Diagnostic accuracy of age-adjusted D-dimer for pulmonary embolism among Emergency Department patients with suspected SARS-COV-2: A Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network study

This article has 1 evaluations Published on
Read the full article Related papers
This article on Sciety

Abstract

Importance

Ruling out pulmonary embolism (PE) among patients presenting to the Emergency Department (ED) with suspected or confirmed SARS-COV-2 is challenging due to symptom overlap, known increased pro-thrombotic risk, and unclear D-dimer test interpretation.

Objective

Our primary objective was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of standard and age-adjusted D-dimer test thresholds for predicting 30-day pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosis in patients with suspected SARS-COV-2 infection.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a retrospective observational study using data from 50 sites enrolling patients into the Canadian COVID-19 ED Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN) registry between March 1, 2020 to July 2, 2021. Adults (18 years) with SARS-COV-2 testing performed at index ED visit were included if they had any of the following presenting complaints: chest pain, shortness of breath, hypoxia, syncope/presyncope, or hemoptysis. We excluded patients with duplicate records or no valid provincial healthcare number.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Our primary end point was 30-day PE diagnosis based on a positive computed tomography pulmonary angiogram (CTPA) or hospital discharge diagnosis code of PE. The outcome measure was the diagnostic accuracy of an age adjusted D-dimer strategy as compared to absolute D-dimer thresholds (500 – 5000 ng/mL).

Results

52,038 patients met inclusion criteria. Age-adjusted D-dimer had a sensitivity (SN) of 96% (95% CI 93-98%) and a specificity (SP) of 48% (95% CI 48-49%) which was comparable to the most sensitive absolute threshold of 500 ng/mL (SN 98%, 95% CI 96-99%; SP 41%, 95% CI 40-42%). Other absolute D-dimer thresholds did not perform well enough for clinical reliability (SN <90%). Both age-adjusted and absolute D-dimer performed better in SARS-COV-2 negative patients as compared to SARS-COV-2 positive patients for predicting 30-day PE diagnosis (c-statistic 0.88 vs 0.80).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this large Canadian cohort of ED patients with suspected SARS-COV-2 infection, an age-adjusted D-dimer strategy had similar sensitivity and superior specificity to the most sensitive D-dimer threshold of 500 ng/mL for predicting 30-day PE diagnosis irrespective of SARS-COV-2 infection status. Adopting an age-adjusted D-dimer strategy in patients with suspected SARS-COV-2 may help avoid unnecessary CTPA testing without compromising safety.

Trial Registration

<ext-link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://Clinicaltrials.gov">Clinicaltrials.gov</ext-link>, <ext-link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="clintrialgov" xlink:href="NCT04702945">NCT04702945</ext-link>

KEY POINTS

Question

What is the diagnostic accuracy of age-adjusted and absolute D-dimer thresholds for investigating PE in ED patients with suspected SARS-COV-2?

Findings

An age-adjusted D-dimer strategy had comparable sensitivity and higher specificity for 30-day PE diagnosis compared to the most sensitive absolute threshold of 500 ng/mL irrespective of patient’s SARS-COV-2 status.

Meaning

Consider using an age-adjusted D-dimer threshold for PE risk stratification in ED patients with suspected SARS-COV-2.

Related articles

Related articles are currently not available for this article.