Morison","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Holly","family":"Perry","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"11177","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2024,2,2]]},"container-title":["New Zealand Medical Journal"],"original-title":[],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2024,1,29]],"date-time":"2024-01-29T22:26:19Z","timestamp":1706567179000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.nzmj.org.nz\/journal\/vol-137-no-1589\/discrepancies-between-two-d-dimer-assays-and-impact-on-clinical-decisions-a-retrospective-analysis-of-samples-tested-in-community-and-hospital-based-laboratories-in-auckland"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2024,2,2]]},"references-count":0,"journal-issue":{"issue":"1589","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2024,2,2]]}},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.26635\/6965.6302","relation":{},"ISSN":["1175-8716"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1175-8716","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2024,2,2]]}}}