BACKGROUND: Increasing the threshold to define a positive D-dimer could reduce unnecessary computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA) for a suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) but might increase rates of a missed PE and missed pneumonia, the most common non-thromboembolic diagnosis seen on CTPA. OBJECTIVE: Measure the effect of doubling the standard D-dimer threshold for 'PE unlikely' Revised Geneva (RGS) or Wells' scores on the exclusion rate, frequency and size of a missed PE and missed pneumonia. METHODS: Patients evaluated for a suspected PE with 64-channel CTPA were prospectively enrolled from emergency departments (EDs) and inpatient units of four hospitals. Pretest probability data were collected in real time and the D-dimer was measured in a central laboratory. Criterion standard was CPTA interpretation by two independent radiologists combined with clinical outcome at 30 days. RESULTS: Of 678 patients enrolled, 126 (19%) were PE+ and 93 (14%) had pneumonia. Use of either Wells' ≤ 4 or RGS ≤ 6 produced similar results. For example, with RGS ≤ 6 and standard threshold (< 500 ng mL(-1)), D-dimer was negative in 110/678 (16%), and 4/110 were PE+ (posterior probability 3.8%) and 9/110 (8.2%) had pneumonia. With RGS ≤ 6 and a threshold < 1000 ng mL(-1) , D-dimer was negative in 208/678 (31%) and 11/208 (5.3%) were PE+, but 10/11 missed PEs were subsegmental and none had concomitant DVT. Pneumonia was found in 12/208 (5.4%) with RGS ≤ 6 and D-dimer < 1000 ng mL(-1). CONCLUSIONS: Doubling the threshold for a positive D-dimer with a PE unlikely pretest probability could reduce CTPA scanning with a slightly increased risk of missed isolated subsegmental PE, and no increase in rate of missed pneumonia.
BACKGROUND: Increasing the threshold to define a positive D-dimer could reduce unnecessary computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA) for a suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) but might increase rates of a missed PE and missed pneumonia, the most common non-thromboembolic diagnosis seen on CTPA. OBJECTIVE: Measure the effect of doubling the standard D-dimer threshold for 'PE unlikely' Revised Geneva (RGS) or Wells' scores on the exclusion rate, frequency and size of a missed PE and missed pneumonia. METHODS:Patients evaluated for a suspected PE with 64-channel CTPA were prospectively enrolled from emergency departments (EDs) and inpatient units of four hospitals. Pretest probability data were collected in real time and the D-dimer was measured in a central laboratory. Criterion standard was CPTA interpretation by two independent radiologists combined with clinical outcome at 30 days. RESULTS: Of 678 patients enrolled, 126 (19%) were PE+ and 93 (14%) had pneumonia. Use of either Wells' ≤ 4 or RGS ≤ 6 produced similar results. For example, with RGS ≤ 6 and standard threshold (< 500 ng mL(-1)), D-dimer was negative in 110/678 (16%), and 4/110 were PE+ (posterior probability 3.8%) and 9/110 (8.2%) had pneumonia. With RGS ≤ 6 and a threshold < 1000 ng mL(-1) , D-dimer was negative in 208/678 (31%) and 11/208 (5.3%) were PE+, but 10/11 missed PEs were subsegmental and none had concomitant DVT. Pneumonia was found in 12/208 (5.4%) with RGS ≤ 6 and D-dimer < 1000 ng mL(-1). CONCLUSIONS: Doubling the threshold for a positive D-dimer with a PE unlikely pretest probability could reduce CTPA scanning with a slightly increased risk of missed isolated subsegmental PE, and no increase in rate of missed pneumonia.
Authors: Patrick M Bossuyt; Johannes B Reitsma; David E Bruns; Constantine A Gatsonis; Paul P Glasziou; Les M Irwig; David Moher; Drummond Rennie; Henrica C W de Vet; Jeroen G Lijmer Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Peter B Richman; D Mark Courtney; Jeremy Friese; Jessica Matthews; Adam Field; Roland Petri; Jeffrey A Kline Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: P S Wells; D R Anderson; M Rodger; J S Ginsberg; C Kearon; M Gent; A G Turpie; J Bormanis; J Weitz; M Chamberlain; D Bowie; D Barnes; J Hirsh Journal: Thromb Haemost Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 5.249
Authors: Francis M Fesmire; Michael D Brown; James A Espinosa; Richard D Shih; Scott M Silvers; Stephen J Wolf; Wyatt W Decker Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Jeffrey A Kline; Nury M Steuerwald; John A Watts; Mark Courtney; Herbert L Bonkovsky Journal: Thromb Res Date: 2015-08-28 Impact factor: 3.944
Authors: Lauren M Westafer; Ashley Kunz; Patrycja Bugajska; Amber Hughes; Kathleen M Mazor; Elizabeth M Schoenfeld; Mihaela S Stefan; Peter K Lindenauer Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2020-03-27 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Jeffrey A Kline; Dawn Neumann; Samih Raad; David L Schriger; Cassandra L Hall; Jake Capito; David Kammer Journal: Acad Med Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 6.893