An evaluation of D-dimer in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: It may be safe to omit additional diagnostic testing in selected patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) who have a negative D-dimer test, but this approach has never been evaluated in a randomized, controlled trial. OBJECTIVE: To determine if additional diagnostic testing can be safely withheld in patients with suspected PE who have negative erythrocyte agglutination D-dimer test results. DESIGN: Randomized comparisons in 2 subgroups of a prospective multicenter study. SETTING: 7 university hospitals. PATIENTS: 1126 outpatients or inpatients with suspected PE; of these, 456 patients with negative erythrocyte agglutination D-dimer test results were randomly assigned to the intervention groups. Patients were classified into 2 clinical probability groups: those with a low clinical probability of PE (low-probability group) and those with a moderate or high clinical probability of PE, a nondiagnostic ventilation-perfusion lung scan, and no evidence of proximal deep venous thrombosis on bilateral ultrasonography (moderate- or high-probability group). INTERVENTIONS: The experimental intervention for both probability groups was no further diagnostic testing for PE. The control intervention for the low-probability group was a ventilation-perfusion lung scan followed by ultrasonography of the proximal deep veins of the legs on the same day. If the lung scan was nondiagnostic, ultrasonography of the legs was repeated 7 and 14 days later. The control intervention for the moderate- or high-probability group was ultrasonography of the proximal deep veins of the legs after 7 and 14 days. In the control and experimental groups, anticoagulation was withheld or withdrawn if PE was not diagnosed. MEASUREMENTS: Symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) during 6 months of follow-up. RESULTS: Prevalence of VTE was 15.2% in the 1126 enrolled patients. In the low-probability group, VTE occurred during follow-up in 0 of 182 patients who had no additional diagnostic testing and in 1 of 185 patients who had additional testing (difference, -0.5 percentage point [95% CI, -3.0 to 1.6 percentage points]). In the moderate- or high-probability group, VTE occurred during follow-up in 1 of 41 patients who had no additional diagnostic testing and in 0 of 41 patients who had additional testing (difference, 2.4 percentage points [CI, -6.4 to 12.6 percentage points]). LIMITATIONS: The authors could not enroll 2000 patients as originally planned; 3 randomly assigned patients did not receive the allocated intervention, and 7 received inadequate follow-up. Personnel who performed follow-up evaluations were not blinded to the results of diagnostic testing at enrollment or to allocation group assignments. CONCLUSION: In patients with a low probability of PE who have negative D-dimer results, additional diagnostic testing can be withheld without increasing the frequency of VTE during follow-up. Low clinical probability and negative D-dimer results occur in 50% of outpatients and in 20% of inpatients with suspected PE.

A randomized trial of diagnostic strategies after normal proximal vein ultrasonography for suspected deep venous thrombosis: D-dimer testing compared with repeated ultrasonography.

BACKGROUND: With suspected deep venous thrombosis and normal results on proximal vein ultrasonography, a negative d-dimer result may exclude thrombosis and a positive D-dimer result may be an indication for venography. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the safety of 2 diagnostic strategies for deep venous thrombosis. DESIGN: Randomized, multicenter trial. SETTING: Four university hospitals. PATIENTS: 810 outpatients with suspected deep venous thrombosis and negative results on proximal vein ultrasonography. INTERVENTIONS: Erythrocyte agglutination D-dimer testing followed by no further testing if the result was negative and venography if the result was positive (experimental) or ultrasonography repeated after 1 week in all patients (control). MEASUREMENTS: Symptomatic deep venous thrombosis diagnosed initially and symptomatic venous thromboembolism during 6 months of follow-up. RESULTS: Nineteen of 408 patients (4.7%) in the D-dimer group and 3 of 402 patients (0.7%) in the repeated ultrasonography group initially received a diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis (P < 0.001). During follow-up of patients without a diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis on initial testing, 8 patients (2.1% [95% CI, 0.9% to 4.0%]) in the D-dimer group and 5 patients (1.3% [CI, 0.4% to 2.9%]) in the repeated ultrasonography group developed symptomatic venous thromboembolism (difference, 0.8 percentage point [CI, -1.1 to 2.9 percentage points]; P > 0.2). Venous thromboembolism occurred in 1.0% (CI, 0.2% to 2.8%) of those with a negative D-dimer result. LIMITATIONS: Seventy patients (8.6%) deviated from the diagnostic protocols, and 9 patients (1.1%) had inadequate follow-up. CONCLUSION: In outpatients with suspected deep venous thrombosis who initially had normal results on ultrasonography of the proximal veins, a strategy based on D-dimer testing followed by no further testing if the result was negative and venography if the result was positive had acceptable safety and did not differ from the safety of a strategy based on withholding anticoagulant therapy and routinely repeating ultrasonography after 1 week.

Cost-effectiveness of prophylactic low molecular weight heparin in pregnant women with a prior history of venous thromboembolism.

PURPOSE: Women with a history of prior venous thromboembolism have an increased risk for recurrence during pregnancy. Although thromboprophylaxis reduces this risk, recent evidence suggests that, in many cases, prophylaxis can be safely withheld because the estimated recurrence risk is very low. The balance of risks and benefits in women with different recurrence risks has not been examined. METHODS: We developed a Markov state transition decision analytic model to compare prophylactic low molecular weight heparin to expectant management for pregnant women with a single prior venous thromboembolism. A lifetime time horizon and societal perspective were assumed. Input data were obtained by literature review. Outcomes were expressed as U.S. dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS: For "low-risk" women with a prior venous thromboembolism associated with a transient risk factor and no known thrombophilic condition (recurrence risk 0.5%), expectant management was both more effective and less costly than prophylaxis. For "high-risk" women with prior idiopathic venous thromboembolism or known thrombophilic condition (recurrence risk 5.9%), prophylaxis was associated with a reasonable cost-effectiveness ratio (USD 38,700 per QALY) given a risk of bleeding complications <1.0% (base case 0.5%). CONCLUSION: For low-risk women with prior venous thromboembolism, expectant management during pregnancy leads to better outcomes than administration of prophylactic low molecular weight heparin. For high-risk women, antepartum thromboprophylaxis is a cost-effective use of resources.

The sensitivity and specificity of a red blood cell agglutination D-dimer assay for venous thromboembolism when performed on venous blood.

BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating the accuracy of the SimpliRED D-dimer assay for venous thromboembolism (VTE) have used a capillary fingerstick blood sample, which requires the test to be performed immediately at the bedside. Initial studies showed a sensitivity for VTE of 90% to 95% when the assay was performed by a finite number of experienced health care workers. However, because of the test's subjectivity, misinterpretation of the result is possible when performed by inexperienced staff. Recent reports by other investigators indicated a low sensitivity of this assay for VTE and noted a reduction in sensitivity (84%) for pulmonary embolism. OBJECTIVE: To determine the sensitivity and specificity of the D-dimer test performed in the laboratory by experienced technologists on venous whole-blood samples in routine collection tubes. If D-dimer testing results accurately detect VTE when performed in this manner, concerns about the sensitivity of this assay would be solved. METHODS: One hundred forty-eight consecutive patients with suspected VTE underwent D-dimer testing at the bedside using a fingerstick sample and venous blood collected into a plain tube. Venous blood was also collected into tubes containing tri-potassium EDTA, sodium citrate, or a combination of lithium and heparin for D-dimer testing in the laboratory. In addition, the EDTA tube was refrigerated overnight at 4 degrees C for retesting at approximately 24 hours. The presence or absence of VTE was determined by means of objective results of testing and a 3-month follow-up. RESULTS: Thirty-four subjects (23%) had confirmed VTE (25 with deep vein thrombosis; 9 with pulmonary embolism). All laboratory venous blood D-dimer results showed sensitivities of 97%, specificities of 61% to 64%, and negative predictive values of 99%, compared with 88%, 71%, and 95%, respectively, when the results were obtained by means of fingerstick at the bedside. CONCLUSIONS: The SimpliRED D-dimer assay performed in the laboratory on venous blood, collected into any of 3 routine laboratory tubes, is sensitive and moderately specific for VTE. Based on this study, immediate bedside testing (particularly by inexperienced personnel) under suboptimal conditions is unnecessary. Furthermore, the high sensitivity of refrigerated EDTA samples allows specimens to be stored or transported (on ice at 4 degrees C) for testing for 24 hours after collection.