Utility and limitations of patient-adjusted D-dimer cut-off levels for diagnosis of venous thromboembolism-A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To systematically assess test performance of patient-adapted D-dimer cut-offs for the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism (VTE). METHODS: Systematic review and analysis of articles published in PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Library databases. Investigations assessing patient-adjusted D-dimer thresholds for the exclusion of VTE were included. A hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model was used to assess diagnostic accuracy. Risk of bias was assessed by Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 score. RESULTS: A total of 68 studies involving 141,880 patients met the inclusion criteria. The standard cut-off revealed a sensitivity of 0.99 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98-0.99) and specificity of 0.23 (95% CI 0.16-0.31). Sensitivity was comparable to the standard cut-off for age-adjustment (0.97 [95% CI 0.96-0.98]) and YEARS algorithm (0.98 [95% CI 0.91-1.00]) but lower for pretest probability (PTP)-adjusted (0.95 [95% CI 0.89-0.98) and COVID-19-adapted thresholds (0.93 [95% CI 0.82-0.98]). Specificity was significantly higher across all adjustment strategies (age: 0.43 [95% CI 0.36-0.50]; PTP: 0.63 [95% CI 0.51-0.73]; YEARS algorithm: 0.65 [95% CI 0.39-0.84]; and COVID-19: 0.51 [95% CI 0.40-0.63]). The YEARS algorithm provided the best negative likelihood ratio (0.03 [95% CI 0.01-0.15]), followed by age-adjusted (both 0.07 [95% CI 0.05-0.09]), PTP (0.08 [95% CI 0.04-0.17), and COVID-19-adjusted thresholds (0.13 [95% CI 0.05-0.32]). CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that adjustment of D-dimer thresholds to patient-specific factors is safe and embodies considerable potential for reduction of imaging. However, robustness, safety, and efficiency vary considerably among different adjustment strategies with a high degree of heterogeneity.

Major trauma during COVID-19 in a level 1 trauma centre in Switzerland - a cohort study comparing the years 2020 and 2019.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic and the associated restrictions may have modified the activities of the Swiss population and thus altered trauma patterns. MATERIALS AND PATIENTS: All adult patients with major trauma admitted to our institution in 2019 and 2020 were assessed using the Injury Severity Score (ISS), by body region involved, type of injury, age, admission to an intensive care unit and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: In 2020, 454 patients with major trauma were admitted to our institution, 17% fewer than in the previous year. The drop in the number of major trauma patients proceeded with and overlapped both the first and second peaks in incidence of the pandemic and the associated restrictions. The median ISS was higher in 2020 (25, interquartile range [IQR] 17-26.5) than in 2019 (22, IQR 16-26, p = 0.04). There were no significant differences in body region involved, type of injury or age (p >0.05). In 2020, a higher percentage of patients were admitted to an intensive care unit (86.5% vs 77.7%, p <0.001) and died within 30 days (8.8% vs 5.0%, p = 0.015). The 30-day mortality was higher in 2020 than in 2019, with an odds ratio of 1.80 (95% confidence interval 1.04-3.10, p= 0.036) after adjustment for the following potential confounders: ISS, age, gender and type of injury. CONCLUSION: In the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, fewer patients with major trauma were admitted to our institution. However, the patients admitted were more severely injured and more often died within 30 days. Understanding the differences in injury patterns and admissions in major trauma patients under special conditions - such as a pandemic - could help to allocate rare resources adequately.