D-Dimer Combined with Clinical Probability for Exclusion of Acute Pulmonary Embolism

2008 ◽  
pp. 250-252
2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 281-285
Author(s):  
Dragan Panic ◽  
Andreja Todorovic ◽  
Milica Stanojevic ◽  
Violeta Iric Cupic

Abstract Current diagnostic workup of patients with suspected acute pulmonary embolism (PE) usually starts with the assessment of clinical pretest probability, using clinical prediction rules and plasma D-dimer measurement. Although an accurate diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients is thus of crucial importance, the diagnostic management of suspected PE is still challenging. A 60-year-old man with chest pain and expectoration of blood was admitted to the Department of Cardiology, General Hospital in Cuprija, Serbia. After physical examination and laboratory analyses, the diagnosis of Right side pleuropne monia and acute pulmonary embolism was established. Clinically, patient was hemodynamically stable, auscultative slightly weaker respiratory sound right basal, without pretibial edema. Laboratory: C-reactive protein (CRP) 132.9 mg/L, Leukocytes (Le) 18.9x109/L, Erythrocytes (Er) 3.23x1012/L, Haemoglobin (Hgb) 113 g/L, Platelets (Plt) 79x109/L, D-dimer 35.2. On the third day after admission, D-dimer was increased and platelet count was decreased (Plt up to 62x109/L). According to Wells’ rules, score was 2.5 (without symptoms on admission), a normal clinical finding with clinical manifestation of hemoptysis and chest pain, which represents the intermediate level of clinical probability of PE. After the recidive of PE, Wells’ score was 6.5. In summary, this study suggests that Wells’ score, based on a patient’s risk for pulmonary embolism, is a valuable guidance for decision-making in combination with knowledge and experience of clinicians. Clinicians should use validated clinical prediction rules to estimate pretest probability in patients in whom acute PE is being consiered.


VASA ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 43 (6) ◽  
pp. 450-458 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julio Flores ◽  
Ángel García-Avello ◽  
Esther Alonso ◽  
Antonio Ruíz ◽  
Olga Navarrete ◽  
...  

Background: We evaluated the diagnostic efficacy of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and compared it with an ELISA D-dimer (VIDAS D-dimer) in acute pulmonary embolism (PE). Patients and methods: We studied 127 consecutive outpatients with clinically suspected PE. The diagnosis of PE was based on a clinical probability pretest for PE and a strict protocol of imaging studies. A plasma sample to measure the levels of tPA and D-dimer was obtained at enrollment. Diagnostic accuracy for tPA and D-dimer was determined by the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and the diagnostic utility of tPA with a cutoff of 8.5 ng/mL and D-dimer with a cutoff of 500 ng/mL, were calculated for PE diagnosis. Results: PE was confirmed in 41 patients (32 %). Areas under ROC curves were 0.86 for D-dimer and 0.71 for tPA. The sensitivity/negative predictive value for D-dimer using a cutoff of 500 ng/mL, and tPA using a cutoff of 8.5 ng/mL, were 95 % (95 % CI, 88–100 %)/95 % (95 % CI, 88–100 %) and 95 % (95 % CI, 88–100 %)/94 %), respectively. The diagnostic utility to exclude PE was 28.3 % (95 % CI, 21–37 %) for D-dimer and 24.4 % (95 % CI, 17–33 %) for tPA. Conclusions: The tPA with a cutoff of 8.5 ng/mL has a high sensitivity and negative predictive value for exclusion of PE, similar to those observed for the VIDAS D-dimer with a cutoff of 500 ng/mL, although the diagnostic utility was slightly higher for the D-dimer.


Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hai Xu ◽  
Angel Martin ◽  
Avneet SINGH ◽  
Mangala Narasimhan ◽  
Joe Lau ◽  
...  

Introduction: Pulmonary Embolism in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients have been increasingly reported in observational studies. However, limited knowledge describing their diagnostic features and clinical outcomes exist to date. Our study aims to systemically analyze their clinical characteristics and to investigate strategies for risk stratification. Methods: We retrospectively studied 101 patients with concurrent diagnoses of acute pulmonary embolism and COVID-19 infection, admitted at two tertiary hospitals within the Northwell Health System in New York City area. Clinical features including laboratory and imaging findings, therapeutic interventions, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mortality and length of stay were recorded. D-dimer values were respectively documented at COVID-19 and PE diagnoses for comparison. Pulmonary Severity Index (PESI) scores were used for risk stratification of clinical outcomes. Results: The most common comorbidities were hypertension (50%), obesity (27%) and hyperlipidemia (32%) among our study cohort. Baseline D-dimer abnormalities (4647.0 ± 8281.8) were noted on admission with a 3-fold increase at the time of PE diagnosis (13288.4 ± 14917.9; p<0.05). 5 (5%) patients required systemic thrombolysis and 12 (12%) patients experienced moderate to severe bleeding. 31 (31%) patients developed acute kidney injury (AKI) and 1 (1%) patient required renal replacement therapy. Throughout hospitalization, 23 (23%) patients were admitted to intensive care units, of which 20 (20%) patients received invasive mechanical ventilation. The overall mortality rate was 20%. Majority of patients (65%) had Intermediate to high risk PESI scores (>85), which portended a worse prognosis with higher mortality rate and length of stay. Conclusions: This study provides characteristics and early outcomes for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and acute pulmonary embolism. D-dimer levels and PESI scores may be utilized to risk stratify and guide management in this patient population. Our results should serve to alert the medical community to heighted vigilance of this VTE complication associated with COVID-19 infection, despite the preliminary and retrospective nature inherent to this study.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document