title: Soluble P-selectin for the diagnosis of lower extremity deep venous thrombosis.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Although duplex ultrasound is the standard for the diagnosis of lower extremity deep venous thrombosis (LE-DVT), imaging is not always available. The use of D-dimer can exclude (high-sensitivity), but not rule in (low-specificity) LE-DVT. Previously, we demonstrated that soluble P-selectin (sP-sel) in combination with the Wells score, establishes the diagnosis of LE-DVT with a specificity of 96% and a positive predictive value of 100%. In order to validate our previous results, we applied the model to a separate but similar patient cohort. Additionally, we analyzed the role of biomarkers for diagnosing upper extremity DVT (UE-DVT).
  
  
  METHODS
  Between April 2009 and March 2012, all patients presenting for a duplex ultrasound exam with concern of DVT were screened. Demographics, clinical data, D-dimer, sP-sel, C-reactive protein, a disintegrin and metalloproteinase with a thrombospondin type 1 motif, member 13, and von Willebrand factor levels were prospectively collected in 279 patients (234 LE-DVT, 45 UE-DVT). Continuous and categorical variables among patients with DVT were compared with patients without DVT. The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were then calculated using our previously derived cut points to rule in or exclude DVT.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Among 234 patients evaluated for LE-DVT, 112 (48%) patients had a confirmed LE-DVT with significant differences in all biomarkers. When Wells score ≥2, sP-sel could rule in LE-DVT with a specificity of 97.5% and a positive predictive value of 91%, which was more accurate than Wells score ≥2 and D-dimer (specificity, 65%; positive predictive value, 69%). When Wells score was <2, D-dimer was superior to sP-sel for excluding the diagnosis of LE-DVT (sensitivity, 98%; negative predictive value, 95% vs sensitivity, 91%; negative predictive value, 79%). The use of additional biomarkers did not increase accuracy. Had imaging not been available, we could have correctly ruled in or ruled out LE-DVT in 29% (67/234) of patients. The use of sP-sel in UE-DVT was nondiagnostic.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  We demonstrate that when Wells score ≥2, sP-sel is an excellent biomarker to rule in LE-DVT. Different from our previous study, D-dimer and a Wells score <2 was most sensitive at excluding a diagnosis of LE-DVT. Combined, Wells score, sP-sel, and D-dimer can both rule in and exclude LE-DVT in approximately one-third of patients.
authors.forename: Frank C
authors.initials: FC
authors.lastname: Vandy
authors.forename: Cathy
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Stabler
authors.forename: Anna M
authors.initials: AM
authors.lastname: Eliassen
authors.forename: Angela E
authors.initials: AE
authors.lastname: Hawley
authors.forename: Kenneth E
authors.initials: KE
authors.lastname: Guire
authors.forename: Daniel D
authors.initials: DD
authors.lastname: Myers
authors.forename: Peter K
authors.initials: PK
authors.lastname: Henke
authors.forename: Thomas W
authors.initials: TW
authors.lastname: Wakefield