Questioning the use of an age-adjusted D-dimer threshold to exclude venous thromboembolism: analysis of individual patient data from two diagnostic studies.

Essentials It is unclear if raising the D-dimer level to exclude venous thrombosis in older patients is valid. We compared this 'age-adjusted' strategy with other ways of interpreting D-dimer results. A non-age adjusted increase, and using higher thresholds in younger patients, was just as accurate. Age-adjustment of D-dimer thresholds does not appear to be appropriate. Click to hear Prof. le Gal's presentation on controversies in venous thromboembolism diagnosis SUMMARY: Background Using a progressively higher D-dimer level to exclude venous thromboembolism (VTE) with increasing age has been proposed but is not well validated. Objective To determine whether it is appropriate to use a progressively higher D-dimer level to exclude VTE with increasing age. Patients/methods We analyzed clinical data and blood samples from 1649 patients with a first suspected deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. We compared the negative predictive values (NPVs) for VTE, and the proportions of patients with a negative D-dimer result, by using three D-dimer interpretation strategies: a progressively higher D-dimer threshold with increasing age (age-adjusted strategy); the same higher D-dimer threshold in all patients (mean D-dimer strategy); and a progressively higher D-dimer threshold with decreasing age (inverse age-adjusted strategy). Results The NPV with the age-adjusted strategy (99.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 99.0-99.9%) was not different from that with the mean D-dimer strategy (99.7%; 95% CI 99.0-99.9%) or that with the inverse age-adjusted strategy (99.8%; 95% CI 99.1-99.9%). The proportion of patients with a negative result with the age-adjusted strategy (50.9%; 95% CI 48.5-53.4%) was not different from the proportion of patients with a negative result with the mean D-dimer strategy (51.7%; 95% CI 49.3-54.1%) or with the inverse age-adjusted strategy (49.5%; 95% CI 47.1-51.9%). Conclusions Our analysis does not support the use of a progressively higher D-dimer level to exclude VTE with increasing age.

Rapid quantitative D-dimer to exclude pulmonary embolism: a prospective cohort management study.

UNLABELLED: ESSENTIALS: It is not known if D-dimer testing alone can safely exclude pulmonary embolism (PE). We studied the safety of using a quantitative latex agglutination D-dimer to exclude PE in 808 patients. 52% of patients with suspected PE had a negative D-dimer test and were followed for 3 months. The negative predictive value of D-dimer testing alone was 99.8%, suggesting it may safely exclude PE. BACKGROUND: Strategies are needed to exclude pulmonary embolism (PE) efficiently without the need for imaging tests. Although validated rules for clinical probability assessment can be combined with D-dimer testing to safely exclude PE, the rules can be complicated or partially subjective, which limits their use. OBJECTIVES: To determine if PE can be safely excluded in patients with a negative D-dimer without incorporating clinical probability assessment. PATIENTS/METHODS: We enrolled consecutive outpatients and inpatients with suspected PE from four tertiary care hospitals. All patients underwent D-dimer testing using the MDA D-dimer test, a quantitative latex agglutination assay. PE was excluded in patients with a D-dimer less than 750 µg FEU L(-1) without further testing. PATIENTS: with D-dimer levels of 750 µg FEU L(-1) or higher underwent standardized imaging tests for PE. All patients in whom PE was excluded had anticoagulant therapy withheld and were followed for 3 months for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Suspected events during follow-up were adjudicated centrally. RESULTS: Eight hundred and eight patients were enrolled, of whom 99 (12%) were diagnosed with VTE at presentation. Four hundred and twenty (52%) patients had a negative D-dimer level at presentation and were not treated with anticoagulants; of these, one had VTE during follow-up. The negative predictive value of D-dimer testing for PE was 99.8% (95% confidence interval, 98.7-99.9%). CONCLUSIONS: A negative latex agglutination D-dimer assay is seen in about one-half of patients with suspected PE and reliably excludes PE as a stand-alone test.

Single-arm study of bridging therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin for patients at risk of arterial embolism who require temporary interruption of warfarin.

