HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:
Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password

This Article Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My Personal Article Archive Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (6) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kline, J. A. Articles by Mitchell, A. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kline, J. A. Articles by Mitchell, A. M.

Prospective Study of the Diagnostic Accuracy of the Simplify D-dimer Assay for Pulmonary Embolism in Emergency Department Patients^*

^* From the Department of Emergency Medicine, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC.

Correspondence to: Jeffrey A. Kline, MD, Director, Emergency Medicine Research, Department of Emergency Medicine, Carolinas Medical Center, PO Box 32861, Charlotte, NC 28323-2861; e-mail: jkline{at}carolinas.org

Abstract

Objective: To determine if a d-dimer assay (Simplify D-dimer; Agen Biomedical; Brisbane, Australia) can reliably exclude pulmonary embolism (PE) by producing a posttest probability of PE < 1% in low-risk, symptomatic emergency department (ED) patients.

Methods: Hemodynamically stable patients were evaluated for PE using a structured d-dimer–centered protocol; d-dimer testing was performed prior to imaging. Prior to testing, physicians completed an electronic data form that included their unstructured clinical estimate for the pretest probability of PE (< 15%, 15 to 40%, or > 40%) and the elements of the Charlotte rule and Canadian score for PE. Criterion standard was selective use of pulmonary vascular imaging and 90-day follow-up.

Results: We enrolled 2,302 patients (mean age, 45 ± 16 years [± SD]; 31% male); 108 patients received a diagnosis of PE (4.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.6 to 5.6%). The overall sensitivity and specificity of the d-dimer assay were 80.6% (95% CI, 71.8 to 87.5%) and 72.5% (95% CI, 70.6 to 74.4%), respectively. The negative likelihood ratio and negative predictive value were 0.27 (95% CI, 0.18 to 0.39) and 98.7% (95% CI, 98.0 to 99.1%), respectively. The posttest prevalence of PE among low-risk patients with negative d-dimer results was 0.7% (95% CI, 0.3 to 1.4%) for the unstructured estimate, 1.2% (95% CI, 0.7 to 2.0%) for the Canadian score, and 1.1% (95% CI, 0.6 to 1.7%) for the Charlotte rule.

Conclusions: The Simplify D-dimer assay had moderate sensitivity and relatively high specificity for PE in low-risk ED patients. The combination of a physician’s unstructured estimate of pretest probability of PE of < 15% and a negative d-dimer result produced a posttest probability of PE of 0.7% (95% CI, 0.3 to 1.4%).

Key Words: d-dimer • diagnosis • pulmonary embolism • sensitivity and specificity • thromboembolism

This article has been cited by other articles:

				Negative D-Dimer Testing to Exclude PE Journal Watch (General), July 25, 2006; 2006(725): 2 - 2. [Full Text]

				P. B. Richman Simplifying the Evaluation of Pulmonary Embolism Chest, June 1, 2006; 129(6): 1400 - 1402. [Full Text] [PDF]