Objectives In older patients, the the D-dimer test for pulmonary embolism has reduced specificity and is therefore less useful. In this study a new, age dependent cut-off value for the test was devised and its usefulness with older patients assessed. Design Retrospective multicentre cohort study. Setting General and teaching hospitals in Belgium, France, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. Patients 5132 consecutive patients with clinically suspected pulmonary embolism. Intervention Development of a new D-dimer cut-off point in patients aged >50 years in a derivation set (data from two multicentre cohort studies), based on receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves. This cut-off value was then validated with two independent validation datasets. Main outcome measures The proportion of patients in the validation cohorts with a negative D-dimer test, the proportion in whom pulmonary embolism could be excluded, and the false negative rates. Results The new D-dimer cut-off value was defined as (patient's age×10) μg/l in patients aged >50. In 1331 patients in the derivation set with an "unlikely" score from clinical probability assessment, pulmonary embolism could be excluded in 42% with the new cut-off value versus 36% with the old cut-off value (<500 μg/l). In the two validation sets, the increase in the proportion of patients with a D-dimer below the new cut-off value compared with the old value was 5% and 6%. This absolute increase was largest among patients aged > 70 years, ranging from 13% to 16% in the three datasets. The failure rates (all ages) were 0.2% (95% CI 0% to 1.0%) in the derivation set and 0.6% (0.3% to 1.3%) and 0.3% (0.1% to 1.1%) in the two validation sets. Conclusions The age adjusted D-dimer cut-off point, combined with clinical probability, greatly increased the proportion of older patients in whom pulmonary embolism could be safely excluded.
It remains unclear whether echocardiographic right ventricular dysfunction is a prevalent and reliable predictor of adverse outcomes in hemodynamically stable patients with acute PE.
See also Lindqvist PG, Carlson J. Family secrets to be disclosed. This issue, pp 2180-1.Summary. Background: It is a common belief that patients with venous thrombosis and a positive family history for venous thromboembolism (VTE) have an increased likelihood of having an inherited thrombophilic defect. Methods: We analyzed the relation between family history, qualified with three different methods, and thrombophilic status in 314 patients with proven VTE. A positive family history (one or more first-degree relatives with VTE) and a strongly positive family history (two or more first-degree relatives with VTE). In 118 of the patients a third, more precise method was analyzed: the family history score, which compares the observed and the expected number of first-degree family members with VTE. Results: Patients with a positive or strongly positive family history had a slightly increased chance of having inherited thrombophilia compared to those without a positive family history. For positive family history this was 42% vs. negative 32%, likelihood ratio 1.3 (95% confidence interval; CI 0.9-2.1) and for strongly positive family history this was 46% vs. negative 34%, likelihood ratio 1.6 (95% CI 0.7-3.3). The family history score correlated with the chance of having inherited thrombophilia [OR 1.23 per score point (95% CI 1.01-1.48)]. However, even with this method the chance of having inherited thrombophilia is lower than 50% in 97% of the cases. Conclusions: Family history of VTE is not a precise tool in clinical practice to identify patients with inherited thrombophilia among patients with VTE. The family history score is more precise, but probably only useful for research purposes and not for daily practice.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.