Key result
Introduction of rapid ELISA D-dimer testing increased PE evaluations (1.36% to 2.58%) and imaging (1.02% to 1.36%), but did not change the rate of PE diagnosis (0.20% vs 0.27%).
Why the study?
Does the introduction of a rapid ELISA D-dimer test improve the diagnosis rate of pulmonary embolism in emergency department patients?
Observational (n=73,512)
No
Does the introduction of a rapid ELISA D-dimer test improve the diagnosis rate of pulmonary embolism in emergency department patients?
Absolute Event Rate: 0.27% vs 0.2%
The introduction of a highly sensitive ELISA D-dimer test in an academic emergency department significantly increased resource utilization and imaging without improving the diagnostic yield for pulmonary embolism.
May increase ED resource use without raising PE yield; leaves open optimal D-dimer implementation strategies.
Objectives: To determine the effect of introducing a rapid enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) D-dimer on the percentage of emergency department (ED) patients evaluated for pulmonary embolism (PE), the use of associated laboratory testing, pulmonary vascular imaging, and the diagnoses of PE. Methods: Patients evaluated for PE during three 120-day periods were enrolled: immediately before (period 1), immediately after (period 2), and one year after the introduction of a rapid ELISA D-dimer in the hospital. The frequency of ED patients evaluated for PE with any test, with D-dimer testing, and with pulmonary vascular imaging and the frequency of PE diagnosis during each time period were determined. Results: The percentage of patients evaluated for PE nearly doubled; from 1.36% (328/24,101) in period 1 to 2.58% (654/25,318) in period 2 and 2.42% (583/24,093) in period 3. The percentage of patients who underwent D-dimer testing increased more than fourfold; from 0.39% (93/24,101) in period 1 to 1.83% (464/25,318) in period 2 and 1.77% (427/24,093) in period 3. The percentage of patients who underwent pulmonary vascular imaging increased from 1.02% (247/24,101) in period 1 to 1.36% (344/25,318) in period 2 and to 1.39% (334/24,093) in period 3. There was no difference in the percentage of patients diagnosed as having PE in period 1 (0.20% [47/24,101]), period 2 (0.27% [69/25,318]), and period 3 (0.24% [58/24,093]). Conclusions: In the study's academic ED, introduction of ELISA D-dimer testing was accompanied by an increase in PE evaluations, D-dimer testing, and pulmonary vascular imaging; there was no observed change in the rate of PE diagnosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kabrhel et al. (2006) conducted an observational in Pulmonary Embolism (n=73,512). Rapid ELISA D-dimer testing vs. Before introduction of rapid ELISA D-dimer testing was evaluated on Percentage of patients diagnosed as having pulmonary embolism. Introduction of rapid ELISA D-dimer testing increased PE evaluations (1.36% to 2.58%) and imaging (1.02% to 1.36%), but did not change the rate of PE diagnosis (0.20% vs 0.27%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: