Logo

Log In Sign Up |  An official publication of: American College of Emergency Physicians
Navigation
  • Home
  • Multimedia
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
  • Clinical
    • Airway Managment
    • Case Reports
    • Critical Care
    • Guidelines
    • Imaging & Ultrasound
    • Pain & Palliative Care
    • Pediatrics
    • Resuscitation
    • Trauma & Injury
  • Resource Centers
    • mTBI Resource Center
  • Career
    • Practice Management
      • Benchmarking
      • Reimbursement & Coding
      • Care Team
      • Legal
      • Operations
      • Quality & Safety
    • Awards
    • Certification
    • Compensation
    • Early Career
    • Education
    • Leadership
    • Profiles
    • Retirement
    • Work-Life Balance
  • Columns
    • ACEP4U
    • Airway
    • Benchmarking
    • Brief19
    • By the Numbers
    • Coding Wizard
    • EM Cases
    • End of the Rainbow
    • Equity Equation
    • FACEPs in the Crowd
    • Forensic Facts
    • From the College
    • Images in EM
    • Kids Korner
    • Medicolegal Mind
    • Opinion
      • Break Room
      • New Spin
      • Pro-Con
    • Pearls From EM Literature
    • Policy Rx
    • Practice Changers
    • Problem Solvers
    • Residency Spotlight
    • Resident Voice
    • Skeptics’ Guide to Emergency Medicine
    • Sound Advice
    • Special OPs
    • Toxicology Q&A
    • WorldTravelERs
  • Resources
    • ACEP.org
    • ACEP Knowledge Quiz
    • Issue Archives
    • CME Now
    • Annual Scientific Assembly
      • ACEP14
      • ACEP15
      • ACEP16
      • ACEP17
      • ACEP18
      • ACEP19
    • Annals of Emergency Medicine
    • JACEP Open
    • Emergency Medicine Foundation
  • About
    • Our Mission
    • Medical Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Awards
    • Authors
    • Article Submission
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Privacy Policy
    • Copyright Information

Adjusting D-Dimer Test Thresholds Could Reduce Unnecessary Imaging

By Ryan Patrick Radecki, MD, MS | on September 5, 2017 | 1 Comment
Pearls From the Medical Literature
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Print-Friendly Version

Nearly every strategy addressing the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) revolves around the D-dimer test. These crosslink fragments resulting from the cleaving of fibrin mesh by plasmin have doomed many an unsuspecting soul to computed tomography pulmonary angiograms (CTPAs). The oft-lamented primary challenge associated with dependence upon D-dimer is its lack of specificity. The list of underlying conditions resulting in elevated levels of circulating D-dimer is extensive and includes:

You Might Also Like
  • Myths in Emergency Medicine: Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiograms as Imaging Standard, and Radiographs for Pelvic Trauma
  • Pearls from Emergency Medicine Literature on Pulmonary Problems, Bleeding, Evaluating Pediatric Injuries, and More
  • Pulmonary Emboli May Be an Under-Recognized Cause of Syncope
Explore This Issue
ACEP Now: Vol 36 – No 08 – August 2017
  • Increasing age
  • African-American ethnicity
  • Postoperative states
  • Autoimmune and connective tissue disorders
  • Hemodialysis
  • Malignancy
  • Pregnancy
  • Smoking and illicit drug use
ILLUSTRATION: Chris Whissen PHOTOS: shutterstock.com

ILLUSTRATION: Chris Whissen PHOTOS: shutterstock.com

CME Now
The first item on the list, increasing age, has been recently addressed by the reasonable approach of age-adjusting the D-dimer for every year over the age of 50.1 However, the other items on the list are simply part of the smorgasbord of collateral damage in our quixotic quest to identify every last PE.

What if there were a better way? What if we could make D-dimer great again? The answer is as unremarkable as it is obvious: Just like age adjustment, simply increase the commonly used dichotomous cutoff. Fewer D-dimer results above the testing threshold will result in fewer CTPAs and, by association, reduced harms and costs from unnecessary imaging. This is hardly a new concept—it’s more that the gradually enlarging body of evidence supporting such a strategy is novel. Clinician researchers from both sides of the Atlantic have called for a doubling of the D-dimer threshold over the last five years, with caveats.

The core concept underpinning this strategy stems from observations relating to the use of D-dimer as a continuous variable rather than a dichotomous cutoff. A recent study evaluated the use of interval likelihood ratios (the probability of a result in that interval for a disease-positive patient divided by the probability of a result in that same interval for a disease-negative patient) for D-dimer and found that even values in the interval between 750 and 1,000 ng/mL decreased the likelihood that a PE was present.2 Rather than using the typical 500 ng/mL basis as a cutoff to obviate the indication for further investigation, this implies there is more nuance to the testing threshold.

The most important cognitive consideration is to remember the goal of emergency department evaluation is not to rule out PE. Even the imprecisely named Pulmonary Embolism Rule-Out Criteria (PERC) do not strictly rule out PE. The various algorithms and decision instruments are built around the idea of reducing the posttest likelihood of PE to a point at which the harms of diagnosis and overdiagnosis outweigh the mortality benefit. Models for PERC were developed out of a test threshold of approximately 1.8 percent, meaning the acceptable miss rate for PE based on their assumptions is nearly 1 in 50. The difficulty with such models, however, is their dependence on estimates for prevention of morbidity and mortality. Unfortunately, the foundational evidence for these estimates can be traced back to a parallel group analysis dating to 1960 that compared 35 hospitalized patients with acute right heart failure and pulmonary infarction.3 It is a fantastic leap to generalize submassive PE to the segmental and subsegmental disease commonplace in modern practice, but these and other antiquated observational data are our source for estimates of harm from missed diagnoses.

Pages: 1 2 3 | Single Page

Topics: AdjustD-DimerEmergency DepartmentEmergency MedicineEmergency PhysiciansImaging and UltrasoundPatient CarePulmonaryPulmonary EmbolismThreshold

Related

  • Discharge Tachycardia: Remember the Big 4 and Don’t Play with Fire

    May 8, 2025 - 1 Comment
  • Anticoagulant Selection Is Cornerstone of Pulmonary Embolism Treatment

    March 11, 2025 - 1 Comment
  • EM Runs in the Family

    February 26, 2025 - 0 Comment

Current Issue

ACEP Now May 03

Read More

About the Author

Ryan Patrick Radecki, MD, MS

Ryan Patrick Radecki, MD, MS, is an emergency physician and informatician with Christchurch Hospital in Christchurch, New Zealand. He is the Annals of Emergency Medicine podcast co-host and Journal Club editor and can be found on Twitter @emlitofnote.

View this author's posts »

One Response to “Adjusting D-Dimer Test Thresholds Could Reduce Unnecessary Imaging”

  1. September 17, 2017

    Bruce D. Oran, DO, FACEP, Clinical Assistant Professor, Ronald O. Perelman Center for Emergency Services, NYU School of Medicine Reply

    Excellent analysis of the literature on this topic. Not mentioned but also an important point is the effect and kinetics of D-dimer following recent surgery and effect of malignancy on d-dimer, both risk factors for PE. Raising the test thresholds would also help somewhat mitigate these confounding factors.

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*
*

Wiley
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Use
  • Advertise
  • Cookie Preferences
Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 2333-2603