Diagnostic Value of Neutrophil Lymphocyte Ratio and D-Dimer as Biological Markers of Deep Vein Thrombosis in Patients Presenting with Unilateral Limb Edema

• Published in: Journal of blood medicine Vol. 12; pp. 313 - 325
• Main Authors: Rinaldi, Ikhwan, Hamonangan, Rachmat, Azizi, Mohamad Syahrir, Cahyanur, Rahmat, Wirawan, Fadila, Fatya, Atikah Isna, Budiananti, Ageng, Winston, Kevin
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Macclesfield Dove Medical Press Limited 01.01.2021; Taylor & Francis Ltd; Dove; Dove Medical Press
• Subjects: Blood clots; d-dimer; deep vein thrombosis; Diagnosis; Diagnostic imaging; Disease; Edema; Health aspects; Hematology; Indonesia; Inflammation; Internal medicine; Lymphocytes; Medical records; Mortality; Neutrophils; neutrophils lymphocyte ratio (nlr); Original Research; Pulmonary embolisms; Taiwan; Thromboembolism; Thrombosis; Ultrasonic imaging; Ultrasound imaging; Veins & arteries; Taiwan; Indonesia
• ISSN: 1179-2736; 1179-2736
• DOI: 10.2147/JBM.S291226

Introduction: Patients with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) pose high morbidity and mortality risk thus needing fast and accurate diagnosis. Wells clinical prediction scores with D-dimer testing are traditionally used to rule out patients with low probability of DVT. However, D-dimer testing has a few limitations regarding its relatively low specificity. Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), a marker of inflammation, was found to increase in DVT. Hence, we aimed to evaluate the role of NLR for DVT diagnosis. Methods: Data were collected from medical records of patients with suspected DVT at Cipto Mangunkusumo National General Hospital during January-December 2014. Diagnosis of DVT was conducted using lower limb ultrasonography. Diagnostic values for NLR, D-dimer, and NLR + D-dimer were determined by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to obtain area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive values. Sensitivity and specificity analyses of NLR and D-dimer were also conducted based on Wells score and divided into groups of low and high probability of DVT. Results: The AUC values for NLR, D-dimer, and NLR + D-dimer were 72.6%, 70.4%, and 76.1%, respectively. The optimal cut-off value determined for NLR was 5.12 with sensitivity of 67.7%, specificity of 67.9%, PPV of 68.85%, and NPV of 64.91% in differentiating subjects with and without DVT. This study also found that D-dimer had sensitivity of 69.4%, specificity of 71.4%, PPV of 72.88%, and NPV of 67.8%. Meanwhile, the NLR + D-dimer combination had sensitivity of 66.1% and specificity of 72.6%. Multivariate analysis showed that NLR (OR: 2.636; 95% CI: 1.144-6.076; p: 0.023) and D-dimer (OR: 4.175; 95% CI: 1.810-9.633; p: 0.001) were associated with DVT. Conclusion: NLR value has wider AUC than D-Dimer and is relatively easier to obtain and does not require specific assay, thus enabling rapid evaluation of symptomatic patients suspected of having DVT. Adding NLR to D-dimer increased AUC to detect DVT. Therefore, NLR could serve as a complementary diagnostic tool for D-dimer to exclude DVT, especially in low clinical probability patients. Keywords: deep vein thrombosis, neutrophils lymphocyte ratio, NLR, inflammation, D-dimer