REVIEW PAPER
 
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction and objective:
D-dimers are mainly used in daily clinical practice to exclude venous thromboembolism (VTE); however, in a significant number of measurements, a positive D-dimer result does not confirm it, which is emphasized in the review. In addition, this parameter is often overused and its results misinterpreted.

Review methods:
A review and analysis of the most up-to-date literature (using the PubMed and Scopus databases, with over 90% of the works being no older than 8 years) consisting solely of English-language original and review papers addressing the topic of D-dimer testing in daily clinical practice.

Brief description of the state of knowledge:
Based on the literature review, it has been noted that D-dimers often produce false-positive results, which often leads to unjustified implementation of imaging diagnostics, which exposes the patient to ionizing radiation, contrast agents, administration of fibrinolytic drugs, as well as generating unnecessary costs. Modifying the D-dimer cut-off point in older patients and those with risk factors for VTE maintain negative predictive value (NPV) and specificity; however, there is still a large percentage of patients without VTE despite a positive D-dimer result.

Summary:
In the analyzed studies that included both the standard cut-off point and modified reference ranges for D-dimers based on age and likelihood of venous thromboembolism, a high percentage of patients with false-positive results were obtained, with limited specificity and positive predictive value (PPV).

FUNDING
Piech P, Komisarczuk M, Tuszyńska W, Staśkiewicz G, Węgłowski R. Unreliability of D-dimers in diagnosis of venous thromboembolism – comprehensive literature review. J Pre-Clin Clin Res. 2023; 17(2): 85–90. doi: 10.26444/jpccr/165920
 
REFERENCES (36)
1.
Lim W, Le Gal G, Bates SM, et al. American Society of Hematology 2018 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: diagnosis of venous thromboembolism. Blood Adv. 2018;2(22):3226–3256. doi:10.1182/bloodadvances.2018024828.
 
2.
Kearon C, de Wit K, Parpia S, et al. Diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism with d-Dimer Adjusted to Clinical Probability. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(22):2125–2134. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1909159.
 
3.
Takach Lapner S, Julian JA, Linkins LA, Bates S, Kearon C. Comparison of clinical probability-adjusted D-dimer and age-adjusted D-dimer interpretation to exclude venous thromboembolism. Thromb Haemost. 2017;117(10):1937–1943. doi:10.1160/TH17-03-0182.
 
4.
Vögeli A, Ghasemi M, Gregoriano C, et al. Diagnostic and prognostic value of the D-dimer test in emergency department patients: secondary analysis of an observational study. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2019;57(11):1730–1736. doi:10.1515/cclm-2019-0391.
 
5.
Corrigan D, Prucnal C, Kabrhel C. Pulmonary embolism: the diagnosis, risk-stratification, treatment and disposition of emergency department patients. Clin Exp Emerg Med. 2016;3(3):117–125. Published 2016 Sep 30. doi:10.15441/ceem.16.146.
 
6.
Sendama W, Musgrave KM. Decision-Making with D-Dimer in the Diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism. Am J Med. 2018;131(12):1438–1443. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2018.08.006.
 
7.
Pawelec G, Goldeck D, Derhovanessian E. Inflammation, ageing and chronic disease. Curr Opin Immunol. 2014;29:23–28. doi:10.1016/J. COI.2014.03.007.
 
8.
Farm M, Siddiqui AJ, Onelöv L, et al. Age-adjusted D-dimer cut-off leads to more efficient diagnosis of venous thromboembolism in the emergency department: a comparison of four assays. J Thromb Haemost. 2018;16:866–875.
 
9.
van Es N, van der Hulle T, Büller HR, et al. Is stand-alone D-dimer testing safe to rule out acute pulmonary embolism?. J Thromb Haemost. 2017;15(2):323–328. doi:10.1111/jth.13574.
 
10.
Hsu N, Soo Hoo GW. Underuse of Clinical Decision Rules and d-Dimer in Suspected Pulmonary Embolism: A Nationwide Survey of the Veterans Administration Healthcare System. J Am Coll Radiol. 2020;17(3):405–411. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2019.10.001.
 
11.
Soo Hoo GW, Tsai E, Vazirani S, Li Z, Barack BM, Wu CC. Long-Term Experience With a Mandatory Clinical Decision Rule and Mandatory d-Dimer in the Evaluation of Suspected Pulmonary Embolism. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018;15(12):1673–1680. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2018.04.031.
 
12.
Pernod G, Caterino J, Maignan M, et al. D-Dimer Use and Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis in Emergency Units: Why Is There Such a Difference in Pulmonary Embolism Prevalence between the United States of America and Countries Outside USA?. PLoS One. 2017;12(1):e0169268. Published 2017 Jan 13. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0169268.
 
13.
Innocenti F, Lazzari C, Ricci F, Paolucci E, Agishev I, Pini R. D-Dimer Tests in the Emergency Department: Current Insights. Open Access Emerg Med. 2021;13:465–479. Published 2021 Nov 11. doi:10.2147/ OAEM.S238696.
 
14.
Eskandari A, Narayanasamy S, Ward C, Priya S, Aggarwal T, Elam J, Nagpal P. Prevalence and significance of incidental findings on computed tomography pulmonary angiograms: A retrospective cohort study. Am J Emerg Med. 2022 Apr;54:232–237. doi: 10.1016/j. ajem.2022.01.064. Epub 2022 Feb 3. PMID: 35182917.
 
15.
Venkatesh AK, Agha L, Abaluck J, Rothenberg C, Kabrhel C, Raja AS. Trends and Variation in the Utilization and Diagnostic Yield of Chest Imaging for Medicare Patients With Suspected Pulmonary Embolism in the Emergency Department. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018;210(3):572–577. doi:10.2214/AJR.17.18586.
 
