Ethics
The study was approved as low-risk research by the Human Research Ethics
Committee of the hospital, with a waiver of individual consent. Formal
trial registration was not mandated.
Results
D-dimer levels were obtained in a total of 2165 individual patients.
Hospital records were not available for 37 patients (1.7%); these were
excluded from further analysis. A further 103 patients had D-dimer
testing for reasons other than suspected PE and 10 were less than 16
years of age. These patients were all excluded. The remaining 2015
patients met the inclusion criteria (Figure 1).
Characteristics of the study population are summarised in Table 2. The
mean age of patients was 50.5 years (range 16.0 to 98.4) with 1188
females (59.0%). The mean D-dimer level was 0.93 mg/L (range 0.01 to
20.00). 63% of the study population did not have imaging for PE, while
37% did (V/Q in 14%, CTPA in 23% or both in just under 1%).
The patients were classified according to their clinical probability in
Table 3. Approximately 62% were considered to be low probability;
intermediate 37.4%; high, less than 1%. The total number of patients
who had imaging was tabulated. Those with a final diagnosis of PE was
also tabulated. In the low probability cohort (according to the RGS
score), just over 32% had imaging. Of those, 7.5 % were diagnosed with
PE. In the intermediate probability cohort, 44% had imaging. This
yielded a diagnosis of PE in 13.3% of patients. For the high
probability group, the incidence of PE imaging and diagnosis were 66.7%
and 30%, respectively. In total, of approximately 36.8% of patients
who underwent D-dimer testing, 10.4% were subsequently diagnosed with
PE.
The number of patients imaged – and the number who were found to have
PE – were gauged according to whether the D-dimer level was positive
(as shown in Table 4). These values were also calculated for
age-adjusted D-dimer levels (as shown in Table 5).
The clinical risk calculated for each patient (as summarised in Table 3)
was derived from the individual components of RGS. The incidence of each
component is listed in Table 6.
Prevalence of each component of RGS in the entire study population as
well as when PE was diagnosed on imaging, when imaging did not show PE
and when imaging was not performed was also calculated and shown in
table 6. Correlation (coefficient) with a diagnosis of PE on imaging was
calculated for each component of RGS, the overall RGS risk category and
a positive D-dimer (absolute or age-adjusted) and summarised in table 7.
The correlation of positive D-dimer with positive imaging for PE was
0.7033 and the correlation for a positive D-dimer by age-adjusted
criteria was 0.5928. The correlation coefficient (CC) between low,
intermediate and high risk group on their own and a final diagnosis of
PE on imaging was calculated at 0.1332, 0.1278 and 0.0817, respectively.
On the other hand, the CC between a positive absolute D-dimer and a
final diagnosis of PE on imaging in patients with low, intermediate and
high risk group was calculated at 0.7527, 0.6256 and 0.4195,
respectively. For the age-adjusted D-dimer, the correlations were
calculated at 0.6490, 0.4987 and 0.3550, respectively. The overall CC
for all risk categories on their own was calculated at 0.1107 and for a
positive absolute D-dimer at 0.7033 (table 8).
Discussion
While previous studies were unable to account adequately for patients
without imaging, this obstacle was overcome with a novel statistical
approach. Previous studies have evaluated the sensitivity and
specificity of D-dimer for diagnosing or excluding PE - often in
comparison to clinical risk scores. This was well reviewed by Weitz et
al16. However, such methods could only be applied (and
sensitivity, specificity and predictive values calculated) if every
single patient in the study had V/Q or CTPA imaging subsequently. It
would not account for patients who did not have subsequent imaging. To
accommodate for this unknown factor, the choice of statistical method
had to observe this fact.
Thus, Cramer’s V method was used as its major advantage is that it
accounts for many patients not having further imaging. Fisher’s Exact
Test was considered as an alternative, however was felt to be less
appropriate as some categories are very large. Thus, using Fisher’s
Exact Test would be less reliable. We therefore used Cramer’s V despite
the potential inadequacies of having some small groups - such as those
with haemoptysis who eventually diagnosed with PE (just two cases
amongst the entire cohort).
Conversely, it can be construed as a drawback of this study design to
have results expressed in statistical terms with which some clinicians
may not be familiar. The outcomes are not expressed in terms of
sensitivity, specificity and predictive values which are used much more
commonly in clinical practice and guidelines. However, CC may be a more
useful metric in this situation.
Alternatively, some studies on PE have used assessment by respiratory
physician at six months after the index event as the gold standard.