BACKGROUND: When warfarin is interrupted for surgery, low-molecular-weight heparin is often used as bridging therapy. However, this practice has never been evaluated in a large prospective study. This study was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of bridging therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin initiated out of hospital. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a prospective, multicenter, single-arm cohort study of patients at high risk of arterial embolism (prosthetic valves and atrial fibrillation with a major risk factor). Warfarin was held for 5 days preoperatively. Low-molecular-weight heparin was given 3 days preoperatively and at least 4 days postoperatively. Patients were followed up for 3 months for thromboembolism and bleeding. Eleven Canadian tertiary care academic centers participated; 224 patients were enrolled. Eight patients (3.6%; 95% CI, 1.8 to 6.9) had an episode of thromboembolism, of which 2 (0.9%; 95% CI, 0.2 to 3.2) were judged to be due to cardioembolism. Of these 8 episodes of thromboembolism, 6 occurred in patients who had warfarin deferred or withdrawn because of bleeding. There were 15 episodes of major bleeding (6.7%; 95% CI, 4.1 to 10.8): 8 occurred intraoperatively or early postoperatively before low-molecular-weight heparin was restarted, 5 occurred in the first postoperative week after low-molecular-weight heparin was restarted, and 2 occurred well after low-molecular-weight heparin was stopped. There were no deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Bridging therapy with subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin is feasible; however, the optimal approach for the management of patients who require temporary interruption of warfarin to have invasive procedures is uncertain.

New anticoagulants.

The limitations of heparin and warfarin have prompted the development of new anticoagulant drugs for prevention and treatment of venous and arterial thromboembolism. Novel parenteral agents include synthetic analogs of the pentasaccharide sequence of heparin that mediates its interaction with antithrombin. Fondaparinux, the first synthetic pentasaccharide, is licensed for prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) after major orthopedic surgery and for initial treatment of patients with VTE. Idraparinux, a long-acting pentasaccharide that is administered subcutaneously once-weekly, is being compared with warfarin for treatment of VTE and for prevention of cardioembolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation. New oral anticoagulants include direct inhibitors of thrombin, factor Xa and factor IXa. Designed to provide more streamlined anticoagulation than warfarin, these agents can be given without routine coagulation monitoring. Ximelagatran, the first oral direct thrombin inhibitor, is as effective and safe as warfarin for prevention of cardioembolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation. However, ximelagatran produces a three-fold elevation in alanine transaminase levels in 7.9% of patients treated for more than a month, the long-term significance of which is uncertain. Whether other direct thrombin inhibitors or inhibitors of factors Xa or IXa also have this problem is under investigation. After a brief review of coagulation pathways, this paper focuses on new anticoagulants in advanced stages of clinical testing.

Does the type of hormone replacement therapy influence the risk of deep vein thrombosis? A prospective case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Although hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is associated with an increased risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), it is not clear if the risk differs in users of combined estrogen-progestin HRT and estrogen-only HRT. METHODS: We prospectively studied postmenopausal women with suspected DVT in whom HRT use status was ascertained and who subsequently had objective diagnostic testing to confirm or exclude DVT. Cases were patients with idiopathic DVT, in whom there were no DVT risk factors, and controls were patients without DVT, in whom there were also no DVT risk factors. The risk of DVT was determined in users of estrogen-progestin HRT and estrogen-only HRT by comparing the prevalence of current HRT use in cases with idiopathic DVT and controls without DVT (reference group). Multivariable regression analysis was done to adjust for factors that might confound an association between HRT use and the risk of DVT. RESULTS: One thousand one hundred and sixty-eight postmenopausal women with suspected DVT were assessed, from whom 95 cases of idiopathic DVT and 610 controls without DVT and no DVT risk factors were identified. Estrogen-only HRT was associated with an increased risk for DVT that was not statistically significant [odds ratio (OR) = 1.22; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57, 2.61]. Estrogen-progestin HRT was associated with a greater than 2-fold increased risk for DVT (OR = 2.70; 95% CI 1.44, 5.07). CONCLUSION: The risk of developing DVT may be higher in users of combined estrogen-progestin HRT than in users of estrogen-only HRT.

Neither baseline tests of molecular hypercoagulability nor D-dimer levels predict deep venous thrombosis in critically ill medical-surgical patients.

OBJECTIVE: Predicting patients who are harboring asymptomatic deep venous thrombosis (DVT), or who are at particular risk of developing DVT, is a desirable clinical goal since prevention or early treatment of DVT might reduce the risk of fatal pulmonary embolism. Thus validation of simple laboratory tests that reliably predict venous thromboembolism (VTE) would be clinically very important. Tests that might be useful for these applications include markers of hypercoagulability (predicting patients at risk of DVT) and D-dimer (predicting which patients may have acute DVT). METHODS: In a prospective cohort study we measured a panel of hypercoagulability markers at the time of ICU admission, and six commercial D-dimer assays were performed serially during the ICU stay in medical-surgical ICU patients who were screened for DVT with biweekly lower limb compression ultrasonography. Ultrasonography was also performed at the time of any clinically suspected DVT events. We matched cases with DVT with controls without DVT for length of stay in the ICU to generate receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-seven patients were enrolled. Blood was collected on a total of 763 occasions (median number of occasions per patient: 3, range 1-21). None of the assays predicted DVT, as indicated by the areas under the ROC curves, that did not differ significantly from 50%. CONCLUSION: In critically ill patients, neither tests of hypercoagulability nor D-dimer levels predict patients at risk of DVT and thus they should not be used to guide diagnostic testing for DVT.

Beyond heparin and aspirin: new treatments for unstable angina and non-Q-wave myocardial infarction.

The goals of therapy for unstable angina and non-Q-wave myocardial infarction (MI) are to maintain myocardial perfusion by inhibiting platelet aggregation and fibrin deposition at sites of plaque rupture, thereby preventing ongoing or new myocardial ischemia and cardiac death. Although aspirin and heparin sodium are cornerstones in the management of unstable angina and non-Q-wave MI, both have significant limitations that have prompted the development of new agents. The thienopyridines, ticlopidine hydrochloride and clopidogrel, appear to be at least as effective as aspirin in the management of unstable angina. Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists are a new class of platelet inhibitors that are more potent than aspirin, because they target the final common pathway of platelet aggregation. Low-molecular-weight heparins provide a more stable pharmacodynamic response and are more convenient to use than unfractionated heparin. Direct thrombin inhibitors show promise for inhibiting thrombin-mediated platelet aggregation and fibrin deposition. We focus on the opportunities presented by these agents, detailing mechanisms of action, advantages over aspirin and heparin, and performance in recent clinical trials.

Use of a fixed activated partial thromboplastin time ratio to establish a therapeutic range for unfractionated heparin.

BACKGROUND: The commonly recommended therapeutic range for patients receiving unfractionated heparin of 1.5 to 2.5 times the control activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) is not universally applicable. It has been suggested that the therapeutic range for each aPTT reagent should be based on plasma heparin levels. We sought to identify an aPTT ratio that corresponds to therapeutic anti--factor Xa heparin levels for combinations of several reagents and coagulometers that are commonly used. METHODS: Citrated plasma was collected from 126 unselected patients receiving unfractionated heparin. Four automated coagulometers and 6 commercial aPTT reagents were used to measure the aPTT. Plasma anti--factor Xa levels were measured by means of a commercially available assay. The relationship between the aPTT results and anti-factor Xa heparin levels for each reagent-coagulometer combination was determined by linear regression analysis, and the aPTT results corresponding to therapeutic anti--factor Xa heparin levels were calculated. RESULTS: For all reagent-coagulometer combinations studied, an aPTT ratio of 1.5 resulted in anti--factor Xa heparin levels considerably below the lower limit of the therapeutic range. When the aPTT was performed on any of the coagulometers assessed with the use of Actin (Dade Diagnostics, Aguada, Puerto Rico) and IL Test (Instrumentation Laboratories, Fisher Scientific, Unionville, Ontario) reagents, aPTT ratios necessary to achieve therapeutic anti--factor Xa heparin levels approximated 2.0 to 3.5. CONCLUSION: For laboratories that cannot perform heparin levels, the use of less responsive reagents and any of the coagulometers studied, along with target aPTT ratio between 2.0 and 3.5, appears to be a reasonable alternative.

A latex D-dimer reliably excludes venous thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: D-Dimer, a cross-linked fibrin degradation product, has a high sensitivity in patients with suspected venous thrombosis. Traditional latex D-dimer assays, however, have not been sufficiently sensitive to exclude venous thromboembolism. METHODS: To determine the clinical utility of a latex D-dimer assay (MDA D-Dimer; Organon Teknika Corporation, Durham, NC) in patients with suspected venous thromboembolism, we conducted a retrospective cohort study involving 595 unselected patients at 4 tertiary care hospitals. Patients had blood drawn for performance of the D-dimer assay and underwent objective testing for venous thromboembolism. Pretest probability was determined using validated models in 571 patients. Patients were classified as venous thromboembolism positive or negative according to results of objective tests and 3-month follow-up. The sensitivities, specificities, predictive values, and negative likelihood ratios of the assay were calculated for all patients and for subgroups of patients with known cancer or a low, moderate, or high pretest probability of venous thromboembolism. RESULTS: The prevalence of venous thromboembolism was 19.0% (113/595). Of those who had a pretest probability assessment, 35.9% had a low pretest probability, 49.7% a moderate pretest probability, and 14.4% a high pretest probability. Using a discriminant value of 0.50 microg fibrinogen equivalent units per milliliter, the assay showed an overall sensitivity of 96%, a negative predictive value of 98%, a specificity of 45%, and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.09. In patients with a low or moderate pretest probability, the sensitivity, negative predictive value, and negative likelihood ratio were 97%, 99%, and 0.07, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The MDA D-Dimer assay is the first latex agglutination assay with sufficient sensitivity to be clinically useful in the exclusion of venous thromboembolism. A negative result has the potential to be used as the sole test to exclude venous thromboembolism in patients with a low or moderate pretest probability of disease.

Prevention of activation of blood coagulation during acute coronary ischemic syndromes: beyond aspirin and heparin.

Many of the acute coronary ischemic syndromes are triggered by spontaneous or mechanical disruption of atherosclerotic plaques with resultant activation of platelets and coagulation. Given the central role of platelets and thrombin in arterial thrombosis, current strategies for its prevention and treatment focus on both inhibition of platelet aggregation and control of thrombin generation and activity. Although aspirin and unfractionated heparin are the cornerstones of current treatment strategies, both have limitations. This review will describe these limitations and discuss new antithrombotic agents developed for use in acute coronary ischemic syndromes and as adjuncts for percutaneous coronary revascularization procedures.

Management of venous thromboembolism during pregnancy.

The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) probably increases 2-4-fold in pregnancy and is higher after a caesarean section than after vaginal delivery. Management of VTE in pregnancy is challenging. Many diagnostic tests are less accurate in pregnant than in non-pregnant patients and some radiologic procedures expose the fetus to ionizing radiation, although this can be reduced by taking appropriate precautions. Compression ultrasonography (CUS) is the test of choice for deep vein thrombosis (DVT), whereas for PE, V/Q lung scan is the first-line test, followed by CUS if the results are non-diagnostic. Anticoagulants that have been evaluated for the prevention and treatment of VTE in pregnancy include heparin and heparin compounds, and coumarin derivatives. When determining the optimal treatment regimens, it is important to consider: (i) the safety of the drug for the fetus and mother; (ii) the efficacy of the regimen; and (iii) the dose regimens for acute and secondary treatment, and during delivery and postpartum. Heparins are safer than coumarins for the fetus, as they do not cross the placental barrier. Heparins, particularly unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) tend also to be safer for the mother than other compounds. Of the two, LMWHs, although more expensive, are associated with lower rates of bleeding complications, and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia and osteoporosis, than UFH, and should therefore be the treatment of choice in VTE during pregnancy. Patients with prior VTE or a hypercoagulable state have an increased risk of VTE during pregnancy. Depending on the presence of one or both of these factors, clinical surveillance, with anticoagulant treatment where necessary, is recommended.

