• Am J Emerg Med · May 2019

    Multicenter Study Comparative Study

    Comparison of the age-adjusted and clinical probability-adjusted D-dimer to exclude pulmonary embolism in the ED.

    • Sameer Sharif, Michelle Eventov, Clive Kearon, Sameer Parpia, Meirui Li, River Jiang, Paula Sneath, Carmen Otero Fuentes, Christopher Marriott, and de Wit Kerstin K Department of Medicine, Division of Emergency Medicine McMaster University, Canada..
    • Department of Medicine, Division of Emergency Medicine McMaster University, Canada. Electronic address: sameer.sharif@medportal.ca.
    • Am J Emerg Med. 2019 May 1; 37 (5): 845-850.

    BackgroundDiagnosing pulmonary embolism (PE) in the emergency department (ED) can be challenging because its signs and symptoms are non-specific.ObjectiveWe compared the efficacy and safety of using age-adjusted D-dimer interpretation, clinical probability-adjusted D-dimer interpretation and standard D-dimer approach to exclude PE in ED patients.Design/MethodsWe performed a health records review at two emergency departments over a two-year period. We reviewed all cases where patients had a D-dimer ordered to test for PE or underwent CT or VQ scanning for PE. PE was considered to be present during the emergency department visit if PE was diagnosed on CT or VQ (subsegmental level or above), or if the patient was subsequently found to have PE or deep vein thrombosis during the next 30 days. We applied the three D-dimer approaches to the low and moderate probability patients. The primary outcome was exclusion of PE with each rule. Secondary objective was to estimate the negative predictive value (NPV) for each rule.Results1163 emergency patients were tested for PE and 1075 patients were eligible for inclusion in our analysis. PE was excluded in 70.4% (95% CI 67.6-73.0%), 80.3% (95% CI 77.9-82.6%) and 68.9%; (95% CI 65.7-71.3%) with the age-adjusted, clinical probability-adjusted and standard D-dimer approach. The NPVs were 99.7% (95% CI 99.0-99.9%), 99.1% (95% CI 98.3-99.5%) and 100% (95% CI 99.4-100.0%) respectively.ConclusionThe clinical probability-adjusted rule appears to exclude PE in a greater proportion of patients, with a very small reduction in the negative predictive value.Crown Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…