{"title":"Distinct age-adjusted D-dimer threshold to rule out acute pulmonary embolism in outpatients and inpatients","authors":"Peng Liu, Haixu Yu, Wei Liu, Lin Lin, Ying Qun Ji","doi":"10.1111/crj.13728","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>The diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is combinations of clinical probability assessments, plasma D-dimer (DD) test results, and/or computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>The aim of this study is to explore the appropriate DD cutoff using the immunoturbidimetric method in outpatients and inpatients.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We retrospectively enrolled 2689 patients with suspected PE between January 2014 and December 2019. All patients underwent clinical probability assessments, DD tests, and CTPA. We investigated the appropriate cutoff level for plasma DD tests in the correlation analysis and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Among all patients, 1263 were confirmed acute PE. The age-adjusted DD level was determined to be age × 10 μg/L (for patients aged >50 years) in outpatients. This cutoff value resulted in a sensitivity of 96.75% and a specificity of 87.02%, with the area under the curve (AUC) of 0.908 and the number needed to treat (NNT) of 1.18. For inpatients, the age-adjusted cutoff values for the biomarker DD demonstrated poor specificity (13.34%) and NNT (9.88). However, when the DD cutoff was adjusted to 2 × the upper limit of normal (ULN), the sensitivity increased to 93.19%, while the specificity remained at 29.55%, with the AUC of 0.610 and the NNT of 4.76. The optimal DD cut-off value was 3010 μg/L (about 5 × ULN), resulting in a sensitivity of 75.22% and specificity of 61.72%, with the AUC of 0.727 and the NNT of 2.7.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Using the immunoturbidimetric method to measure DD, an age-adjusted DD cutoff (age × 10 μg/L, if aged >50 years) should be considered for outpatients with suspected PE. For inpatients, increasing the DD cutoff value to at least 2 × ULN yields the best test performance.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55247,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Respiratory Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/crj.13728","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Respiratory Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/crj.13728","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction
The diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is combinations of clinical probability assessments, plasma D-dimer (DD) test results, and/or computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA).
Objective
The aim of this study is to explore the appropriate DD cutoff using the immunoturbidimetric method in outpatients and inpatients.
Methods
We retrospectively enrolled 2689 patients with suspected PE between January 2014 and December 2019. All patients underwent clinical probability assessments, DD tests, and CTPA. We investigated the appropriate cutoff level for plasma DD tests in the correlation analysis and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.
Results
Among all patients, 1263 were confirmed acute PE. The age-adjusted DD level was determined to be age × 10 μg/L (for patients aged >50 years) in outpatients. This cutoff value resulted in a sensitivity of 96.75% and a specificity of 87.02%, with the area under the curve (AUC) of 0.908 and the number needed to treat (NNT) of 1.18. For inpatients, the age-adjusted cutoff values for the biomarker DD demonstrated poor specificity (13.34%) and NNT (9.88). However, when the DD cutoff was adjusted to 2 × the upper limit of normal (ULN), the sensitivity increased to 93.19%, while the specificity remained at 29.55%, with the AUC of 0.610 and the NNT of 4.76. The optimal DD cut-off value was 3010 μg/L (about 5 × ULN), resulting in a sensitivity of 75.22% and specificity of 61.72%, with the AUC of 0.727 and the NNT of 2.7.
Conclusion
Using the immunoturbidimetric method to measure DD, an age-adjusted DD cutoff (age × 10 μg/L, if aged >50 years) should be considered for outpatients with suspected PE. For inpatients, increasing the DD cutoff value to at least 2 × ULN yields the best test performance.
期刊介绍:
Overview
Effective with the 2016 volume, this journal will be published in an online-only format.
Aims and Scope
The Clinical Respiratory Journal (CRJ) provides a forum for clinical research in all areas of respiratory medicine from clinical lung disease to basic research relevant to the clinic.
We publish original research, review articles, case studies, editorials and book reviews in all areas of clinical lung disease including:
Asthma
Allergy
COPD
Non-invasive ventilation
Sleep related breathing disorders
Interstitial lung diseases
Lung cancer
Clinical genetics
Rhinitis
Airway and lung infection
Epidemiology
Pediatrics
CRJ provides a fast-track service for selected Phase II and Phase III trial studies.
Keywords
Clinical Respiratory Journal, respiratory, pulmonary, medicine, clinical, lung disease,
Abstracting and Indexing Information
Academic Search (EBSCO Publishing)
Academic Search Alumni Edition (EBSCO Publishing)
Embase (Elsevier)
Health & Medical Collection (ProQuest)
Health Research Premium Collection (ProQuest)
HEED: Health Economic Evaluations Database (Wiley-Blackwell)
Hospital Premium Collection (ProQuest)
Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition (Clarivate Analytics)
MEDLINE/PubMed (NLM)
ProQuest Central (ProQuest)
Science Citation Index Expanded (Clarivate Analytics)
SCOPUS (Elsevier)