Next Article in Journal
Comparison of Opioid Consumption During Paediatric Anaesthesia with and Without a Mandatory Protocol: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Previous Article in Journal
Non-Ischemic Pattern of LGE After COVID-19 Correlates More with Severity of Acute Illness than with Long-Term Myocardial Dysfunction
Previous Article in Special Issue
External Validation of the JAKPOT Score for Diagnosing JAK2-Positive Erythrocytosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 14
Issue 21
10.3390/jcm14217478
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Diagnostic and Prognostic Evaluation of Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation Using the Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation Index

by
Eri Nakano
1,2,
Hideo Wada
3,*,
Akitaka Yamamoto
4,
Masaki Tomida
4,
Yuhuko Ichikawa
5,
Katsuya Shiraki
3,
Motomu Shimaoka
6,
Hideto Shimpo
7 and
Isao Tawara
1
1
Department of Hematology and Oncology, Mie University Graduate School of Medicine, Tsu 514-8507, Japan
2
Department of Hematology, Suzuka Kaisei Hospital, Suzuka 513-0836, Japan
3
Department of General Medicine, Mie Prefectural General Medical Center, Yokkaichi 510-8561, Japan
4
Department of Emergency and Critical Care Center, Mie Prefectural General Medical Center, Yokkaichi 510-8561, Japan
5
Department of Central Laboratory, Mie Prefectural General Medical Center, Yokkaichi 510-8561, Japan
6
Department of Molecular Pathobiology and Cell Adhesion Biology, Mie University Graduate School of Medicine, Tsu 514-8507, Japan
7
Mie Prefectural General Medical Center, Yokkaichi 510-8561, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14(21), 7478; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14217478
Submission received: 20 August 2025 / Revised: 26 September 2025 / Accepted: 15 October 2025 / Published: 22 October 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Clinical Updates in Bleeding and Thrombotic Disorders)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Background: Diagnostic criteria for disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) have been established by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare (JMHLW), the International Society of Thrombosis Hemostasis (ISTH), and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine (JAAM). These criteria vary and are complicated, and the cutoff values differ, so a simple and rapid diagnostic approach for DIC is needed. Materials and Methods: The usefulness of the DIC index (prothrombin time-international normalized ratio [PT-INR] x D-dimer/platelet count) for diagnosing DIC and predicting outcomes in 1500 critically ill patients was assessed. Results: The PT-INR, D-dimer level, and DIC index were significantly higher in patients with DIC than in those without DIC, and their platelet count was significantly lower. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses showed that the diagnostic agreement was the highest for the JMHLW score among the three diagnostic criteria. The PT-INR, D-dimer level, DIC index, and JMHLW, ISTH overt-DIC, and modified JAAM DIC scores were significantly higher in non-survivors than in survivors, and their platelet counts were significantly lower. Although ROC analyses showed that the PT-INR, D-dimer level, platelet count, DIC index, JMHLW, ISTH overt-DIC, and modified JAAM DIC scores were related to the outcome, the cutoff values of the DIC index, and JMHLW, ISTH overt-DIC and modified JAAM DIC scores were low. Conclusions: The DIC index was highly consistent with the three diagnostic criteria for DIC and related outcomes.

1. Introduction

Disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) is often associated with organ failure due to thrombosis and bleeding, resulting in high mortality rates [1,2,3]. The underlying causes of DIC include infectious diseases [4,5], hematological malignancy [6], solid cancer [7], obstetrics [8], trauma [9], and aneurysms [10]. Although physiological protease inhibitors, including antithrombin and recombinant thrombomodulin, and the treatment of underlying diseases have been recommended for the treatment of DIC patients in Japan [11,12], the treatment of underlying diseases and the administration of supplementary therapy from blood products for major bleeding in DIC patients are mainly recommended in Europe and North America [13,14,15].
Differentiating DIC from thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) is difficult [16,17]. Furthermore, there is no specific biomarker for diagnosing DIC; for example, platelet counts, prothrombin time (PT), the PT-international normalized ratio (INR), fibrin-related markers including the D-dimer level, soluble fibrin, fibrinogen, and fibrin degradation products (FDP), and antithrombin are not specific biomarkers of DIC. Therefore, DIC diagnostic criteria that use a scoring system based on the above biomarkers or clinical symptoms have been established by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare (JMHLW) [18], the International Society of Thrombosis Hemostasis (ISTH) [19], the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine (JAAM) [20], and the Japanese Society of Thrombosis Hemostasis [21]. In addition, sepsis-induced coagulopathy (SIC) [22,23,24] has been subsequently observed. However, the mortality associated with this pathology is different among DIC patients when various diagnostic criteria are used [25]; this has resulted in several of the DIC guidelines used to evaluate the efficacy of treatments indicating a different outcome in DIC patients. Determining the difference in mortality among several DIC groups using different diagnostic criteria may be complicated for physicians. The standardization of DIC diagnostic criteria or a uniform index may therefore be required in order to evaluate the severity of DIC.
A scoring system using several biomarkers for diagnosing DIC [18,19,20,21] may be complicated in practice and fibrin-related markers require standardization [26,27]. Simple diagnostic criteria are required to facilitate the early and prompt treatment of DIC in the emergency room or intensive care unit. The SIC score [22,23,24] includes the PT, platelet count, and the sequential organ failure assessment score. We have also proposed a rapid scoring [28] system for the diagnosis of DIC that uses adequate cutoff values for PT, D-dimer level, and platelet count. However, the cutoff values of the parameters varied among the four diagnostic criteria for DIC [18,19,20,21], suggesting that the cutoff value and score for each parameter may not be clear to physicians. Therefore, we created the following super formula for diagnosing DIC: soluble C-type lectin-like receptor 2 (sCLEC-2) level × D-dimer level/platelet count [29]. Although sCLEC-2 is a useful biomarker for platelet activation [30,31], it is not a common biomarker in general hospitals.
In the present study, we examined the utility of a DIC index formula that substituted the PT-INR (international normalized ratio) for the sCLEC-2 level in the super formula for diagnosing DIC and compared it with the JMHLW diagnostic criteria for DIC. The mortality was lowest in those using JAAM diagnostic criteria for DIC and highest in those using ISTH diagnostic criteria for DIC [25], suggesting that using the JMHLW diagnostic criteria for DIC was more appropriate for this study.