Use of different D-dimer levels to exclude venous thromboembolism depending on clinical pretest probability.

Currently, the same D-dimer cut-off point is used to define a positive result for all patients with suspected venous thromboembolism, regardless of their pretest probability. However, use of a relatively high D-dimer cut-off point (lower sensitivity) for those with a low clinical pretest probability, and a low D-dimer cut-off point (higher sensitivity) for those with a high clinical pretest probability, may be preferable. To determine if using three different D-dimer cut-off points according to low, moderate or high clinical pretest probability has greater utility for exclusion of venous thromboembolism than using the same single D-dimer cut-off point in all patients. Data from a previously published study of 571 patients was used to identify the highest D-dimer cut-off point with a negative predictive value of at least 98% for the subgroup of patients with low and high pretest probability. The D-dimer cut-off point for those with moderate clinical pretest probability remained unchanged [0.5 fibrinogen equivalent units (FEU) microgram mL(-1)]. Accuracy of D-dimer testing for venous thromboembolism using three cut-off points vs. one cut-off point was than determined. D-dimer cut-off points of 0.2 and 2.1 FEU microgram mL(-1) were selected for the high and low pretest probability groups, respectively. When three pretest probability-specific cut-off points were used instead of the previously determined single D-dimer cut-off point (0.5 FEU microgram mL(-1)), sensitivity and negative predictive value were unchanged (95 and 98%, respectively), but specificity increased from 44.7 to 60.4% (P < 0.001). This resulted in exclusion of venous thromboembolism in 80 additional patients. Use of three pretest probability-specific D-dimer cut-off points rather than a single D-dimer cut-off point for all patients, has the potential to increase the utility of D-dimer testing for the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism.

Direct thrombin inhibitors for treatment of arterial thrombosis: potential differences between bivalirudin and hirudin.

Given the central role of thrombin in arterial thrombogenesis, most treatment strategies for acute coronary syndromes are aimed at inhibiting its generation or blocking its activity. Although heparin has been widely used, it has limitations in the setting of arterial thrombosis. These limitations reflect the inability of heparin to inactivate thrombin bound to fibrin, a major stimulus for thrombus growth. In addition, the anticoagulant response to heparin varies from patient to patient, and heparin is neutralized by platelet Factor IV, large quantities of which are released from platelets activated at sites of plaque rupture. Consequently, heparin requires careful laboratory monitoring to ensure an adequate anticoagulant effect. Direct thrombin inhibitors, such as hirudin and bivalirudin, overcome the limitations of heparin. These agents inhibit fibrin-bound thrombin, as well as fluid-phase thrombin, and produce a predictable anticoagulant response. Bivalirudin has both safety and potential efficacy advantages over hirudin. Bivalirudin appears to have a wider therapeutic window than hirudin, possibly because bivalirudin only transiently inhibits the active site of thrombin. The better safety profile of bivalirudin permits administration of higher doses, which may give it an efficacy advantage. Hirudin prevents thrombin from activating protein C, thereby suppressing this natural anticoagulant pathway. In contrast, bivalirudin may promote protein C activation by transiently inhibiting thrombin until it can be bound by thrombomodulin. Differences between bivalirudin and hirudin, as well as other direct thrombin inhibitors, highlight the pitfalls of considering all direct thrombin inhibitors to have equivalent risk-benefit profiles.

Decrease in sensitivity of D-dimer for acute venous thromboembolism after starting anticoagulant therapy.

