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

Consideration of these outdated harm estimates forms the basis of the argument made by Kline et al in their proposal to double the D-dimer threshold.4 In a prospective, observational evaluation of 678 patients evaluated for PE, the overall miss rate in a “PE unlikely” population of Wells ≤4 or Revised Geneva Score ≤6 was 3.8 percent at a cutoff of 500 ng/mL. Increasing this threshold to 1,000 ng/mL increased the miss rate to 5.4 percent in this cohort, but 10 of the 11 missed PEs were subsegmental and none had concomitant deep venous thrombosis. Considering the current American College of Chest Physicians guidelines suggest clinical surveillance over anticoagulation for properly selected patients with subsegmental PE, the clinical importance of these “false negatives” is questionable.

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

While the argument made by Kline and colleagues is solely theoretical, at least two other articles describe putting this concept into practice. The Kaiser Permanente Hawaii region describes increasing the D-dimer threshold from 400 ng/mL to 1,000 ng/mL as part of an institutional effort to reduce unnecessary testing.5 Its retrospective review of patients evaluated for PE found zero missed from a cohort of 182 low- and intermediate-risk patients. Subsequently, after practice change, ongoing quality assessment did not detect any missed PEs in a similar cohort of 47 patients using 1,000 ng/mL as a threshold.

Finally, the second article prospectively describing practice using a threshold of 1,000 ng/mL comprises a Dutch effort directly following the Kline analysis.6 These authors performed their own retrospective and observational prospective analyses to clarify which elements of risk stratification conveyed the greatest risk with relation to pretest likelihood of PE.7,8 Their resulting protocol, the YEARS algorithm, was then prospectively evaluated across 12 Dutch hospitals across almost two years. Their results were published in The Lancet in May.

Their algorithm dramatically simplifies the approach to risk stratification and testing. All patients considered for PE are tested using D-dimer. Patients with one of the three YEARS high-risk items—clinical signs of deep vein thrombosis, hemoptysis, and whether pulmonary embolism is the most likely diagnosis—could be excluded from further testing using the conventional cutoff of 500 ng/mL. Then patients without any of those high-risk features used a cutoff of 1,000 ng/mL.

In their cohort of 3,465 patients undergoing the protocol, rate of subsequent venous thromboembolism was nearly identical between those excluded from additional testing by variable D-dimer thresholds and those with the diagnosis excluded by CTPA. Of 1,633 non-anticoagulated patients in follow-up after a D-dimer below their specific threshold, only seven were ultimately diagnosed with PE in the following three months. Similarly, in follow-ups of 1,138 with negative CTPA results, eight patients were ultimately diagnosed. The face validity of nearly identical miss rates between imaging and non-imaging pathways lends substantial credibility to their algorithm.

Pages: 1 2 3 | Single Page

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

Related

  • Let Core Values Help Guide Patient Care

    November 5, 2025 - 0 Comment
  • Event Medicine: Where Fun and Safety Sing in Perfect Harmony

    October 9, 2025 - 1 Comment
  • Case Report: Rare Pulmonary Embolism After Routine PIVC Insertion

    September 22, 2025 - 1 Comment

Current Issue

ACEP Now: November 2025

Download PDF

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