Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Age-Adjusted and Clinical Probability Adapted D-Dimer Cutoffs to Rule Out Pulmonary Embolism: A Narrative Review of Clinical Trials
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Age-Adjusted and Clinical Probability Adapted D-Dimer Cutoffs to Rule Out Pulmonary Embolism: A Narrative Review of Clinical Trials
Do you wish to request the book?
Age-Adjusted and Clinical Probability Adapted D-Dimer Cutoffs to Rule Out Pulmonary Embolism: A Narrative Review of Clinical Trials
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Age-Adjusted and Clinical Probability Adapted D-Dimer Cutoffs to Rule Out Pulmonary Embolism: A Narrative Review of Clinical Trials
2024
Overview
Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism remains a challenge for clinicians as its differential diagnosis is wide. The use of sequential diagnostic strategies based on the assessment of clinical probability, D-dimer measurement, and computed tomography pulmonary angiography have been validated in large prospective outcome studies. D-dimer measurement at a standard cutoff of 500 μg/L has gained wide acceptance to rule out pulmonary embolism in around 20 to 30% of patients with a clinically suspected pulmonary embolism. To improve the efficiency of D-dimer measurement, different ways of selecting a higher, albeit safe cutoff were explored: the age-adjusted D-dimer cutoff and the clinical adapted D-dimer cutoff. While both have been prospectively validated in large studies, some differences do exist. In particular, the prevalence of pulmonary embolism in these different validation studies was very different. Overall, the age-adjusted cutoff seems to be safer and less efficient, while the clinical probability adapted cutoff seems more efficient and less safe. Here, we report the available data regarding these two different ways to increase the diagnostic yield of D-dimer. Also, well beyond the accuracy of these adjusted/adapted cutoffs, some external factors, such as the prevalence of pulmonary embolism in the tested population and the clinical setting, have an important impact of the negative predictive value and on the overall efficiency of these cutoffs. Therefore, we also discuss which cutoff should be used according to the expected prevalence of the disease and according to the clinical setting.
Publisher
MDPI AG,MDPI
