 |
|
Clinical Usefulness of D-Dimer Depending on Clinical Probability and Cutoff Value in Outpatients With Suspected Pulmonary Embolism
Marc Righini, MD;
Drahomir Aujesky, MD;
Pierre-Marie Roy, MD;
Jacques Cornuz, MD, MPH;
Philippe de Moerloose, MD;
Henri Bounameaux, MD;
Arnaud Perrier, MD
Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:2483-2487.
Background We evaluated whether a highly sensitive D-dimer test is clinically useful and safe for ruling out pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients with a high clinical probability and whether adopting different cutoff values according to the clinical probability category might increase the proportion of patients in whom PE is ruled out.
Methods We retrospectively analyzed the databases of 2 outcome studies on the diagnosis of PE with a 3-month follow-up that included 1409 patients. We evaluated the usefulness of D-dimer testing by calculating the number needed to test to rule out one PE, and its safety by measuring the 3-month thromboembolic risk in patients not treated by anticoagulant agents based on a normal D-dimer level.
Results The sensitivity of D-dimer was 100% in all clinical probability categories, but the number needed to test increased with increasing clinical probability of PE. The 95% confidence interval (0%-23%) of the 3-month thromboembolic risk (0%) among 13 of 121 patients with a normal D-dimer level and a high clinical probability of PE was wide. Increasing the cutoff value to 700 µg/L in patients with a low clinical probability would rule out PE in an additional 5% of the entire patient cohort at the expense of a lower sensitivity (93% [95% confidence interval, 83%-97%]).
Conclusions The safety of D-dimer testing in patients with a high clinical probability of PE is not established, and testing results are rarely negative in such patients. Increasing the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay D-dimer cutoff value only marginally increased the test’s usefulness.
Author Affiliations: Division of Angiology and Hemostasis (Drs Righini, de Moerloose, and Bounameaux) and Medical Clinic 1 (Dr Perrier), Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, and Department of Internal Medicine (Drs Aujesky and Cornuz), Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, and Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (Dr Cornuz), Lausanne, Switzerland; and Service of Emergency Treatment, Angers University Hospital, Angers, France (Dr Roy).
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
The Importance of Clinical Probability Assessment in Interpreting a Normal d-Dimer in Patients With Suspected Pulmonary Embolism
Gibson et al.
Chest 2008;134:789-793.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Guidelines on the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism: The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Management of Acute Pulmonary Embolism of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)
Authors/Task Force Members et al.
Eur Heart J 2008;29:2276-2315.
FULL TEXT
Acute Pulmonary Embolism
Tapson
NEJM 2008;358:1037-1052.
FULL TEXT
Review of the Evidence on Diagnosis of Deep Venous Thrombosis and Pulmonary Embolism
Segal et al.
Ann Fam Med 2007;5:63-73.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Appropriateness of Excluding Pulmonary Embolism
Roy and Meyer
ANN INTERN MED 2006;145:152-152.
FULL TEXT
Value of D-Dimer Testing for the Exclusion of Pulmonary Embolism in Patients With Previous Venous Thromboembolism
Le Gal et al.
Arch Intern Med 2006;166:176-180.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Multidetector-Row Computed Tomography in Suspected Pulmonary Embolism
Perrier et al.
NEJM 2005;352:1760-1768.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
ED Management of DVT and PE
JWatch Emergency Med. 2005;2005:1-1.
FULL TEXT
|