Obviously, this is equally problematic. For the pragmatic intents of
this study, it had to be assumed that CTPA and V/Q are sufficiently and
equally accurate. It is known, however, that there is a percentage of
indeterminate CTPA studies – reported as up to 6%17.
This may account for some of the patients listed in table 2 as having
undergone both studies. The central finding was that the D-dimer level
was superior to RGS in terms of its higher correlation with a diagnosis
of PE on subsequent imaging. We demonstrated that the correlation
between a positive D-dimer level with a diagnosis of PE was 0.7033
compared to 0.1103 for risk category; the former implying strong
correlation in statistical terms, and the latter, moderate.
Unsurprisingly, the correlation between a positive D-dimer result and
diagnosis of PE was well short of 100%. However, D-dimer has been shown
to have a greater correlation with diagnosis of PE (on imaging). It can,
thus, avoid using further tomographic imaging unnecessarily. This would
be desirable clinically6. This study, as
elsewhere18, clearly showed over-use of tomographic
imaging in patients with lower pre-test probability.
If more patients with a high clinical pre-test probability were imaged,
how would this have altered results? The group with a high clinical
pre-test probability would probably have had a higher correlation with
diagnosis of PE but it would be unlikely to bridge the gap from 0.0814
to 0.4195. If all clinically high-probability patients with negative
imaging results had positive imaging instead, the correlation would have
been 0.2716. How is it possible that the correlation was so low even if
the test had relatively high sensitivity, specificity and positive
predictive value? The answer is simply because there was such a large
proportion (still 33%) with no imaging results. This highlights how
calculating correlation better accounts for those without imaging.
If a greater number of patients with negative D-dimer were imaged – and
presumed to have no evidence of PE on either CTPA or V/Q – then the
correlation would be even higher than that documented. Similarly, if a
greater number of patients with positive D-dimer were imaged – and
presumed to have PE on either CTPA or V/Q – then the correlation would
also be higher than that found.
It has been suggested that age-adjusted D-dimer reference ranges have
higher sensitivity and specificity for PE19-22. This
is particularly in the context of a low pre-test
probability23. In this study, however, the absolute
D-dimer level had a higher correlation with a diagnosis of PE than age
adjusted D-dimer. Further, the correlation of D-dimer levels with a
subsequent diagnosis of PE - for each category of pre-test probability -
were consistently higher for the absolute value than the age-adjusted
values (as shown in table 8). Our findings in this regard would be
consistent with a minority of studies/publications such as the work of a
Canadian group24.
Conclusion
A positive D-dimer test, absolute or age-adjusted, was found to have a
higher correlation with a diagnosis of PE on subsequent V/Q SPECT or
CTPA than a clinical risk score. Thus, the relevance of a D-dimer test
in the context of suspected PE is no longer limited to a negative result
to aid excluding PE and a positive test could be equally valuable. Given
a positive D-dimer had a higher correlation with PE diagnosis than a
clinical risk score system (like RGS) in our cohort, we conclude that it
would be more sensible and reliable
to determine if tomographic
imaging is further required based on a positive D-dimer than a clinical
prediction score on its own and thus, reduce resource and economic
burdens in the health system. A validation study, preferably utilising
the same statistical method, should be carried out in light of these
findings.
References
1. Shiraev TP, Omari A, Rushworth RL. Trends in pulmonary embolism
morbidity and mortality in Australia. Thromb Res 2013;132:19-25.
2. Jelinek GA, Ingarfield SL, Mountain D, Gibson NP, Jacobs IG.
Emergency Department diagnosis of pulmonary embolism is associated with
significantly reduced mortality: a linked data population study. Emerg
Med Australas 2009;21:269-276.
3. Australian Government Department of Health. MBS Online Medicare
Benefits Schedule. Available from:
http://www.mbsonline.gov.au/internet/mbsonline/publishing.nsf/Content/downloads-200801.
[accessed 20 April 2021]
4. Ehrman RR, Malik AN, Smith RK, Kalarikkal Z, Huang A, King RM, et al.
Serial use of existing clinical decisions aids can reduce computed
tomography pulmonary angiography for pulmonary embolism. Intern Emerg
Med 2021. doi: 10.1007/s11739-021-02703-1.
5. Kline JA, Runyon MS, Webb WB, Jones AE, Mitchell AM. Prospective
study of the diagnostic accuracy of the simplify D-dimer assay for
pulmonary embolism in emergency department patients. Chest
2006;129:1417-1423.
6. Eng CW, Wansaicheong G, Goh SK, Earnest A, Sum C. Exclusion of acute
pulmonary embolism: computed tomography pulmonary angiogram or D-dimer?
Singapore Med J 2009;50:403–406.
7. Kline JA, Nelson RD, Jackson RE, Courtney DM. Criteria for the safe
use of D-dimer testing in emergency department patients with suspected
pulmonary embolism: a multicenter US study. Ann Emerg Med
2002;39:144-152.
8. Dunn KL, Wolf JP, Dorfman DM, Fitzpatrick P, Baker JL, Goldhaber SZ.
Normal D-dimer levels in emergency department patients suspected of
acute pulmonary embolism. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;40:1475-1478.
9. Wong DD, Ramaseshan G, Mendelson RM. Comparison of the Wells and
Revised Geneva Scores for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: an
Australian experience. Intern Med J 2011;41:258-263.
10. Yap KS, Kalff V, Turlakow A, Kelly MJ. A prospective reassessment of
the utility of the Wells score in identifying pulmonary embolism. Med J
Aust 2007;187:333-336.
11. Douma RA, Mos IC, Erkens PM, Nizet TA, Durian MF, Hovens MM, van
Houten AA, et al.; Prometheus Study Group. Performance of 4 clinical
decision rules in the diagnostic management of acute pulmonary embolism:
a prospective cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154:709-718.
12. Ghanima W, Abdelnoor M, Mowinckel MC, Sandset PM. The performance of
STA-Liatest D-dimer assay in out-patients with suspected pulmonary
embolism. Br J Haematol 2006;132:210-215.
13. Douma RA, le Gal G, Söhne M, Righini M, Kamphuisen PW, Perrier A, et
al. Potential of an age adjusted D-dimer cut-off value to improve the
exclusion of pulmonary embolism in older patients: a retrospective
analysis of three large cohorts. BMJ 2010;340:c1475.
14. Bajc M, Neilly JB, Miniati M, Schuemichen C, Meignan M, Jonson B.
EANM guidelines for ventilation/perfusion scintigraphy : Part 2.
Algorithms and clinical considerations for diagnosis of pulmonary emboli
with V/P(SPECT) and MDCT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:1528-1538.
15. Akoglu H. User’s guide to correlation coefficients. Turk J Emerg Med
2018;18:91-93.
16. Weitz JI, Fredenburgh JC, Eikelboom JW. A Test in Context: D-Dimer.
J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;70:2411-2420.
17. Yeo JH, Zhou L, Lim R. Indeterminate CT pulmonary angiogram: Why and
does it matter? J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2017;6:18-23.
18. Kauppi JM, Airaksinen KEJ, Saha J, Bondfolk A, Pouru JP, Purola P,
Jaakkola S, Lehtonen J, Vasankari T, Juonala M, Kiviniemi T. Adherence
to risk-assessment protocols to guide computed tomography pulmonary
angiography in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. Eur Heart J
Qual Care Clin Outcomes. 2021 Mar 16:qcab020. doi:
10.1093/ehjqcco/qcab020.
19. Righini M, Van Es J, Den Exter PL, Roy PM, Verschuren F, Ghuysen A,
et al. Age-adjusted D-dimer cutoff levels to rule out pulmonary
embolism: the ADJUST-PE study. JAMA 2014;311:1117-1124.
20. Jaconelli T, Crane S. Towards evidence based emergency medicine:
best BETs from the Manchester Royal Infirmary. BET 2: Should we use an
age adjusted D-dimer threshold in managing low risk patients with
suspected pulmonary embolism? Emerg Med J 2015;32:335-337.
21. Fuchs E, Asakly S, Karban A, Tzoran I. Age-Adjusted Cutoff D-Dimer
Level to Rule Out Acute Pulmonary Embolism: A Validation Cohort Study.
Am J Med 2016;129:872-878.
22. Sharp AL, Vinson DR, Alamshaw F, Handler J, Gould MK. An
Age-Adjusted D-dimer Threshold for Emergency Department Patients With
Suspected Pulmonary Embolus: Accuracy and Clinical Implications. Ann
Emerg Med 2016;67:249-257.
23. Farm M, Siddiqui AJ, Onelöv L, Järnberg I, Eintrei J, Maskovic F, et
al. Age-adjusted D-dimer cut-off leads to more efficient diagnosis of
venous thromboembolism in the emergency department: a comparison of four
assays. J Thromb Haemost 2018;16:866-875.
24. Takach Lapner S, Julian JA, Linkins LA, Bates SM, Kearon C.
Questioning the use of an age-adjusted D-dimer threshold to exclude
venous thromboembolism: analysis of individual patient data from two
diagnostic studies. J Thromb Haemost 2016;14:1953-1959.