Author:
Mehrban Alireza,Hajikolaei Fatemeh Ahmadi,Karimi Mehdi,Khademi Reza,Ansari Akram,Qujeq Durdi,Hajian-Tilaki Karimollah,Monadi Mahmood
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Given the limited specificity of D-dimer, there is a perceived need to discover a more precise marker for diagnosing individuals who are suspected of having pulmonary embolism (PE). In this study, by evaluating the increase in the serum level of Apelin-13 and D-dimer, we found valuable findings about Apelin-13, which can be suggested as an auxiliary and non-invasive diagnostic biomarker in individuals with suspected PE, based on the obtained results.
Methods
In this case-control study, 52 Iranian individuals were included, all of whom were suspected to have PE. These individuals were then divided into two groups based on the results of CT angiography, which is considered the gold standard imaging method for diagnosing PE. The two groups were patients with PE and patients without PE. Finally, the levels of certain markers in the serum were compared between the two groups.
Results
The mean serum D-dimer levels in patients with PE were significantly elevated (p < 0.001) in comparison to those without PE (1102.47 to 456.2 ng/ml). Furthermore, the mean level of Apelin-13 was significantly higher in patients with PE (49.8 to 73.11 ng/L) (p < 0.001). The cutoff point of Apelin-13 has been calculated at 58.50 ng/ml, with 90.9% sensitivity and 90% specificity. The D-dimer cutoff point was 500 ng/ml, with 95.5% sensitivity and 43.3% specificity.
Conclusions
Based on the results of this study, the serum level of Apelin-13 can be used as a novel diagnostic and screening biomarker in patients with pulmonary thromboembolism.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference37 articles.
1. Kearon C. Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. CMAJ. 2003;168(2):183–94.
2. Konstantinides SV, Torbicki A, Agnelli G, Danchin N, Fitzmaurice D, Galiè N, et al. 2014 ESC guidelines on the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(43):3033–69.
3. Bĕlohlávek J, Dytrych V, Linhart A. Pulmonary embolism, part I: Epidemiology, risk factors and risk stratification, pathophysiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis and nonthrombotic pulmonary embolism. Exp Clin Cardiol. 2013;18(2):129–38.
4. Kasper W, Konstantinides S, Geibel A, Olschewski M, Heinrich F, Grosser KD, et al. Management strategies and determinants of outcome in acute major pulmonary embolism: results of a multicenter registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997;30(5):1165–71.
5. Borna N, Niksolat M, Shariati B, Saeedi V, Kamalzadeh L. Pulmonary embolism or COVID-19 pneumonia? A case report. Respirol Case Rep. 2023;11(4):e01121.