PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
January 1, 2000Thrombosis and Haemostasis54 citations

Rapid ELISA Assay for Plasma D-Dimer in the Diagnosis of Segmental and Subsegmental Pulmonary Embolism

Structured PICO

Does the rapid VIDAS D-dimer test accurately exclude pulmonary embolism in patients suspected of PE compared to pulmonary angiography?

P
Population
342 patients suspected of pulmonary embolism who were examined by pulmonary angiography
I
Intervention
Quantitative rapid VIDAS D-dimer test (assayed retrospectively from frozen samples collected while on unfractionated heparin for 1-2 days)
C
Comparator
Pulmonary angiography alone (reference standard)
O
Outcome
Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and negative predictive value) for the exclusion of segmental and subsegmental pulmonary embolism

The rapid ELISA D-dimer assay showed lower sensitivity and negative predictive value for excluding PE than previously reported, possibly due to heparin pretreatment or inclusion of mild subsegmental cases.

Limitations

  • Reduction of D-dimer levels by heparin pretreatment may have affected results
  • Retrospective design

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of a rapid ELISA D-dimer assay for the exclusion of pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients suspected of PE, using pulmonary angiography alone as reference method rather than a diagnostic strategy including lung scintigraphy and leg vein ultrasonography. METHODS: In 342 patients who were examined by pulmonary angiography to diagnose or exclude PE, the accuracy of the quantitative rapid VIDAS D-dimer test for the exclusion of PE was evaluated retrospectively. D-dimer levels were assayed in frozen samples collected during the diagnostic work-up at the time of pulmonary angiography while on treatment with unfractionated heparin for 1-2 days. RESULTS: Mean plasma D-dimer concentrations were increased in patients with angiographic evidence of PE (P <0.0001). The sensitivity of D-dimer for segmental PE was 98%, its accuracy in excluding segmental PE was 99%, higher than the respective figures for subsegmental PE (76% and 94%; P <0.01, both). For both forms of PE combined the sensitivity was 90% and the negative predictive value 94%. DISCUSSION: The sensitivity and negative predictive values reported here, are low compared with previous studies using the same rapid ELISA D-dimer assay. This probably reflects an overlooking of mild cases of subsegmental PE in previous studies, although a reduction of D-dimer levels by the heparin pretreatment may have contributed to part of the discrepancy. Prospective studies are needed to clarify this issue.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

A 2000 study studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a820b3f687698565bf21154https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1613991
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper