Potential impact of adjusting the threshold of the quantitative D-dimer based on pretest probability of acute pulmonary embolism

Academic Emergency Medicine

Volumn 16, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 325-332

  Kabrhel, Christopher ^a   Courtney, D Mark ^b   Camargo, Carlos A ^a   Moore, Christopher L ^c   Richman, Peter B ^d   Plewa, Michael C ^e   Nordenholtz, Kristen E ^f   Smithline, Howard A ^g   Beam, Daren M ^h   Brown, Michael D ⁱ   Kline, Jeffrey A ^j  

^a MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^e MEDICAL COLLEGE OF OHIO   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^g BAYSTATE MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^h EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

ⁱ MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^j CAROLINAS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

D dimer; Decision making; Emergency department; Venous thromboembolism

Indexed keywords

D DIMER;

ACUTE DISEASE; ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL EVALUATION; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; EMERGENCY WARD; FEMALE; HUMAN; LUNG EMBOLISM; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PREDICTOR VARIABLE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TASK PERFORMANCE; UNITED STATES; VENOUS THROMBOEMBOLISM;

ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTERS; ADULT; ANGIOGRAPHY; ANTIFIBRINOLYTIC AGENTS; EMERGENCY SERVICE, HOSPITAL; FEMALE; FIBRIN FIBRINOGEN DEGRADATION PRODUCTS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PULMONARY EMBOLISM; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; UNITED STATES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 65249117766     PISSN: 10696563     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2009.00368.x     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Brown MD, Lau J, Nelson RD, Kline JA. Turbidimet- ric D-dimer test in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: a metaanalysis. Clin Chem. 2003; 49:1846-53.
2. Stein PD, Hull RD, Patel KC, et al. D-dimer for the exclusion of acute venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2004; 140:589-602.
3. Kline JA, Johns KL, Colucciello SA, Israel EG. New diagnostic tests for pulmonary embolism. Ann Emerg Med. 2000; 35:168-80.
4. Brown MD, Rowe BH, Reeves MJ, Bermingham JM, Goldhaber SZ. The accuracy of the enzyme- linked immunosorbent assay D-dimer test in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: a meta-analysis. Ann Emerg Med. 2002; 40:133-44.
5. American College of Emergency Physicians Clinical Policies Committee. Clinical policy: critical issues in the evaluation and management of adult patients presenting with suspected pulmonary embolism. Ann Emerg Med. 2003; 41:257-70.
6. Tapson VF, Carroll BA, Davidson BL, et al. The diagnostic approach to acute venous thromboembo- lism. Clinical practice guideline. American Thoracic Society. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1999; 160:1043-66.
7. Perrier A, Desmarais S, Miron MJ, et al. Non- invasive diagnosis of venous thromboembolism in outpatients. Lancet. 1999; 353:190-5.
8. Perrier A, Roy PM, Aujesky D, et al. Diagnosing pulmonary embolism in outpatients with clinical assessment, D-dimer measurement, venous ultrasound, and helical computed tomography: a multi- center management study. Am J Med. 2004; 116:291-9.
9. Righini M, Le Gal G, Aujesky D, et al. Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism by multidetector CT alone or combined with venous ultrasonography of the leg: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2008; 371:1343-52.
10. Perrier A, Roy PM, Sanchez O, et al. Multidetector- row computed tomography in suspected pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med. 2005; 352:1760-8.
11. Linkins LA, Bates SM, Ginsberg JS, Kearon C. Use of different D-dimer levels to exclude venous thromboembolism depending on clinical pretest probability. J Thromb Haemost. 2004; 2:1256-60.
12. Righini M, Aujesky D, Roy PM, et al. Clinical usefulness of D-dimer depending on clinical probability and cutoff value in outpatients with suspected pulmonary embolism. Arch Intern Med. 2004; 164:2483-7.
13. Kline JA, Courtney DM, Kabrhel C, et al. Prospective multicenter evaluation of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria. J Thromb Haemost. 2008; 6:772-80.
14. Wells PS, Anderson DR, Rodger M, et al. Derivation of a simple clinical model to categorize patients probability of pulmonary embolism: increasing the models utility with the SimpliRED D-dimer. Thromb Haemost. 2000; 83:416-20.
15. Kabrhel C, McAfee AT, Goldhaber SZ. The contribution of the subjective component of the Canadian Pulmonary Embolism Score to the overall score in emergency department patients. Acad Emerg Med. 2005; 12:915-20.
16. Runyon MS, Webb WB, Jones AE, Kline JA. Comparison of the unstructured clinician estimate of pretest probability for pulmonary embolism to the Canadian score and the Charlotte rule: a prospective observational study. Acad Emerg Med. 2005; 12:587-93.
17. Chagnon I, Bounameaux H, Aujesky D, et al. Comparison of two clinical prediction rules and implicit assessment among patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. Am J Med. 2002; 113:269-75.
18. Wells PS, Ginsberg JS, Anderson DR, et al. Use of a clinical model for safe management of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. Ann Intern Med. 1998; 129:997-1005.
19. Kline JA, Johnson CL, Webb WB, Runyon MS. Prospective study of clinician-entered research data in the emergency department using an Internet-based system after the HIPAA Privacy Rule. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2004; 4:17.
20. Stein PD, Fowler SE, Goodman LR, et al., PIOPED Investigators II. Multidetector computed tomography for acute pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med. 2006; 354:2317-27.
21. Kabrhel C. Outcomes of high pretest probability patients undergoing D-dimer testing for pulmonary embolism: a pilot study. J Emerg Med. 2008; 35:373-7.