0
Editorials |

D-dimer for Suspected Pulmonary Embolism : Whom Should We Test?

Arnaud Perrier
Author and Funding Information

Affiliations: Geneva, Switzerland
 ,  Dr. Perrier is Senior Lecturer of Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Geneva University Hospital.

Correspondence to: Arnaud Perrier, MD, FCCP, Medical Clinic 1, Geneva University Hospital, 24, rue Micheli-du-Crest, CH-1211 Geneva 14, Switzerland; e-mail: Arnaud.Perrier@medecine.unige.ch



Chest. 2004;125(3):807-809. doi:10.1378/chest.125.3.807
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Extract

After > 10 years of intensive research, plasma d-dimer measurement is increasingly accepted as a first-line test in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism.14 Adoption of d-dimer was faster in suspected deep venous thrombosis, probably because clinicians are less fearful of a false-negative result in that context than when a potentially fatal disease such as pulmonary embolism is suspected. Nevertheless, as carefully reviewed in a recent editorial in CHEST by Kelly and Hunt,,3 and in a recent review of outcome studies in suspected pulmonary embolism,5 the evidence is now convincing: highly or even less sensitive d-dimer assays combined with clinical probability assessment are safe instruments to rule out pulmonary embolism. However, it is now well recognized that d-dimer assays are not a homogeneous group and exhibit vastly different characteristics: they recognize different epitopes of d-dimer and use different technologies (latex, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay [ELISA], immunoturbidimetry) that impact on the diagnostic characteristics and performance of each individual assay.3 The safety of ruling out pulmonary embolism based on a d-dimer concentration below the predefined cutoff value depends on the sensitivity of the test, ie, the proportion of patients with pulmonary embolism in whom d-dimer is elevated. Indeed, if that proportion approaches 100% (the true figure lies between 96% and 99% for ELISA and immunoturbidimetric assays), the probability of a false-negative test result is very low, and a negative test result is strong evidence that the patient does not have pulmonary embolism. However, although d-dimer is highly specific for cross-linked fibrin, fibrin is generated and degraded in a wide variety of clinical situations. Therefore, the specificity of highly sensitive d-dimer assays for pulmonary embolism is only approximately 40% in outpatients. This has two consequences. First, a d-dimer result above the threshold value is of no value for ruling in pulmonary embolism. More importantly, since only negative d-dimer results are useful for clinical decision making, the proportion of patients with a negative result among those without a pulmonary embolus (ie, specificity) determines the clinical usefulness of the test. Consider a prevalence of pulmonary embolism of 20%, a usual figure in the published literature. In a hypothetical cohort of 100 patients, 80 patients would not have the disease. If the specificity of d-dimer is 40%, d-dimer will be negative in 32 patients. Therefore, the number of patients who must be tested in order to rule out one pulmonary embolism among the entire cohort would be three. In contrast, if the specificity decreases to 12%, only 10 patients will benefit and the number needed to test will rise to 10. Hence, if the specificity of d-dimer varies across patient subgroups, the clinical usefulness of that test may depend on the patient population in whom it is being used.

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview

Sign In to Access Full Content

MEMBER & INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIBER

Want Access?

NEW TO CHEST?

Become a CHEST member and receive a FREE subscription as a benefit of membership.

Individuals can purchase this article on ScienceDirect.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal or buy individual articles.

Learn more about membership or Purchase a Full Subscription.

INSTITUTIONAL ACCESS

Institutional access is now available through ScienceDirect and can be purchased at myelsevier.com.

Sign In to Access Full Content

MEMBER & INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIBER

Want Access?

NEW TO CHEST?

Become a CHEST member and receive a FREE subscription as a benefit of membership.

Individuals can purchase this article on ScienceDirect.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal or buy individual articles.

Learn more about membership or Purchase a Full Subscription.

INSTITUTIONAL ACCESS

Institutional access is now available through ScienceDirect and can be purchased at myelsevier.com.

Figures

Tables

References

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Sign In to Access Full Content

MEMBER & INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIBER

Want Access?

NEW TO CHEST?

Become a CHEST member and receive a FREE subscription as a benefit of membership.

Individuals can purchase this article on ScienceDirect.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal or buy individual articles.

Learn more about membership or Purchase a Full Subscription.

INSTITUTIONAL ACCESS

Institutional access is now available through ScienceDirect and can be purchased at myelsevier.com.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Find Similar Articles
CHEST Journal Articles
PubMed Articles
  • CHEST Journal
    Print ISSN: 0012-3692
    Online ISSN: 1931-3543