BACKGROUND: D-dimer testing to rule out deep vein thrombosis is less useful in older patients because of a lower specificity. An age-adjusted D-dimer cut-off value increased the proportion of older patients (>50 years) in whom pulmonary embolism could be excluded. We retrospectively validated the efficacy of this cut-off combined with clinical probability for the exclusion of deep vein thrombosis. DESIGN AND METHODS: Five management study cohorts of 2818 consecutive outpatients with suspected deep vein thrombosis were used. Patients with non-high or unlikely probability of deep vein thrombosis were included in the analysis; four different D-dimer tests were used. The proportion of patients with a normal D-dimer test and the failure rates were calculated using the conventional (500 μg/L) and the age-adjusted D-dimer cut-off (patient's age x 10 μg/L in patients >50 years). RESULTS: In 1672 patients with non-high probability, deep vein thrombosis could be excluded in 850 (51%) patients with the age-adjusted cut-off value versus 707 (42%) patients with the conventional cut-off value. The failure rates were 7 (0.8; 95% confidence interval 0.3-1.7%) for the age-adjusted cut-off value and 5 (0.7%, 0.2-1.6%) for the conventional cut-off value. The absolute increase in patients in whom deep vein thrombosis could be ruled out using the age-adjusted cut-off value was largest in patients >70 years: 19% among patients with non-high probability. CONCLUSIONS: The age-adjusted cut-off of the D-dimer combined with clinical probability greatly increases the proportion of older patients in whom deep vein thrombosis can be safely excluded.
BACKGROUND: D-dimer testing to rule out deep vein thrombosis is less useful in older patients because of a lower specificity. An age-adjusted D-dimer cut-off value increased the proportion of older patients (>50 years) in whom pulmonary embolism could be excluded. We retrospectively validated the efficacy of this cut-off combined with clinical probability for the exclusion of deep vein thrombosis. DESIGN AND METHODS: Five management study cohorts of 2818 consecutive outpatients with suspected deep vein thrombosis were used. Patients with non-high or unlikely probability of deep vein thrombosis were included in the analysis; four different D-dimer tests were used. The proportion of patients with a normal D-dimer test and the failure rates were calculated using the conventional (500 μg/L) and the age-adjusted D-dimer cut-off (patient's age x 10 μg/L in patients >50 years). RESULTS: In 1672 patients with non-high probability, deep vein thrombosis could be excluded in 850 (51%) patients with the age-adjusted cut-off value versus 707 (42%) patients with the conventional cut-off value. The failure rates were 7 (0.8; 95% confidence interval 0.3-1.7%) for the age-adjusted cut-off value and 5 (0.7%, 0.2-1.6%) for the conventional cut-off value. The absolute increase in patients in whom deep vein thrombosis could be ruled out using the age-adjusted cut-off value was largest in patients >70 years: 19% among patients with non-high probability. CONCLUSIONS: The age-adjusted cut-off of the D-dimer combined with clinical probability greatly increases the proportion of older patients in whom deep vein thrombosis can be safely excluded.
Authors: E Ceriani; C Combescure; G Le Gal; M Nendaz; T Perneger; H Bounameaux; A Perrier; M Righini Journal: J Thromb Haemost Date: 2010-02-02 Impact factor: 5.824
Authors: P S Wells; J Hirsh; D R Anderson; A W Lensing; G Foster; C Kearon; J Weitz; R D'Ovidio; A Cogo; P Prandoni Journal: Lancet Date: 1995-05-27 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: P S Wells; D R Anderson; J Bormanis; F Guy; M Mitchell; L Gray; C Clement; K S Robinson; B Lewandowski Journal: Lancet Date: 1997 Dec 20-27 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Philip S Wells; David R Anderson; Marc Rodger; Melissa Forgie; Clive Kearon; Jonathan Dreyer; George Kovacs; Michael Mitchell; Bernard Lewandowski; Michael J Kovacs Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-09-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Shannon M Bates; Clive Kearon; Mark Crowther; Lori Linkins; Martin O'Donnell; Jim Douketis; Agnes Y Y Lee; Jeffrey I Weitz; Marilyn Johnston; Jeffrey S Ginsberg Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-05-20 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: A Perrier; S Desmarais; M J Miron; P de Moerloose; R Lepage; D Slosman; D Didier; P F Unger; J V Patenaude; H Bounameaux Journal: Lancet Date: 1999-01-16 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: R E G Schutgens; P Ackermark; F J L M Haas; H K Nieuwenhuis; H G Peltenburg; A H Pijlman; M Pruijm; R Oltmans; J C Kelder; D H Biesma Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-02-04 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Frank C Vandy; Cathy Stabler; Anna M Eliassen; Angela E Hawley; Kenneth E Guire; Daniel D Myers; Peter K Henke; Thomas W Wakefield Journal: J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord Date: 2013-04-01
Authors: Henrike J Schouten; G J Geersing; H L Koek; Nicolaas P A Zuithoff; Kristel J M Janssen; Renée A Douma; Johannes J M van Delden; Karel G M Moons; Johannes B Reitsma Journal: BMJ Date: 2013-05-03
Authors: Jürgen H Prochaska; Bernd Frank; Markus Nagler; Heidrun Lamparter; Gerhard Weißer; Andreas Schulz; Lisa Eggebrecht; Sebastian Göbel; Natalie Arnold; Marina Panova-Noeva; Iris Hermanns; Antonio Pinto; Stavros Konstantinides; Hugo Ten Cate; Karl J Lackner; Thomas Münzel; Christine Espinola-Klein; Philipp S Wild Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-07-04 Impact factor: 4.379