Original ContributionsCriteria for the safe use of D -dimer testing in emergency department patients with suspected pulmonary embolism: A multicenter us study*,**,*,**
Introduction
A growing body of evidence indicates that a normal D -dimer result can help rule out the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE). Among the commercially available rapid D -dimer assays, the lowest likelihood ratio negative (LR–) can be generated by either a normal quantitative D -dimer assay (<500 ng/L)1, 2, 3, 4 or the combination of a normal whole-blood D -dimer assay together with a normal index of pulmonary gas exchange.5, 6, 7 Aggregated data from published reports suggest that the best-case LR– for the rapid quantitative D -dimer assays (rapid enzyme-linked immunoassays or turbidimetric assays) is approximately 0.03 to 0.07.4 Likewise, in a multicenter study, the combination of a normal whole-blood D -dimer plus a normal alveolar deadspace measurement generated an LR– of 0.03.8 However, authors have cautioned that no D -dimer–based strategy can safely rule out PE in the entire spectrum of patients with suspected PE and that clinical criteria should be used to exclude patients with excessive risk.3, 9, 10 To define excessive risk, we have previously argued that the posttest probability for PE should not exceed 2.0% (and preferably should not exceed 1.0% overall).11 The 2.0% value is based in part on data published by Gosselin et al,12 indicating that, among 785 patients without symptoms of PE who underwent contrast-enhanced chest computed tomographic (CT) scanning for other reasons, 15/785 (1.9%) had CT scans read by board-certified radiologists as positive for PE. A screening test with an LR– of 0.03 will not reduce the probability of PE to below 2.0% if the pretest prevalence of PE exceeds 40%.13
Accordingly, we sought to derive a set of clinical criteria that would define an ED subgroup with a pretest probability of PE greater than 40% and therefore would have too high of a risk to have the diagnosis of PE excluded on the basis of any contemporary D -dimer–based screening strategy. We analyzed data that were prospectively collected on patients with suspected PE at 7 large urban emergency departments in the United States. The primary hypothesis we tested was that a set of clinical criteria, which can be obtained immediately at the bedside in the ED, could be used in a decision rule to identify a subgroup of patients with a probability of PE above 40% (high risk) while significantly reducing the probability of PE in the remaining patients who are not at high risk.
Section snippets
Materials and methods
All methods were approved by the institutional review boards of all participating hospitals. Written informed consent was obtained from all study participants. Data were collected from ED patients at 7 urban teaching hospitals: Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC (1996-2000); William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, MI (1998-1999); Detroit Medical Center and Grace Hospital, Detroit, MI (1998-1999); Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, MO (1998-1999); St. Vincent Mercy Medical Center, Toledo, OH
Results
Data were collected from 934 patients at 7 EDs in the United States. These 934 patients constituted the entire sample of patients enrolled during the study period. Once the clinical data were collected, patients were excluded only if the criterion standard was not met, as in the cases in which physicians in charge of patient care abandoned the effort to diagnose or exclude PE altogether. PE was diagnosed in 181 patients (19.4%; 95% CI 16.9% to 22.0%). The criterion standard for the diagnosis
Discussion
This study tested the hypothesis that a set of clinical criteria could be developed to define the ED patient with a greater than 40% probability of PE based on data collected prospectively from EDs at 7 hospitals in the United States. We determined that a patient who is either older than 50 years or who has a shock index (HR/SBP) of more than 1.0, together with any 1 of 4 risk factors (unexplained hypoxemia, unilateral leg swelling, recent history of surgery, or hemoptysis) would have a 42.1%
Acknowledgements
Author contributions: JAK, REJ, and DMC conceived the study. JAK and REJ obtained study funding and supervised data collection including quality control. RDN and DMC contributed substantially to data collection, data entry, and preliminary data analysis. JAK performed statistical analysis in consultation with REJ. JAK drafted the manuscript, and all authors contributed substantially to its revision. JAK takes responsibility for the paper as a whole.
We thank the following individuals for their
References (32)
- et al.
Clinical evaluation of an immunoturbidimetric D -dimer assay in the diagnostic procedure of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism
Thromb Res
(1997) - et al.
Non-invasive diagnosis of venous thromboembolism in outpatients
Lancet
(1999) - et al.
New diagnostic tests for pulmonary embolism
Ann Emerg Med
(2000) - et al.
Evaluation of suspected pulmonary embolism utilizing end-tidal CO2 and D -dimer
Am J Surg
(1999) - et al.
A negative SimpliRED D -dimer assay result does not exclude the diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolus in emergency department patients
Ann Emerg Med
(2000) Clinical utility of likelihood ratios
Ann Emerg Med
(1998)- et al.
Methodologic standards for the development of clinical decision rules in emergency medicine
Ann Emerg Med
(1999) - et al.
Comparison of four rapid D -dimer tests for diagnosis of pulmonary embolism
Thromb Res
(1996) - et al.
A new quantitative D -dimer assay appropriate in emergency: reliability of the assay for pulmonary embolism exclusion diagnosis
Thromb Res
(1998) - et al.
Steady-state end-tidal alveolar dead space fraction and D -dimer: bedside tests to exclude pulmonary embolism
Chest
(2001)
Performances of a new, rapid, and automated microlatex D -dimer assay for the exclusion of pulmonary embolism in symptomatic outpatients
Thromb Haemost
Use of the alveolar dead space fraction (Vd/Vt) and plasma D -dimers to exclude acute pulmonary embolism in ambulatory patients
Acad Emerg Med
Usefulness of D -dimer, blood gas, and respiratory rate measurements for excluding pulmonary embolism
Thorax
Diagnostic accuracy of a bedside D -dimer assay and alveolar dead-space measurement for rapid exclusion of pulmonary embolism: a multicenter study
JAMA
The use of a rapid D -dimer blood test in the diagnostic work-up for pulmonary embolism: a management study
Thromb Haemost
Bedside diagnostic tests for pulmonary embolism
JAMA
Cited by (129)
Accuracy of physicians’ intuitive risk estimation in the diagnostic management of pulmonary embolism: an individual patient data meta-analysis
2023, Journal of Thrombosis and HaemostasisFamily history of venous thromboembolism predicts the diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism in the emergency department
2018, American Journal of Emergency MedicineDiagnosis and Exclusion of Pulmonary Embolism
2018, Thrombosis Research
- *
Dr. Courtney is now affiliated with the Division of Emergency Medicine, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, IL.
- **
Author contributions are provided at the end of this article.
- *
Supported in part by the Established Investigator Award from the Emergency Medicine Foundation.
- **
Address for reprints: Jeffrey A. Kline, MD, Emergency Medicine Clinical Research, PO Box 32861, Charlotte, NC 28323-2861;,704-355-7092, fax 704-355-7047.