Key result
Age-adjusted D-dimer is linked to ~14% more PE rule-outs but a higher false-negative rate.
Why the study?
The utility of age- or clinically-adjusted D-dimer threshold levels to safely exclude pulmonary embolism and reduce imaging in patients hospitalized for COPD exacerbation was undefined.
Do age- or clinically-adjusted D-dimer threshold strategies safely exclude pulmonary embolism in patients hospitalized for COPD exacerbation compared to a conventional threshold?
Observational (n=368)
Open-label
Yes
Do age- or clinically-adjusted D-dimer threshold strategies safely exclude pulmonary embolism in patients hospitalized for COPD exacerbation compared to a conventional threshold?
In patients hospitalized for COPD exacerbation, age- or clinically-adjusted D-dimer thresholds rule out PE in more patients but at the cost of a higher false-negative rate compared to conventional thresholds.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Adjusted D-dimer thresholds may rule out more PE in COPD exacerbations but increase false-negatives; leaves open safety versus conventional strategy.
BACKGROUND: For patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE), age- or clinically-adjusted D-dimer threshold level can be used to define a negative test that safely excludes PE and reduces the use of imaging. However, the utility of this approach in patients hospitalized for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation is undefined. METHODS: We ran an analysis of the patients hospitalized for COPD exacerbation and randomized to the intervention in the SLICE trial. Using the conventional strategy as the reference, we compared the proportion of patients with a negative D-dimer result, and the negative predictive value and sensitivity of three D-dimer threshold strategies for initial PE or subsequent diagnosis of venous thromboembolism (VTE): the age-adjusted strategy, the Wells-adjusted strategy, and the YEARS-adjusted strategy. RESULTS: We included 368 patients. Using a conventional threshold, 182 (49.5%) patients had negative D-dimer values, of whom 1 (0.6%) had PE (sensitivity, 94.1%). The use of an age-adjusted threshold increased the number of patients in whom PE could be excluded from 182 to 233 patients (63.3%), and the proportion of false-negative findings increased from 0.5% to 1.7% (sensitivity, 76.5%). With the use of the Wells or YEARS strategies, 64.4% and 71.5% had negative values, and the proportion of false-negative findings was 2.5% (sensitivity, 64.7%) and 2.7% (sensitivity, 58.8%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients hospitalized for COPD exacerbation, compared with the conventional strategy, age- or clinically-adjusted strategies of D-dimer interpretation were associated with a larger proportion of patients in whom PE was ruled out with a higher failure rate. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02238639 .
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rodríguez et al. (2022) conducted an observational in COPD exacerbation (n=368). Age-adjusted D-dimer threshold strategy vs. Conventional fixed D-dimer threshold strategy was evaluated on Proportion of patients with a negative D-dimer result (Difference 13.8%, 95% CI 6.5% to 21.0%, p=<0.001). Age-adjusted D-dimer interpretation increased the proportion of patients in whom pulmonary embolism could be ruled out to 63.3% compared to 49.5% with the conventional strategy, but with a higher false-negative rate.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: