Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2009 May;192(5):1319-23.
doi: 10.2214/AJR.08.1346.

Do emergency physicians use serum D-dimer effectively to determine the need for CT when evaluating patients for pulmonary embolism? Review of 5,344 consecutive patients

Affiliations

Do emergency physicians use serum D-dimer effectively to determine the need for CT when evaluating patients for pulmonary embolism? Review of 5,344 consecutive patients

Michael T Corwin et al. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009 May.

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of our study was to investigate whether D-dimer screening is being used effectively to determine the need for MDCT in diagnosing acute pulmonary embolism (PE) in emergency department patients.

Materials and methods: We performed a retrospective review of all patients who underwent D-dimer testing or MDCT in the emergency department from January 1, 2003, through October 31, 2005. A D-dimer value of > 0.43 microg/mL was considered positive. Diagnosis of PE was made on the basis of the MDCT. Clinical algorithms for diagnosing PE mandate that patients with a low clinical suspicion for PE undergo D-dimer testing, then MDCT if positive. For patients with a high clinical suspicion for PE, MDCT should be performed without D-dimer testing.

Results: Of 3,716 D-dimer tests, 1,431 (39%) were positive and 2,285 (61%) were negative. MDCT was performed in 166 (7%) patients with negative D-dimer results and in 826 (58%) patients with positive D-dimer results. The prevalence of PE in patients with a high clinical suspicion and no D-dimer testing was 9% (139/1,628), which was higher than the rate of PE in the positive D-dimer group at 2% (19/826) (p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in the prevalence of PE in the positive and negative D-dimer groups (2% vs 0.6%, respectively) (p = 0.23). The sensitivity and negative predictive value of D-dimer for PE were 95% (95% CI, 73.1-99.7%) and 99% (95% CI, 96.2-99.9%), respectively.

Conclusion: D-dimer screening is not used according to established diagnostic algorithms to determine the need for MDCT in diagnosing acute pulmonary embolism in our emergency department.

PubMed Disclaimer