D-dimer testing is useful for the exclusion of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE). Anticoagulant therapy is expected to reduce D-dimer levels in patients with thrombosis and, consequently, it may not be safe to use D-dimer levels to exclude VTE after anticoagulant therapy has been started. The objectives of this study were to estimate the decrease in D-dimer levels after 24 h of heparin therapy and, applying this estimate to the results of a recent study, to calculate the expected reduction in sensitivity. Using pre-defined criteria, we first performed a literature review to determine whether, and by how much, D-dimer levels decrease within 24 h of starting heparin therapy in patients with acute VTE. Using D-dimer levels that were measured in a prospective study of patients with confirmed deep vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism as baselines, we then determined the change in sensitivity (and specificity) that would result from the fall in D-dimer levels that the literature review suggested would have occurred after 24 h of heparin therapy. On the basis of the literature review, we calculated that mean D-dimer levels decrease by 25%, 24 h after starting heparin therapy in patients with acute VTE. This 25% decrease in D-dimer levels resulted in a decrease in sensitivity from 95.6% (95% confidence interval, 90.0-98.6) to 89.4% (95% confidence interval, 83.7-95.1). There is a decrease in D-dimer levels in patients with acute VTE 24 h after starting heparin therapy that is expected to result in a clinically important drop in sensitivity.

The mechanism of action of thrombin inhibitors.

Although heparin is widely used to treat arterial thrombosis, it has limitations in this setting. These limitations reflect heparin's inability to inactivate fibrin-bound thrombin, a major stimulus for thrombus growth, and the fact that heparin is neutralized by platelet factor 4, large quantities of which are released from platelets at the site of plaque rupture. Heparin also has a propensity to bind non-specifically to other plasma proteins. Because plasma levels of these heparin-binding proteins vary from patient to patient, the anticoagulant response to heparin is unpredictable and careful laboratory monitoring is necessary to ensure that an adequate anticoagulant effect is achieved. Direct thrombin inhibitors, such as bivalirudin and hirudin, overcome many of the limitations of heparin. These agents inhibit fibrin-bound thrombin, as well as fluid-phase thrombin. Direct thrombin inhibitors also produce a more predictable anticoagulant response than heparin because they do not bind to plasma proteins and are not neutralized by platelet factor 4. Bivalirudin appears to have a wider therapeutic window than hirudin. Because this may permit administration of higher doses of bivalirudin, this agent may also have an efficacy advantage over hirudin. Differences observed between hirudin and bivalirudin demonstrate that not all direct thrombin inhibitors have the same risk-benefit profile.

Exclusion of deep vein thrombosis using the Wells rule in clinically important subgroups: individual patient data meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of the Wells rule for excluding deep vein thrombosis and whether this accuracy applies to different subgroups of patients. DESIGN: Meta-analysis of individual patient data. DATA SOURCES: Authors of 13 studies (n = 10,002) provided their datasets, and these individual patient data were merged into one dataset. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies were eligible if they enrolled consecutive outpatients with suspected deep vein thrombosis, scored all variables of the Wells rule, and performed an appropriate reference standard. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Multilevel logistic regression models, including an interaction term for each subgroup, were used to estimate differences in predicted probabilities of deep vein thrombosis by the Wells rule. In addition, D-dimer testing was added to assess differences in the ability to exclude deep vein thrombosis using an unlikely score on the Wells rule combined with a negative D-dimer test result. RESULTS: Overall, increasing scores on the Wells rule were associated with an increasing probability of having deep vein thrombosis. Estimated probabilities were almost twofold higher in patients with cancer, in patients with suspected recurrent events, and (to a lesser extent) in males. An unlikely score on the Wells rule (≤ 1) combined with a negative D-dimer test result was associated with an extremely low probability of deep vein thrombosis (1.2%, 95% confidence interval 0.7% to 1.8%). This combination occurred in 29% (95% confidence interval 20% to 40%) of patients. These findings were consistent in subgroups defined by type of D-dimer assay (quantitative or qualitative), sex, and care setting (primary or hospital care). For patients with cancer, the combination of an unlikely score on the Wells rule and a negative D-dimer test result occurred in only 9% of patients and was associated with a 2.2% probability of deep vein thrombosis being present. In patients with suspected recurrent events, only the modified Wells rule (adding one point for the previous event) is safe. CONCLUSION: Combined with a negative D-dimer test result (both quantitative and qualitative), deep vein thrombosis can be excluded in patients with an unlikely score on the Wells rule. This finding is true for both sexes, as well as for patients presenting in primary and hospital care. In patients with cancer, the combination is neither safe nor efficient. For patients with suspected recurrent disease, one extra point should be added to the rule to enable a safe exclusion.