2. Materials and Methods

The study population included 1500 consecutive samples in which the PT-INR, platelet count, and D-dimer values were measured; these samples were obtained from patients with the following conditions who were managed at Mie Prefectural General Medical Center from 1 November 2019 to 28 December 2024: infectious disease (n = 289), digestive system disease (n = 88), chest or abdominal aneurysm (n = 86), hematological malignancy (n = 67), trauma (n = 67), obstetrics disease (n = 51), respiratory disease (n = 38), arrhythmia (n = 21), thrombosis of the peripheral artery (n = 16), heat illness (n = 35), cardiac pulmonary arrest (CPA, n = 67), solid cancer (n = 36), acute coronary syndrome (ACS, n = 72), heart failure (n = 86), convulsive disorder (n = 26), metabolic and endocrine diseases (n = 20), venous thromboembolism (n = 43), cerebral bleeding (n = 58), non-malignant hematological disease (n = 38), cerebral thrombosis (n = 145), indefinite compliant syndrome (n = 88), and others (n = 61). DIC was diagnosed using the JMHLW criteria for DIC [18]; patients with DIC scores of ≥7 points, 5–6 points, and ≤4 points were diagnosed with JMHLW-DIC, JMHLW-Pre-DIC, and JMHLW-Non-DIC, respectively (Table 1 and Table 2). Patients who did not agree to participate in the study, or did not have the above measurements or sufficient clinical records, were excluded. DIC in these patients was also evaluated using the ISTH overt DIC criteria [19] or the modified JAAM (mJAAM) criteria for DIC [20] without point of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) [32]; patients with ISTH overt DIC scores of ≥5 points and ≤4 points were diagnosed with ISTH-DIC and ISTH-Non-DIC, respectively, and patients with mJAAM DIC scores of ≥4 points, ≥3 points, and ≤2 points were diagnosed with mJAAM-DIC (≥4), mJAAM-DIC (≥3), and mJAAM-Non-DIC, respectively. The DIC index was calculated using the following formula: DIC index = PT-INRxD-dimer/platelet count (Table 3). The study protocol (2019-K9) was approved by the Human Ethics Review Committee of the Mie Prefectural General Medical Center, and informed consent was obtained from each participant. This study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.
D-dimer and FDP levels were measured using the LPIA-Genesis and LPIA-FDP-P, respectively (PHC Co, Tokyo, Japan), using a STACIA system (PHC Co). The PT-INR value and fibrinogen levels were measured using Thromborel S and Thrombin reagent LQ, respectively (Sysmex Co., Kobe, Japan), with an automatic coagulation analyzer CS-5100 (Sysmex Co). Platelet counts were measured using a fully automatic blood cell counter—XN-3000 (Sysmex Co.).

Statistical Analyses

Data are expressed as the median (25th–75th percentile). The significance of the differences between groups was examined using the Mann–Whitney U-test. The cut-off values were examined using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis [33].
Statistically, significance was set at p < 0.05. All statistical analyses were performed using the Stat-Flex software program (version 6; Artec Co., Ltd., Osaka, Japan).

3. Results

In this study, the underlying diseases varied, and the median age was high among the DIC, pre-DIC, and non-DIC groups (Table 2). The percentage of patients with JMHLW-DIC and JMHLW-Pre-DIC were 4.8% and 12.3%, respectively. The percentage of those with ISTH-DIC, mJAAM (≥4), and those with mJAAM (≥3) was 4.7%, 8.5%, and 15.6%, respectively.
Regarding the relationship between biomarkers and the JMHLW DIC score, PT-INR (median; 25th–75th percentile) was significantly higher in those with JMHLW-DIC (1.59; 1.33–1.96) than in those with JMHLW-Pre-DIC (1.21; 1.06–1.38) or JMHLW-Non-DIC (1.03; 0.95–1.15), and higher in those with JMHLW-Pre-DIC than in those with JMHLW-Non-DIC a ≤4 (Figure 1a). The platelet count was significantly lower in those with JMHLW-DIC (8.1 × 1010 platelets/L; 5.2–11.4 × 1010 platelets/L) than in those with JMHLW-Pre-DIC (11.0 × 1010 platelets/L; 7.7–15.7 × 1010 platelets/L) or JMHLW-Non-DIC (21.6 × 1010 platelets/L; 16.4–27.5 × 1010 platelets/L), and lower in those with JMHLW-Pre-DIC than in those with JMHLW-Non-DIC (Figure 1b). The D-dimer levels were significantly higher in those with JMHLW-DIC (25.0 mg/L; 16.1–47.8 mg/L) than in those with JMHLW-Pre-DIC (17.0 mg/L; 8.2–25.7 mg/L) or JMHLW-Non-DIC (1.7 mg/L; 0.7–4.8 mg/L) and higher in those with JMHLW-Pre-DIC than in those with JMHLW-Non-DIC (Figure 1c). Regarding the relationship between the DIC index and JMHLW DIC score, the DIC index was significantly higher in those with JMHLW-DIC (6.10; 2.73–13.10) than in those with JMHLW-Pre-DIC (1.44; 0.74–2.10) or JMHLW-Non-DIC (0.09; 0.03–0.27) and higher in those with JMHLW-Pre-DIC than in those with JMHLW-Non-DIC (Figure 1d). The correlation coefficients of the PT-INR, 1/platelet count, and D-dimer level with the JMHLW DIC score were 0.449 (p < 0.001), 0.159 (p < 0.001), and 0.542 (p < 0.001), respectively. The correlation coefficient of the DIC index with the JMHLW DIC score was 0.192 (Y = −7.084 + 6.021X, p < 0.001) (Table 4).
ROC analyses (JMHLW-DIC vs. JMHLW-Non-DIC) showed that the DIC index was markedly more useful for diagnosing DIC than the PT-INR, platelet count, and D-dimer level, and that the DIC index was more useful for diagnosing DIC than for the PT-INR/Platelet count, PT-INRxD-dimer, and D-dimer/Platelet count level (Table 5). ROC analyses (JMHLW-DIC or JMHLW-Pe-DIC vs. JMHLW-Non-DIC) showed that the DIC index was markedly more useful for diagnosing DIC than the PT-INR, platelet count, D-dimer level, PT-INR/Platelet count, PT-INRxD-dimer, and D-dimer/Platelet count level.
The DIC index was significantly higher in patients with JMHLW-DIC (6.10; 2.73–13.1) than in those with JMHLW-Pre-DIC (1.44; 0.74–2.10) and higher in those with JMHLW-Pre-DIC than in JMHLW-Non-DIC (0.09; 0.03–0.27). The DIC index was also significantly higher in those with ISTH-DIC (6.49; 3.30–14.78) than in those with ISTH-Non-DIC (0.11; 0.04–0.37), and higher in those with mJAAM-DIC (≥4) (3.48; 1.97–7.33) and mJAAM-DIC (≥3) (1.91; 0.93–4.09) than in those with mJAAM-Non-DIC (0.09; 0.03–0.24) (Figure 2). Although there was no significant difference in the DIC index between those with JMHLW-DIC and those with ISTH-DIC, the DIC index was significantly higher in those with JMHLW-DIC and ISTH-DIC than in those with mJAAM DIC (≥4) or mJAAM DIC (≥3).
ROC analyses showed that the diagnostic agreement was the highest for the JMHLW score among the three diagnostic criteria; after this, in order, mJAAM DIC (≥4), ISTH-DIC, JMHLW-Pre-DIC, and mJAAM DIC (≥3) showed the highest diagnostic agreement (Table 6).
Regarding the relationship between DIC and outcome, the PT-INR, D-dimer level, DIC index, JMHLW-DIC score, ISTH-DIC, and mJAAM-DIC scores were significantly higher in non-survivors than in survivors, and their platelet counts were significantly lower (Table 7). ROC analyses showed that the PT-INR, D-dimer level, platelet count, DIC index, JMHLW-DIC, ISTH-DIC, and mJAAM-DIC scores were related to the outcomes. The cutoff values of the PT-INR, platelet count, and D-dimer for diagnosing DIC were associated with different outcomes. The cutoff values of the DIC index, JMHLW-DIC, ISTH-DIC, and mJAAM scores were lower for outcome than for diagnosing using JMHLW-DIC. AUC was 0.712–0.794 for PT-INR, platelet count, and D-dimer, and 0.815–0.869 for the DIC index and three diagnostic criteria (Table 8).

4. Discussion

The utility of many laboratory parameters, such as the PT level [18,19], platelet count [18,19], D-dimer level [19], fibrinogen level [18,19], FDP level [18,20], antithrombin level [21,34], tissue factor (TF) level [35,36], and sCLEC-2 level [29,37] has been proposed for the diagnosis of DIC. Among these items, the PT and D-dimer levels and platelet counts are common and routine laboratory tests, with most physicians using PT and D-dimer levels and platelet counts worldwide. PT is useful for monitoring warfarin [38], evaluating the function of the liver [39], and evaluating DIC [40,41]. Thrombocytopenia is caused by a low production of platelets, such as that observed in aplastic anemia [42,43], the consumption of platelets due to disseminated micro-thrombosis such as DIC [44,45], or thrombotic microangiopathy [46,47]. The D-dimer level is useful for diagnosing venous thromboembolism [48,49] and DIC [50,51]. In addition, the PT-INR, platelet count, and FDP have been correlated with the JMHLW DIC score, with moderate agreement with JMHLW DIC based on ROC analyses. Therefore, our finding that the DIC index (formula “PT-INR × D-dimer/platelet count”) was correlated with the JMHLW DIC score and strongly agreed with the JMHLW DIC (AUC = 0.995) was expected. PT-INR refers to the consumption clotting factor, platelet refers to the activation or consumption of platelets, and D-dimer refers to the formation and consumption of fibrins. Therefore, DIC, which refers to disseminated microthrombosis and coagulopathy, is further reflected in combination with PT-INR, platelet count, and D-dimer. Although our findings suggested that the D-dimer/platelet count ratio was sufficiently useful for diagnosing DIC. PT-INR could also be used for the diagnosis of pre-DIC. However, the pre-DIC state has not been well defined.
The AUC for the diagnosis of JMHLW DIC was 0.993 in the super formula using sCLEC-2 (sCLEC-2 × D-dimer/platelet count) [29], suggesting that the DIC index has a similar diagnostic capacity to the super formula using sCLEC-2 [29]. Although the super formula using sCLEC-2 is more useful for the diagnosis of DIC and pre-DIC, sCLEC-2 cannot be measured in general hospitals, suggesting that the DIC index may be more useful than a super formula using sCLEC-2. It has been reported [52,53,54] that the D-dimer/platelet ratio, which helps to discriminate preeclampsia from normal pregnancy and gestational hypertension [52], correlates with unfavorable outcomes in hepatitis B virus-related decompensated cirrhosis [53] and is predictive of the severity, ICU admission, and mortality of COVID-19 patients [54]. However, there are few reports on the utility of the PT/platelet ratio, PT-INR × D-dimer level, or PT-INR × D-dimer level/platelet count for the diagnosis of DIC, except for a report on a super formula using sCLEC-2 [29]. The AUC of the ROC analyses of the DIC index for DIC diagnosed using the three diagnostic criteria was highest for JMHLW-DIC, followed in order by m JAAM-DIC (≥4), ISTH-DIC, JMHLW-Pre-DIC, and m JAAM-DIC (≥3); this suggests that the DIC index may be useful for the diagnosis of advanced DIC.
The PT-INR, D-dimer level, DIC index, JAHLW DIC score, and modified JAAM DIC score were significantly higher in non-survivors than in survivors, and their platelet count was significantly lower; this suggests that these biomarkers, the DIC index, and the DIC score were related to the outcome. ROC analyses showed that the AUC for outcome was not significantly high for the PT-INR, D-dimer level, and platelet count but was highest for the DIC diagnostic score and DIC index, suggesting that the prediction of outcomes is better when multiple biomarkers (DIC index) and DIC scoring systems are used. The cutoff value for outcomes was markedly lower for the DIC index and three DIC scores when compared for the diagnosis of DIC, indicating that the early treatment of DIC before its diagnosis using previously established diagnostic criteria may improve the outcome of DIC. The diagnosis of pre-DIC has been previously proposed [55,56,57], suggesting that the prophylaxis may be important for improving the outcome of DIC. Therefore, application of the SIC diagnostic criteria [24,58,59] could be employed in critical care.
In clinical practice, the modified JAMA (JAMA-2) without the SIRS score, which is the same as m JAAM-DIC (≥3), was proposed last year [60,61]. Although the diagnostic criteria for DIC may become simpler or easier, it requires scoring by physicians. Meanwhile, the DIC index can be automatically available in clinical records. In future clinical settings, due to warnings from the DIC index, clinicians will make a definitive diagnosis of DIC using the scoring system.
The limitations of this study include retrospective single-center design and the fact that SIRS data were missing for the JAAM criteria. In addition, this study included many non-DIC patients. Therefore, the biomarkers and diagnostic criteria for the DIC and DIC index may be overrated, requiring prospective validation in a multi-center cohort.