16.
Woo YP, Thien F. Ruling out low- and moderate-risk probability pulmonary emboli without radiological imaging: appraisal of a clinical prediction algorithm after implementation and revision with higher D-dimer thresholds. Intern Med J. 2016;46(7):787–792. doi:10.1111/ imj.13092.
 
17.
Chong J, Lee TC, Attarian A, et al. Association of Lower Diagnostic Yield With High Users of CT Pulmonary Angiogram. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(3):412–413. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.7552.
 
18.
Kline JA, Garrett JS, Sarmiento EJ, Strachan CC, Courtney DM. Over- Testing for Suspected Pulmonary Embolism in American Emergency Departments: The Continuing Epidemic. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2020;13(1):e005753. doi:10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.119.005753.
 
19.
Anjum O, Bleeker H, Ohle R. Computed tomography for suspected pulmonary embolism results in a large number of non-significant incidental findings and follow-up investigations. Emerg Radiol. 2019;26(1):29–35. doi:10.1007/s10140-018-1641-8.
 
20.
Smith-Bindman R, Miglioretti DL, Johnson E, et al. Use of diagnostic imaging studies and associated radiation exposure for patients enrolled in large integrated health care systems, 1996–2010. JAMA 2012;307: 2400–9.
 
21.
Linkins LA, Takach Lapner S. Review of D-dimer testing: Good, Bad, and Ugly. Int J Lab Hematol. 2017;39 Suppl 1:98–103. doi:10.1111/ ijlh.12665.
 
22.
Folsom AR, Gottesman RF, Appiah D, Shahar E, Mosley TH. Plasma d-Dimer and Incident Ischemic Stroke and Coronary Heart Disease: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study. Stroke. 2016;47(1):18–23. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.011035.
 
23.
De Pooter N, Brionne-François M, Smahi M, Abecassis L, Toulon P. Ageadjusted D-dimer cut-off levels to rule out venous thromboembolism in patients with non-high pre-test probability: Clinical performance and cost-effectiveness analysis. J Thromb Haemost. 2021;19(5):1271–1282. doi:10.1111/jth.15278.
 
24.
Weitz JI, Fredenburgh JC, Eikelboom JW. A Test in Context: D-Dimer. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70:2411–2420.
 
25.
Glober N, Tainter CR, Brennan J, et al. Use of the d-dimer for Detecting Pulmonary Embolism in the Emergency Department. J Emerg Med. 2018;54(5):585–592. doi:10.1016/j.jemermed.2018.01.032.
 
26.
Salehi L, Phalpher P, Yu H, et al. Utilization of serum D-dimer assays prior to computed tomography pulmonary angiography scans in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism among emergency department physicians: a retrospective observational study. BMC Emerg Med. 2021;21(1):10. Published 2021 Jan 19. doi:10.1186/s12873-021-00401-x.
 
27.
Francis S, Limkakeng A, Zheng H, et al. Highly Elevated Quantitative D-Dimer Assay Values Increase the Likelihood of Venous Thromboembolism. TH Open. 2019;3(1):e2-e9. Published 2019 Jan 7. doi:10.1055/s-0038-1677029.
 
28.
Sharif S, Eventov M, Kearon C, et al. Comparison of the age-adjusted and clinical probability-adjusted D-dimer to exclude pulmonary embolism in the ED. Am J Emerg Med. 2019;37(5):845–850. doi:10.1016/j. ajem.2018.07.053.
 
29.
Riva N, Camporese G, Iotti M, et al. Age-adjusted D-dimer to rule out deep vein thrombosis: findings from the PALLADIO algorithm. J Thromb Haemost. 2018;16(2):271–278. doi:10.1111/jth.13905.
 
30.
Sharp AL, Vinson DR, Alamshaw F, Handler J, Gould MK. An Age- Adjusted D-dimer Threshold for Emergency Department Patients With Suspected Pulmonary Embolus: Accuracy and Clinical Implications. Ann Emerg Med. 2016;67(2):249–257. doi:10.1016/j. annemergmed.2015.07.026.
 
31.
Flores J, García de Tena J, Galipienzo J, et al. Clinical usefulness and safety of an age-adjusted D-dimer cutoff levels to exclude pulmonary embolism: a retrospective analysis. Intern Emerg Med. 2016;11(1):69–75. doi:10.1007/s11739-015-1306-5.
 
32.
Booker MT, Johnson JO. Optimizing CT Pulmonary Angiogram Utilization in a Community Emergency Department: A Pre- and Postintervention Study. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14(1):65–71. doi:10.1016/j. jacr.2016.08.007.
 
33.
Alhassan S, Sayf AA, Arsene C, Krayem H. Suboptimal implementation of diagnostic algorithms and overuse of computed tomographypulmonary angiography in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. Ann Thorac Med. 2016;11(4):254–260. doi:10.4103/1817-1737.191875.
 
34.
Singh B, Mommer SK, Erwin PJ, Mascarenhas SS, Parsaik AK. Pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC) in pulmonary embolism— revisited: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Emerg Med J. 2013;30:701–6.
 
35.
Bozarth AL, Bajaj N,Wessling MR, Keffer D, Jallu S, Salzman GA. Evaluation of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria in a retrospective cohort at an urban academic hospital. Am J Emerg Med. 2015;33:483–7.
 
36.
Brody AS, Guillerman RP. Don’t let radiation scare trump patient care: 10 ways you can harm your patients by fear of radiationinduced cancer from diagnostic imaging. Thorax. 2014;69:782–4.
 
eISSN:1898-7516
ISSN:1898-2395