D-dimer Testing in Patients with Suspected Pulmonary Embolism and Impaired Renal Function (original) (raw)
Related papers
Thrombosis research, 2009
Quantitative D-Dimer tests are established methods in the non-invasive diagnostic management to rule out venous thromboembolism (VTE). The diagnostic performance and the clinical efficiency different D-Dimer assays in the exclusion of pulmonary embolism (PE) have not yet been compared in a clinical outcome study. Evaluation of the efficiency and safety of excluding the diagnosis of PE with two different quantitative D-Dimer assays in consecutive patients with clinically suspected PE. We studied the VTE-failure rate of 2206 consecutive patients with an unlikely clinical probability in whom VIDAS or Tinaquant D-Dimer tests were performed. The prevalence of PE in 1238 patients whose D-Dimer level was analyzed with Tinaquant assay was 11%. The VIDAS assay group consisted of 968 patients with a PE prevalence of 13%. The VIDAS assay had a sensitivity of 99.2% (95%CI; 96- >99.9%), the Tinaquant assay of 97.3% (95%CI; 93 -99%). The negative predictive value (NPV) in the Tinaquant assay g...
Factors Associated With Positive D-dimer Results in Patients Evaluated for Pulmonary Embolism
Academic Emergency Medicine, 2010
Objectives-Available D-dimer assays have low specificity and may increase radiographic testing for pulmonary embolism (PE). To help clinicians better target testing, this study sought to quantify the effect of risk factors for a positive quantitative D-dimer in patients evaluated for PE. Methods-This was a prospective, multicenter, observational study. Emergency department (ED) patients evaluated for PE with a quantitative D-dimer were eligible for inclusion. The main outcome of interest was a positive D-dimer. Odds ratio (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were determined by multivariable logistic regression. Adjusted estimates of relative risk were also calculated. Results-A total of 4,346 patients had D-dimer testing, of whom 2,930 (67%) were women. A total of 2,500 (57%) were white, 1,474 (34%) were black or African American, 238 (6%) were
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 1998
Previous studies have suggested the utility of D-Dimer ELISA assays in eliminating a diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE). Our objectives were to evaluate the performance of a new, rapid, quantitative, and automated Liatest D-Dimer Assay in patients with suspected PE. Three hundred eighty-six consecutive patients referred to our institution between March 1992 and December 1996 for clinically suspected PE, with recent clinical signs not exceeding 1 wk, were included in this study. Diagnosis of PE was based on clinical evaluation, radionuclide lung imaging, lower limb examination, and, when required, pulmonary angiography. D-Dimer performances, for both Liatest D-Dimer and standard D-Dimer ELISA (Asserachrom DDi), assays, were assessed at the end of the study. Among the 386 patients tested, 146 (37.8%) were classified as PE-positive. Liatest D-Dimer assay had a 100% sensitivity (95% confidence interval, 97 to 100%) and a negative predictive value of 100% (95% confidence interval, 94 to 100%). A normal result, below the cutoff of 500 ng/ml, occurred in 83 of the 386 (21%) patients. There was a strong agreement between Liatest D-Dimer and Asserachrom DDi analyses. These findings suggest that this rapid, quantitative, and automated D-Dimer assay provides a useful diagnostic tool for the clinician with regard to exclusion of PE.
Thrombosis Research, 2010
Background In patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE), an unlikely or non-high probability assessment combined with a normal D-dimer test can safely exclude the diagnosis. We, therefore, studied the influence of early D-dimer knowledge on clinical probability assessment. Methods A questionnaire was sent to 150 randomly selected pulmonologists and internists in the Netherlands, presenting six hypothetical case-descriptions of patients with suspected PE. Physicians were randomized to receive one of three versions. The version contained a normal, an abnormal or no D-dimer result with each case-description. Each version contained two cases with an abnormal D-dimer result, two cases with a normal D-dimer result and two cases with no D-dimer result. Results A total of 71 physicians (47%) returned the questionnaire; the three versions were equally represented. Compared to the control cases in which no D-dimer was given, knowledge of an abnormal D-dimer resulted in more "likely" clinical scores using the Wells' rule (absolute increase in "likely" of 25-37%, p=0.005, 0.111 and 0.144), while knowledge of a normal D-dimer resulted in more "unlikely" scores (absolute increase in "unlikely" of 27-44%, p=0.001 and 0.070). D-dimer knowledge did not influence the probability assessment when the clinical suspicion was very high. Conclusion Knowledge of the D-dimer test influences the physician in how the clinical probability for PE is scored. This will have direct clinical consequences, such as unnecessary imaging testing or inappropriate exclusion of the diagnosis. Physicians should therefore make sure that they examine the patient before they take notice of the D-dimer test result.