D-dimer can help differentiate suspected pulmonary embolism patients that require anti-coagulation - 13/07/21

Abstract |
Objectives |
Determine whether D-dimer concentration in the absence of imaging can differentiate patients that require anti-coagulation from patients who do not require anti-coagulation.
Methods |
Data was obtained retrospectively from 366 hemodynamically stable adult ED patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE).
Patients were categorized by largest occluded artery and aggregated into: ‘Require anti-coagulation’ (main, lobar, and segmental PE), ‘Does not require anti-coagulation’ (sub-segmental and No PE), ‘High risk of deterioration’ (main and lobar PE), and ‘Not high risk of deterioration’ (segmental, sub-segmental, and No PE) groups.
Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used for 2 sample comparisons of median D-dimer concentrations. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was utilized to determine a D-dimer cut-off that could differentiate ‘Require anti-coagulation’ from ‘Does not require anti-coagulation’ and ‘High risk of deterioration’ from ‘Low risk of deterioration’ groups.
Results |
The ‘Require anti-coagulation’ group had a maximum area under the curve (AUC) of 0.92 at an age-adjusted D-dimer cut-off of 1540 with a specificity of 86% (95% CI, 81–91%), and sensitivity of 84% (79–90%). The ‘High risk of deterioration’ group had a maximum AUC of 0.93 at an age-adjusted D-dimer cut-off of 2500 with a specificity of 90% (85–93%) and sensitivity of 83% (77–90%).
Conclusions |
An age-adjusted D-dimer cut-off of 1540 ng/mL differentiates suspected PE patients requiring anti-coagulation from those not requiring anti-coagulation. A cut-off of 2500 differentiates those with high risk of clinical deterioration from those not at high risk of deterioration. When correlated with clinical outcomes, these cut-offs can provide an objective method for clinical decision making when imaging is unavailable.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Highlights |
• | ED providers are faced with risks and benefits when empirically administering anti-coagulation for suspected PE patients. |
• | We show that D-dimer concentration can be used as a clinical decision making tool to minimize these risks. |
• | A D-dimer cut-off of 1540 ng/mL can be used to minimize unnecessary anti-coagulation exposure in patients who do not need it. |
• | Using a 2500 ng/mL D-dimer cut-off minimizes the risk of withholding treatment for those at risk of clinical deterioration. |
• | Both cut-offs along with clinical gestalt are an objective measure weighing the risks & benefits of empiric anti-coagulation. |
Keywords : Pulmonary embolism, D-dimer, Anti-coagulation, Venous thromboembolism
Abbreviations : PE, DVT, VTE, CTPA, V/Q scan, DOAC, LMWH, ACCP
Plan
Vol 45
P. 361-367 - juillet 2021 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?