5. Conclusions

The DIC index was highly consistent with the three diagnostic criteria for DIC and its related outcomes. Although the DIC index and DIC score were related to the outcome, the cutoff value for predicting the outcome was markedly lower than that for diagnosing DIC. Therefore, a prospective validation in a multi-center cohort using DIC index is needed.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.W.; methodology, Y.I.; software, H.W.; validation, K.S. and M.S.; formal analysis, H.W.; investigation, K.S., M.S. and A.Y.; resources, M.T. and A.Y.; data curation, M.T. and A.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, E.N.; writing—review and editing, H.W. and I.T.; visualization, H.W.; supervision, I.T.; project administration, H.S.; funding acquisition, H.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by a Grant-in-Aid from the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare of Japan (21FC1008).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Human Ethics Review Committee of Mie Prefectural General Medical Center {2019-K9 (O-0051) and date of approval 31 August 2019}.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study and was obtained from each participant. This study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request to the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy restrictions.

Conflicts of Interest

The measurement of FDP and D-dimer levels was partially supported by PHC Co (Tokyo, Japan). There are no other conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
DICdisseminated intravascular coagulation
SICsepsis-induced coagulopathy
TMAthrombotic microangiopathy
SIRSsystemic inflammatory response syndrome
JMHLWJapanese Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare
ISTHInternational Society of Thrombosis Hemostasis
JAAMJapanese Association for Acute Medicine
PTprothrombin time
INRinternational normalized ratio
FDPfibrinogen and fibrin degradation products
sCLEC-2soluble C-type lectin-like receptor 2
ROCreceiver operating characteristic
rcorrelation coefficient
AUCarea under the curve

References

  1. Adelborg, K.; Larsen, J.B.; Hvas, A.M. Disseminated intravascular coagulation: Epidemiology, biomarkers, and management. Br. J. Haematol. 2021, 192, 803–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Iba, T.; Levi, M.; Thachil, J.; Levy, J.H. Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation: The Past, Present, and Future Considerations. Semin. Thromb. Hemost. 2022, 48, 978–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Levi, M.; Sivapalaratnam, S. Disseminated intravascular coagulation: An update on pathogenesis and diagnosis. Expert Rev. Hematol. 2018, 11, 663–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Curtiaud, A.; Iba, T.; Angles-Cano, E.; Meziani, F.; Helms, J. Biomarkers of sepsis-induced coagulopathy: Diagnostic insights and potential therapeutic implications. Ann. Intensiv. Care 2025, 15, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Iba, T.; Levi, M.; Levy, J.H. Sepsis-Induced Coagulopathy and Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation. Semin. Thromb. Hemost. 2020, 46, 89–95. [Google Scholar]
  6. Ten Cate, H.; Leader, A. Management of Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation in Acute Leukemias. Hamostaseologie 2021, 41, 120–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Levi, M. Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation in Cancer: An Update. Semin. Thromb. Hemost. 2019, 45, 342–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Erez, O.; Othman, M.; Rabinovich, A.; Leron, E.; Gotsch, F.; Thachil, J. DIC in Pregnancy—Pathophysiology, Clinical Characteristics, Diagnostic Scores, and Treatments. J. Blood Med. 2022, 13, 21–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Gando, S. Hemostasis and thrombosis in trauma patients. Semin. Thromb. Hemost. 2015, 41, 26–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Yamada, S.; Asakura, H. Therapeutic Strategies for Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation Associated with Aortic Aneurysm. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wada, H.; Asakura, H.; Okamoto, K.; Iba, T.; Uchiyama, T.; Kawasugi, K.; Koga, S.; Myumi, T.; Koike, K.; Gando, S.; et al. Expert consensus for the treatment of disseminated intravascular coagulation in Japan. Thromb. Res. 2010, 125, 6–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wada, H.; Japanese Society of Thrombosis Hemostasis/DIC Subcommittee; Okamoto, K.; Iba, T.; Kushimoto, S.; Kawasugi, K.; Gando, S.; Madoiwa, S.; Uchiyama, T.; Mayumi, T.; et al. Addition of recommendations for the use of recombinant human thrombomodulin to the “Expert consensus for the treatment of disseminated intravascular coagulation in Japan”. Thromb. Res. 2014, 134, 924–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Levi, M.; Toh, C.H.; Thachil, J.; Watson, H.G. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of disseminated intravascular coagulation. British Committee for Standards in Haematology. Br. J. Haematol. 2009, 145, 24–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Di Nisio, M.; Baudo, F.; Cosmi, B.; D’Angelo, A.; De Gasperi, A.; Malato, A.; Schiavoni, M.; Squizzato, A.; Italian Society for Thrombosis and Haemostasis. Diagnosis and treatment of disseminated intravascular coagulation: Guidelines of the Italian Society for Haemostasis and Thrombosis (SISET). Thromb. Res. 2012, 129, e177–e184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Wada, H.; Thachil, J.; Di Nisio, M.; Mathew, P.; Kurosawa, S.; Gando, S.; Kim, H.K.; Nielsen, J.D.; Dempfle, C.E.; Levi, M.; et al. The Scientific Standardization Committee on DIC of the International Society on Thrombosis Haemostasis.: Guidance for diagnosis and treatment of DIC from harmonization of the recommendations from three guidelines. J. Thromb. Haemost. 2013, 11, 761–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Thompson, G.L.; Kavanagh, D. Diagnosis and treatment of thrombotic microangiopathy. Int. J. Lab. Hematol. 2022, 44 (Suppl. 1), 101–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wada, H.; Matsumoto, T.; Suzuki, K.; Imai, H.; Katayama, N.; Iba, T.; Matsumoto, M. Differences and similarities between disseminated intravascular coagulation and thrombotic microangiopathy. Thromb. J. 2018, 16, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kobayashi, N.; Maegawa, T.; Takada, M.; Tanaka, H.; Gonmori, H. Criteria for diagnosis of DIC based on the analysis of clinical and laboratory findings in 345 DIC patients collected by the Research Committee on DIC in Japan. Bibl. Haematol. 1983, 49, 265–275. [Google Scholar]
  19. Iba, T.; Levy, J.H.; Maier, C.L.; Helms, J.; Umemura, Y.; Moore, H.; Othman, M.; Thachil, J.; Connors, J.M.; Levi, M.; et al. Updated definition and scoring of disseminated intravascular coagulation in 2025: Communication from the ISTH SSC Subcommittee on Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation. J. Thromb. Haemost. 2025, 23, 356–2362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gando, S.; Iba, T.; Eguchi, Y.; Ohtomo, Y.; Okamoto, K.; Koseki, K.; Mayumi, T.; Murata, A.; Ikeda, T.; Ishikura, H.; et al. A multicenter, prospective validation of disseminated intravascular coagulation diagnostic criteria for critically ill patients: Comparing current criteria. Crit. Care Med. 2006, 34, 625–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wada, H.; Takahashi, H.; Uchiyama, T.; Eguchi, Y.; Okamoto, K.; Kawasugi, K.; Madoiwa, S.; Asakura, H.; DIC Subcommittee of the Japanese Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis. The approval of revised diagnostic criteria for DIC from the Japanese Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis. Thromb. J. 2017, 15, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Iba, T.; Helms, J.; Connors, J.M.; Levy, J.H. The pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of sepsis-associated disseminated intravascular coagulation. J. Intensive Care 2023, 11, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Iba, T.; Levy, J.H.; Warkentin, T.E.; Thachil, J.; van der Poll, T.; Levi, M.; Scientific and Standardization Committee on DIC, and the Scientific and Standardization Committee on Perioperative and Critical Care of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis. Diagnosis and management of sepsis-induced coagulopathy and disseminated intravascular coagulation. J. Thromb. Haemost. 2019, 17, 1989–1994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Iba, T.; Helms, J.; Levy, J.H. Sepsis-induced coagulopathy (SIC) in the management of sepsis. Ann. Intensiv. Care 2024, 14, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Takemitsu, T.; Wada, H.; Hatada, T.; Ohmori, Y.; Ishikura, K.; Takeda, T.; Sugiyama, T.; Yamada, N.; Maruyama, K.; Katayama, N.; et al. Prospective evaluation of three different diagnostic criteria for disseminated intravascular coagulation. Thromb. Haemost. 2011, 105, 40–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Dempfle, C.E. D-dimer: Standardization versus harmonization. Thromb. Haemost. 2006, 95, 399–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Johnson, E.D.; Schell, J.C.; Rodgers, G.M. The D-dimer assay. Am. J. Hematol. 2019, 94, 833–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wada, H.; Yamamoto, A.; Tomida, M.; Ichikawa, Y.; Ezaki, M.; Masuda, J.; Yoshida, M.; Fukui, S.; Moritani, I.; Inoue, H.; et al. Proposal of Quick Diagnostic Criteria for Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Yamamoto, A.; Wada, H.; Tomida, M.; Ichikawa, Y.; Ezaki, M.; Shiraki, K.; Shimaoka, M.; Iba, T.; Suzuki-Inoue, K.; Kawamura, M.; et al. Super Formula for Diagnosing Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation Using Soluble C-Type Lectin-like Receptor 2. Diagnostics 2023, 13, 2299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Suzuki-Inoue, K.; Fuller, G.L.; Garcia, A.; Eble, J.A.; Pohlmann, S.; Inoue, O.; Gartner, T.K.; Hughan, S.C.; Pearce, A.C.; Laing, G.D.; et al. A novel Syk-dependent mechanism of platelet activation by the C-type lectin receptor sCLEC-2. Blood 2006, 107, 542–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kawamura, M.; Ueda, M.; Matsushita, S.; Sasaki, T.; Furuyama, H.; Hashimoto, T.; Shirai, T.; Kazama, F.; Suzuki-Inoue, K. Development of an automated chemiluminescence enzyme immunoassay for the measurement of soluble C-type lectin-like receptor 2 (sCLEC-2) and molecular forms of sCLEC-2 measured in patient plasma. Platelets 2024, 35, 2420949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Singer, M.; Deutschman, C.S.; Seymour, C.W.; Shankar-Hari, M.; Annane, D.; Bauer, M.; Bellomo, R.; Bernard, G.R.; Chiche, J.D.; Coopersmith, C.M.; et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA 2016, 315, 801–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Obuchowski, N.A.; Bullen, J.A. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves: Review of methods with applications in diagnostic medicine. Phys. Med. Biol. 2018, 63, 07TR01. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Wei, Q.; Wang, M.; Peng, X.; Yang, J.; Niu, T. Comparison of Three Different Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation (DIC) Criteria and Diagnostic and Prognostic Value of Antithrombin Investigation in Patients with Confirmed Sepsis-Induced Coagulopathy (SIC). Clin. Appl. Thromb. Hemost. 2024, 30, 10760296241271334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Asakura, H.; Kamikubo, Y.; Goto, A.; Shiratori, Y.; Yamazaki, M.; Jokaji, H.; Saito, M.; Uotani, C.; Kumabashiri, I.; Morishita, E.; et al. Role of tissue factor in disseminated intravascular coagulation. Thromb. Res. 1995, 80, 217–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Matsumoto, H.; Yamakawa, K.; Ogura, H.; Koh, T.; Matsumoto, N.; Shimazu, T. Clinical Significance of Tissue Factor and CD13 Double-Positive Microparticles in Sirs Patients with Trauma and Severe Sepsis. Shock 2017, 47, 409–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ishikura, H.; Irie, Y.; Kawamura, M.; Hoshino, K.; Nakamura, Y.; Mizunuma, M.; Maruyama, J.; Nakashio, M.; Suzuki-Inoue, K.; Kitamura, T. Early recognition of sepsis-induced coagulopathy using the C2PAC index: A ratio of soluble type C lectin-like receptor 2 (sCLEC-2) level and platelet count. Platelets 2022, 33, 935–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Dorgalaleh, A.; Favaloro, E.J.; Bahraini, M.; Rad, F. Standardization of Prothrombin Time/International Normalized Ratio (PT/INR). Int. J. Lab. Hematol. 2021, 43, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Singh, S.; Nasa, V.; Tandon, M. Perioperative monitoring in liver transplant patients. J. Clin. Exp. Hepatol. 2012, 2, 271–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wada, T.; Yamakawa, K.; Kabata, D.; Abe, T.; Fujishima, S.; Kushimoto, S.; Mayumi, T.; Ogura, H.; Saitoh, D.; Shiraishi, A.; et al. Sepsis-related coagulopathy treatment based on the disseminated intravascular coagulation diagnostic criteria: A post-hoc analysis of a prospective multicenter observational study. J. Intensive Care 2023, 11, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Tsantes, A.G.; Parastatidou, S.; Tsantes, E.A.; Bonova, E.; Tsante, K.A.; Mantzios, P.G.; Vaiopoulos, A.G.; Tsalas, S.; Konstantinidi, A.; Houhoula, D.; et al. Sepsis-Induced Coagulopathy: An Update on Pathophysiology, Biomarkers, and Current Guidelines. Life 2023, 13, 350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Swain, F.; Bird, R. How I approach new onset thrombocytopenia. Platelets 2020, 31, 285–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Paquette, R.L. Diagnosis and management of aplastic anemia and myelodysplastic syndrome. Oncology 2002, 16, 153–161. [Google Scholar]
  44. Gando, S.; Levi, M.; Toh, C.H. Disseminated intravascular coagulation. Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers 2016, 2, 16037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Levi, M.; Scully, M. How I treat disseminated intravascular coagulation. Blood 2018, 131, 845–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. George, J.N.; Nester, C.M. Syndromes of thrombotic microangiopathy. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014, 371, 654–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Zhou, Y.; Moake, J.; Dong, J.F. Molecular basis of thrombotic microangiopathy. J. Thromb. Haemost. 2025, 23, 3019–3032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wauthier, L.; Favresse, J.; Hardy, M.; Douxfils, J.; Le Gal, G.; Roy, P.M.; van Es, N.; Ay, C.; Ten Cate, H.; Lecompte, T.; et al. D-dimer testing: A narrative review. Adv. Clin. Chem. 2023, 114, 151–223. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  49. Franchini, M.; Focosi, D.; Pezzo, M.P.; Mannucci, P.M. How we manage a high D-dimer. Haematologica 2024, 109, 1035–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bates, S.M. D-dimer assays in diagnosis and management of thrombotic and bleeding disorders. Semin. Thromb. Hemost. 2012, 38, 673–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Favaloro, E.J. Laboratory testing in disseminated intravascular coagulation. Semin. Thromb. Hemost. 2010, 36, 458–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Limonta, G.; Intra, J.; Brambilla, P.J. The clinical utility of D-dimer/platelet count ratio in pregnant women. J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med. 2022, 35, 3602–3611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. He, X.; Ding, Q. D-dimer-to-platelet count ratio as a novel indicator for predicting prognosis in HBV-related decompensated cirrhosis. Heliyon 2024, 10, e26585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Tahmaz, A.; Seremet Keskin, A.; Kizilates, F. A Prognostic Marker in COVID-19 Disease Severity and Mortality: D-Dimer/Platelet Ratio. Cureus 2023, 15, e39580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Wada, H.; Wakita, Y.; Nakase, T.; Shimura, M.; Hiyoyama, K.; Nagaya, S.; Mori, Y.; Shiku, H. Outcome of disseminated intravascular coagulation in relation to the score when treatment was begun. Mie DIC Study Group. Thromb. Haemost. 1995, 74, 848–852. [Google Scholar]
  56. Jackson Chornenki, N.L.; Dwivedi, D.J.; Kwong, A.C.; Zamir, N.; Fox-Robichaud, A.E.; Liaw, P.C.; Canadian Critical Care Translational Biology Group. Identification of hemostatic markers that define the pre-DIC state: A multi-center observational study. J. Thromb. Haemost. 2020, 18, 2524–2531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Zhao, H.; Dong, Y.; Wang, S.; Shen, J.; Song, Z.; Xue, M.; Shao, M. Comparison between sepsis-induced coagulopathy and Tsepsis-associated coagulopathy criteria in identifying sepsis-associated disseminated intravascular coagulation. World J. Emerg. Med. 2024, 15, 190–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Williams, B.; Zou, L.; Pittet, J.F.; Chao, W. Sepsis-Induced Coagulopathy: A Comprehensive Narrative Review of Pathophysiology, Clinical Presentation, Diagnosis, and Management Strategies. Anesth. Analg. 2024, 138, 696–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Zhou, S.; Lu, Z.; Liu, Y.; Wang, M.; Zhou, W.; Cui, X.; Zhang, J.; Xiao, W.; Hua, T.; Zhu, H.; et al. Interpretable machine learning model for early prediction of 28-day mortality in ICU patients with sepsis-induced coagulopathy: Development and validation. Eur. J. Med. Res. 2024, 29, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Yamakawa, K.; Umemura, Y.; Mochizuki, K.; Matsuoka, T.; Wada, T.; Hayakawa, M.; Iba, T.; Ohtomo, Y.; Okamoto, K.; Mayumi, T.; et al. Proposal and Validation of a Clinically Relevant Modification of the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation Diagnostic Criteria for Sepsis. Thromb. Haemost. 2024, 124, 1003–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Matsuoka, T.; Yamakawa, K.; Umemura, Y.; Ushio, N.; Hisamune, R.; Okamoto, K.; Honmma, K.; Sasaki, J. The modified Japanese Association for Acute Medicine disseminated intravascular coagulation diagnostic criteria in sepsis is useful for an indicator of initiating treatment for disseminated intravascular coagulation. Thromb. Res. 2025, 253, 109408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jcm 14 07478 g001aJcm 14 07478 g001b
Figure 1. Box-and-whisker plot of the PT-INR: (a) platelet count, (b) D-dimer levels, and (c) DIC index (d) among JMHLW-Non-DIC, JMHLW-Pre-DIC, and JMHLW-DIC. PT, prothrombin time; INR, international normalized ratio; DIC, disseminated intravascular coagulation; JMHLW, Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare; patients with DIC scores of ≥7 points, 5–6 points, and ≤4 points were diagnosed with JMHLW-DIC, JMHLW-Pre-DIC, and JMHLW-Non-DIC, respectively. *** p < 0.001. ●●●●// > 5.0.
Figure 1. Box-and-whisker plot of the PT-INR: (a) platelet count, (b) D-dimer levels, and (c) DIC index (d) among JMHLW-Non-DIC, JMHLW-Pre-DIC, and JMHLW-DIC. PT, prothrombin time; INR, international normalized ratio; DIC, disseminated intravascular coagulation; JMHLW, Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare; patients with DIC scores of ≥7 points, 5–6 points, and ≤4 points were diagnosed with JMHLW-DIC, JMHLW-Pre-DIC, and JMHLW-Non-DIC, respectively. *** p < 0.001. ●●●●// > 5.0.
Jcm 14 07478 g001aJcm 14 07478 g001b
Jcm 14 07478 g002
Figure 2. DIC index in the patients with JMHLW-Non-DIC, JMHLW-Pre-DIC, ISTH Non-DIC, ISTH-DIC, mJAAM-Non-DIC, mJAAM-DIC (≥3), and mJAAM-DIC (≥4). DIC, disseminated intravascular coagulation; JMHLW, Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare; patients with DIC scores of ≥7 points, 5–6 points, and ≤4 points were diagnosed with JMHLW-DIC, JMHLW-Pre-DIC, and JMHLW-Non-DIC; ISTH, International Society of Thrombosis Hemostasis; JAAM, Japanese Association for Acute Medicine; mJAAM, modified JAAM; DIC (≥3), more than 3 points of mJAAM DIC score; DIC (≥4), more than 4 points of mJAAM DIC score; *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01.
Figure 2. DIC index in the patients with JMHLW-Non-DIC, JMHLW-Pre-DIC, ISTH Non-DIC, ISTH-DIC, mJAAM-Non-DIC, mJAAM-DIC (≥3), and mJAAM-DIC (≥4). DIC, disseminated intravascular coagulation; JMHLW, Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare; patients with DIC scores of ≥7 points, 5–6 points, and ≤4 points were diagnosed with JMHLW-DIC, JMHLW-Pre-DIC, and JMHLW-Non-DIC; ISTH, International Society of Thrombosis Hemostasis; JAAM, Japanese Association for Acute Medicine; mJAAM, modified JAAM; DIC (≥3), more than 3 points of mJAAM DIC score; DIC (≥4), more than 4 points of mJAAM DIC score; *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01.
Jcm 14 07478 g002
Table 1. Diagnostic criteria for DIC for JMHLW, ISTH-DIC and mJAAM.
Table 1. Diagnostic criteria for DIC for JMHLW, ISTH-DIC and mJAAM.
DICJMHLW-DICISTH-DICmJAAM-DIC
PT-INR,
PT (s)		≥1.25, 1 P
≥1.67, 2 P		≥3 s, 1 P
≥6 s, 2 P		≥1.2, 1 P
FDP (mg/L)≥10, 1 P
≥20, 2 P
≥40, 3 P		 ≥10, 1 P
≥25, 3 P
D-dimer (mg/L) ≥5, 2 P
≥10, 3 P
Fibrinogen (g/L)≤1.5, 1 P
≤1.0, 2 P		≤1.0, 1 P
Platelet count (×1010/μL)≤12, 1 P
≤ 8, 2 P
≤ 5, 3 P		≤10. 1 P
≤5, 2 P		≤12, 1 P
≤8, 3 P
Bleeding symptomPositive, 1 P
Organ failurePositive, 1 P
DIC≥7 P≥5 P≥3 or 4 P
DIC, disseminated intravascular coagulation; JMHLW, the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare; ISTH, the International Society of Thrombosis Hemostasis, JAAM, the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine; mJAAM, modified JAAM; PT, prothrombin time; INR, international normalized ratio; FDP, fibrinogen and fibrin degradation products.
Table 2. Subjects with JMHLW-DIC, JMHLW-Pre-DIC, or JMHLW-Non-DIC.
Table 2. Subjects with JMHLW-DIC, JMHLW-Pre-DIC, or JMHLW-Non-DIC.
JMHLW DIC CriteriaJMHLW-DICJMHLW-
Pre-DIC		JMHLW-Non-DIC
Age (years)74 (66–84)77 (60–82)71 (55–82)
Sex (F:M) 21:51 45:67 601:715
Infectious disease 30 47 212
Digestive system disease 1 2 85
Chest or abdominal aneurysm 3 8 75
Hematological malignancy 1 2 64
Trauma 6 7 54
Obstetrics disease 2 1 48
Respiratory disease 1 3 34
Arrhythmia 2 1 18
Thrombosis of peripheral artery 1 1 14
Heat illness 1 1 33
Cardiac pulmonary arrest 21 14 32
Solid cancer 3 4 29
Acute coronary syndrome 0 5 67
Heart failure 0 5 81
Convulsive disorder 0 1 25
Metabolic and endocrine diseases 0 1 19
Venous thromboembolism 0 2 41
Cerebral bleeding 0 5 53
Non-malignant hematological disease 0 0 38
Cerebral thrombosis 0 0 145
Indefinite compliant syndrome 0 0 88
Others 0 0 61
Total 72 112 1316
Age is shown as the median (25th–75th percentile). DIC, disseminated intravascular coagulation; JMHLW, Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare; the DIC score is based on the JMLHW diagnostic DIC score; patients with DIC scores of ≥7 points, 5–6 points, and ≤4 points were diagnosed with JMHLW-DIC, JMHLW-Pre-DIC, and JMHLW-Non-DIC, respectively.
Table 3. DIC index.
Table 3. DIC index.
ParameterEvaluation
PT-INRConsumption of coagulation factors
1/Platelet countActivation and consumption of platelet
D-dimerFibrin formation and degradation
PT-INRxD-dimer/Platelet countDisseminated microvascular coagulation
DIC, disseminated intravascular coagulation; PT, prothrombin time; INR, international normalized ratio.
Table 4. Correlation of the JMHLW-DIC score with PT-INR, 1/Platelet count, D-dimer levels, and DIC index.
Table 4. Correlation of the JMHLW-DIC score with PT-INR, 1/Platelet count, D-dimer levels, and DIC index.
ParameterrFormular p
PT-INR0.449Y = −0.226 + 1.814Xp < 0.001
1/Platelet0.159Y = 0.049 + 0.015Xp < 0.001
D-dimer0.542Y = −1.494 + 5.289Xp < 0.001
DIC index 0.192Y = −7.084 + 6.021X,p < 0.001
PT, prothrombin time; INR, international normalized ratio; DIC, disseminated intravascular coagulation; r, correlation coefficient; the DIC index is calculated using the following formula: DIC index = D-dimer × PT-INR/Platelet count.
Table 5. ROC analyses of the PT-INR, Platelet count, D-dimer, PT-INR/Platelet count, PT-INRxD- dimer, D-dimer/Platelet count, and DIC index.
Table 5. ROC analyses of the PT-INR, Platelet count, D-dimer, PT-INR/Platelet count, PT-INRxD- dimer, D-dimer/Platelet count, and DIC index.
JMHLW-DIC vs. JMHLW-Non-DIC
ParameterCutoffSensitivityAUCOdds Ratio
PT-INR1.2182.2%0.89320.9
Platelet count13.985.7%0.91036.7
D-dimer10.192.5%0.971137
PT-INR/Platelet count0.1092.5%0.965134
PT-INRxD-dimer13.393.3%0.980177
D-dimer/Platelet count11.295.6%0.9901132
DIC index1.21697.2%0.9951138
JMHLW-DIC or -Pre-DIC vs. JMHLW-Non-DIC
PT-INR1.1076.2%0.8289.88
Platelet count16.375.8%0.8129.75
D-dimer7.7686.9%0.93044.3
PT-INR/Platelet count0.0780.2%0.87915.6
PT-INRxD-dimer8.9086.9%0.93843.7
D-dimer/Platelet count0.4989.1%0.95965.2
DIC index0.5990.20.96487.1
DIC, disseminated intravascular coagulation; JMHLW, Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare; patients with DIC scores of ≥7 points, 5–6 points, and ≤4 points were diagnosed with JMHLW-DIC, JMHLW-Pre-DIC, and JMHLW-Non-DIC; ROC, receiver operating characteristic; AUC, area under the curve; PT, prothrombin time; INR, international normalized ratio.
Table 6. ROC analyses of the DIC index and the JMHLW, ISTH overt DIC, and modified JAAM score.
Table 6. ROC analyses of the DIC index and the JMHLW, ISTH overt DIC, and modified JAAM score.
ROC AnalysesCutoffSensitivityAUCOdds
Ratio
JMHLW-DIC vs. JMHLW-non-DIC1.21697.2%0.9951138
JMHLW-DIC + Pre-DIC vs. JMHLW-non-DIC0.59090.2%0.96487.1
ISTH overt-DIC vs. non-ISTH-overt DIC 1.19991.0%0.979228
mJAAM-DIC (score of ≥4) vs. non-mJAAM DIC0.68293.9%0.984240
mJAAM-DIC (score of ≥3) vs. non-mJAAM DIC0.44988.8%0.95454.0
DIC, disseminated intravascular coagulation; JMHLW, the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare; ISTH, the International Society of Thrombosis Hemostasis; mJAAM, modified Japanese Association for Acute Medicine; non-mJAAM DIC, patients with mJAAM DIC score of ≤2; ROC, receiver operating characteristic; AUC, area under the curve.
Table 7. Outcome and parameters of the DIC index.
Table 7. Outcome and parameters of the DIC index.
OutcomeSurvivorsNon-Survivors
PT-INR1.02 (0.94–1.12)1.28 (1.09–1.70)p < 0.001
D-dimer (mg/L)1.88 (0.71–6.81)10.6 (3.5–29.0)p < 0.001
Platelet count (1 × 1010)20.0 (15.8–27.2)14.4 (9.0–21.6)p < 0.001
JMHLW-DIC score1.0 (0.0–2.0)5.0 (3.0–7.0)p < 0.001
DIC index0.002 (0.001–0.005)0.976 (0.315–3.731)p < 0.001
ISTH-DIC score1.0 (0.0–2.0)5.0 (3.5–7.0)p < 0.001
mJAAM DIC score1.0 (0.0–2.0)5.0 (4.0–7.0)p < 0.001
Data are shown as the median (25th–75th percentile). DIC, disseminated intravascular coagulation; PT, prothrombin time; INR, international normalized ratio; JMHLW, the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare; ISTH, the International Society of Thrombosis Hemostasis; JAAM, the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine; mJAAM, modified JAAM; AUC, area under the curve.
Table 8. ROC analyses of parameters, DIC index, and three DIC scores for outcomes (non-survivors vs. survivors).
Table 8. ROC analyses of parameters, DIC index, and three DIC scores for outcomes (non-survivors vs. survivors).
ROC AnalysesCutoffSensitivityAUCOdds Ratio
PT-INR1.1072.9%0.7947.3
D-dimer18.564.0%0.7123.3
Platelet count5.069.7%0.7785.5
DIC index0.3374.2%0.8158.30
JMHLW-DIC score2.077.3%0.86711.6
ISTH-DIC score1.9677.6%0.86913.5
mJAAM-DIC score2.077.9%0.86812.3
Data are shown as the median (25th–75th percentile). DIC, disseminated intravascular coagulation; PT, prothrombin time; INR, international normalized ratio; JMHLW, the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare; ISTH, the International Society of Thrombosis Hemostasis; JAAM, the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine; mJAAM, modified JAAM; AUC, area under the curve.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nakano, E.; Wada, H.; Yamamoto, A.; Tomida, M.; Ichikawa, Y.; Shiraki, K.; Shimaoka, M.; Shimpo, H.; Tawara, I. Diagnostic and Prognostic Evaluation of Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation Using the Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation Index. J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14, 7478. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14217478

AMA Style

Nakano E, Wada H, Yamamoto A, Tomida M, Ichikawa Y, Shiraki K, Shimaoka M, Shimpo H, Tawara I. Diagnostic and Prognostic Evaluation of Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation Using the Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation Index. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2025; 14(21):7478. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14217478

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nakano, Eri, Hideo Wada, Akitaka Yamamoto, Masaki Tomida, Yuhuko Ichikawa, Katsuya Shiraki, Motomu Shimaoka, Hideto Shimpo, and Isao Tawara. 2025. "Diagnostic and Prognostic Evaluation of Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation Using the Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation Index" Journal of Clinical Medicine 14, no. 21: 7478. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14217478

APA Style

Nakano, E., Wada, H., Yamamoto, A., Tomida, M., Ichikawa, Y., Shiraki, K., Shimaoka, M., Shimpo, H., & Tawara, I. (2025). Diagnostic and Prognostic Evaluation of Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation Using the Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation Index. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 14(21), 7478. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14217478

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop