What level of D-dimers can safely exclude pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 patients presenting to the emergency department?

Controversies in the Management of Acute Pulmonary Embolism in the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is frequently diagnosed in the Emergency Department (ED), and the management approach can be nuanced.

OBJECTIVE

In this narrative review, we synthesize the literature in selected areas of ongoing controversy regarding the diagnostic and management approaches for acute PE in the ED, and provide evidence-based recommendations to empower emergency physicians (EPs) to provide optimal care in these situations.

DISCUSSION

d-Dimer is used to clinically exclude the diagnosis of PE patients who are stratified as low risk. However by utilizing likelihood ratio and with certain scoring tools, patient historically considered moderate or high risk for PE may safely be able to have the diagnosis excluded with a negative d-dimer. Traditional risk stratification and management strategies can be cautiously applied to patients with concomitant Coronavirus-19 infection while awaiting more definitive studies. There is an increasing trend in the diagnosis of isolated subsegmental PE, and many patients receiving this diagnosis may be treated without anticoagulation provided that they have no evidence of associated deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and can be closely followed as an outpatient. There is a persistent hesitancy to discharge patients with newly diagnosed acute PE, and existing well-supported risk stratification tools and clinical decision frameworks can support the EP's decision to safely discharge low-risk patients.

CONCLUSION

tThis review of the literature empowers emergency clinicians to manage challenging PE cases in the ED.

Roles of spectral dual-layer CT, D-dimer concentration, and COVID-19 pneumonia in diagnosis of pulmonary embolism

Purpose

To demonstrate advantages of spectral dual-layer computed tomography (CT) in diagnosing pulmonary embolism (PE). To compare D-dimer values in patients with PE and concomitant COVID-19 pneumonia to those in patients without PE and COVID-19 pneumonia. To compare D-dimer values in cases of minor versus extensive PE.

Methods

A monocentric retrospective study of 1500 CT pulmonary angiographies (CTPAs). Three groups of 500 consecutive examinations: 1) using conventional multidetector CT (CTC), 2) using spectral dual-layer CT (CTS), and 3) of COVID-19 pneumonia patients using spectral dual-layer CT (COV). Only patients with known D-dimer levels were enrolled in the study.

Results

Prevalence of inconclusive PE findings differed significantly between CTS and CTC (0.8 % vs. 5.4 %, p < 0.001). In all groups, D-dimer levels were significantly higher in PE positive patients than in patients without PE (CTC, 8.04 vs. 3.05 mg/L; CTS, 6.92 vs. 2.57 mg/L; COV, 10.26 vs. 2.72 mg/L, p < 0.001). There were also statistically significant differences in D-dimer values between minor and extensive PE in the groups negative for COVID-19 (CTC, 5.16 vs. 8.98 mg/L; CTS 3.52 vs. 9.27 mg/L, p < 0.001). The lowest recorded D-dimer value for proven PE in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia was 1.19 mg/L.

Conclusion

CTPAs using spectral dual-layer CT reduce the number of inconclusive PE findings. Plasma D-dimer concentration increases with extent of PE. Cut-off value of D-dimer with 100 % sensitivity for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia could be doubled to 1.0 mg/L. This threshold would have saved 110 (22 %) examinations in our cohort.

Predictive value of admission D-dimer levels in patient with acute ischaemic stroke and COVID-19: a second-wave prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the predictive value of admission D-dimer levels for in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19 and acute ischaemic stroke.

DESIGN

Cohort (prospective).

SETTING

Tertiary referral hospital in the capital city of Indonesia conducted from June to December 2021.

PARTICIPANTS

60 patients with acute ischaemic stroke and COVID-19 were included. Patients were classified into D-dimer groups (low and high) according to a 2 110 ng/mL cut-off value, determined via receiver operating characteristic analysis.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, with admission D-dimer levels as the major predictor. Secondary outcomes included associations between other demographic and clinical variables and the admission D-dimer value. Kaplan-Meier method was used to carry out survival analysis, with univariable and multivariable Cox regression performed to assess the association of D-dimer levels and other confounding variables (including demographic, clinical and laboratory parameters) with in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

The findings demonstrated an association between elevated admission D-dimer levels (≥2 110 ng/mL) and an increased likelihood of death during hospitalisation. The adjusted HR was 14.054 (95% CI 1.710 to 115.519; p=0.014), demonstrating an increase in mortality risk after accounting for confounders such as age and diabetes history. Other significant predictors of mortality included a history of diabetes and increased white blood cell count.

CONCLUSIONS

Admission D-dimer levels may be a useful predictive indicator for the likelihood of death during hospitalisation in individuals with COVID-19 and acute ischaemic stroke.

An optimized D-dimer cut-off value to predict pulmonary thromboembolism in COVID-19 patients

Pulmonary thromboembolism (PTE) is a common complication in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Elevated D-dimer levels are observed even in the absence of PTE, reducing its discriminative ability as a screening test. It is unknown whether conventional D-dimer cut-off values, as used in the YEARS algorithm, apply to COVID-19 patients. This study aimed to determine the optimal D-dimer cut-off value to predict PTE in COVID-19 patients. All confirmed COVID-19 patients with a computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) performed ≤5 days after admission due to suspicion of PTE between March 2020 and February 2021, at Medisch Spectrum Twente, The Netherlands, were retrospectively analyzed. The association between PTE and D-dimer levels prior to CTPA, and other potential predictors, was analyzed using logistic regression analyses. The optimal cut-off value was identified using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses. In 142 patients, PTE prevalence was 20.4%. The optimal cut-off value was 750 ng/mL (sensitivity 100%; specificity 19.5%; negative predictive value 100%; positive predictive value 24.2%). In total, 15 of 113 (13%) patients without PTE had a D-dimer level ≥500 and <750 ng/mL. In our population of patients hospitalized with COVID-19, a D-dimer level <750 ng/mL safely excluded PTE. Compared to the YEARS 500 ng/mL cut-off value, 13% fewer patients are in need of a CTPA, with similar sensitivity. Future research is required for external validation.

Pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 pneumonia patients admitted to temporary hospital - The follow-up study

PURPOSE

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is linked with major coagulation disorders, especially higher risk of developing pulmonary embolism (PE). Our study summarizes COVID-19 patients' management with concomitant PE during the first weeks of pandemic and underlines the importance of D-dimer concentration assessment at admission in terms of prognosis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Study group consisted of 107 outpatients (mean age 68.91 ​± ​12.83 years) admitted to the Temporary COVID-19 Hospital in Bialystok, Poland with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and suspicion of PE based on elevated D-dimer concentration (>500 ​μg/l) and/or low saturation rate (<90%). The clinical follow-up lasted 6 months. Death or re-hospitalization were used as composite clinical endpoint (CEP).

RESULTS

Cumulative incidence of PE was 62.3% (73/107 patients). Most of the patients were in the intermediate PE risk group according to the pulmonary embolism severity index (PESI) score. The mean total computed tomography (CT) lung involvement of COVID-19 findings was 48.42 ​± ​27.71%. Neither D-dimers nor NT-proBNP concentrations correlated significantly with the percentage of lung abnormalities in CT. Patients with baseline D-dimer concentration higher than 1429 ​μg/l had worse prognosis in 6-months observation, log-rank test, p ​= ​0.009.

CONCLUSIONS

Ongoing SARS-CoV-2 infection along with massive involvement of lung tissue and concomitant thrombi in pulmonary arteries are challenging for physicians. It seems that simple D-dimer concentration assessment at admission may be a helpful tool not only to predict PE but also to estimate the long-term prognosis.

Low CRB-65 Scores Effectively Rule out Adverse Clinical Outcomes in COVID-19 Irrespective of Chest Radiographic Abnormalities

Background: CRB-65 (Confusion; Respiratory rate ≥ 30/min; Blood pressure ≤ 90/60 mmHg; age ≥ 65 years) is a risk score for prognosticating patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. However, a significant proportion of COVID-19 patients have normal chest X-rays (CXRs). The influence of CXR abnormalities on the prognostic value of CRB-65 is unknown, limiting its wider applicability. Methods: We assessed the influence of CXR abnormalities on the prognostic value of CRB-65 in COVID-19. Results: In 589 study patients (71 years (IQR: 57-83); 57% males), 186 (32%) had normal CXRs. On ROC analysis, CRB-65 performed similarly in patients with normal vs. abnormal CXRs for predicting inpatient mortality (AUC 0.67 ± 0.05 vs. 0.69 ± 0.03). In patients with normal CXRs, a CRB-65 of 0 ruled out mortality, NIV requirement and critical illness (intubation and/or ICU admission) with negative predictive values (NPVs) of 94%, 98% and 99%, respectively. In patients with abnormal CXRs, a CRB-65 of 0 ruled out the same endpoints with NPVs of 91%, 83% and 86%, respectively. Patients with low CRB-65 scores had better inpatient survival than patients with high CRB-65 scores, irrespective of CXR abnormalities (all p < 0.05). Conclusions: CRB-65, CXR and CRP are independent predictors of mortality in COVID-19. Adding CXR findings (dichotomised to either normal or abnormal) to CRB-65 does not improve its prognostic accuracy. A low CRB-65 score of 0 may be a good rule-out test for adverse clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients with normal or abnormal CXRs, which deserves prospective validation.

Strategies to safely rule out pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 outpatients: a multicenter retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to define a safe strategy to exclude pulmonary embolism (PE) in COVID-19 outpatients, without performing CT pulmonary angiogram (CTPA).

METHODS

COVID-19 outpatients from 15 university hospitals who underwent a CTPA were retrospectively evaluated. D-Dimers, variables of the revised Geneva and Wells scores, as well as laboratory findings and clinical characteristics related to COVID-19 pneumonia, were collected. CTPA reports were reviewed for the presence of PE and the extent of COVID-19 disease. PE rule-out strategies were based solely on D-Dimer tests using different thresholds, the revised Geneva and Wells scores, and a COVID-19 PE prediction model built on our dataset were compared. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC), failure rate, and efficiency were calculated.

RESULTS

In total, 1369 patients were included of whom 124 were PE positive (9.1%). Failure rate and efficiency of D-Dimer > 500 µg/l were 0.9% (95%CI, 0.2-4.8%) and 10.1% (8.5-11.9%), respectively, increasing to 1.0% (0.2-5.3%) and 16.4% (14.4-18.7%), respectively, for an age-adjusted D-Dimer level. D-dimer > 1000 µg/l led to an unacceptable failure rate to 8.1% (4.4-14.5%). The best performances of the revised Geneva and Wells scores were obtained using the age-adjusted D-Dimer level. They had the same failure rate of 1.0% (0.2-5.3%) for efficiency of 16.8% (14.7-19.1%), and 16.9% (14.8-19.2%) respectively. The developed COVID-19 PE prediction model had an AUC of 0.609 (0.594-0.623) with an efficiency of 20.5% (18.4-22.8%) when its failure was set to 0.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

The strategy to safely exclude PE in COVID-19 outpatients should not differ from that used in non-COVID-19 patients. The added value of the COVID-19 PE prediction model is minor.

KEY POINTS

• D-dimer level remains the most important predictor of pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 patients. • The AUCs of the revised Geneva and Wells scores using an age-adjusted D-dimer threshold were 0.587 (95%CI, 0.572 to 0.603) and 0.588 (95%CI, 0.572 to 0.603). • The AUC of COVID-19-specific strategy to rule out pulmonary embolism ranged from 0.513 (95%CI: 0.503 to 0.522) to 0.609 (95%CI: 0.594 to 0.623).

[Expert Opinion Questionnaire About Chest CT Scan Using A Negative Pressure Isolation Strecher in COVID-19 Patients: Image Quality and Infection Risk]

PURPOSE

To survey perceptions of certified physicians on the protocol of chest CT in patients with coronavirus (COVID-19) using a negative pressure isolation stretcher (NPIS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study collected questionnaire responses from a total of 27 certified physicians who had previously performed chest CT with NPIS in COVID-19 isolation hospitals.

RESULTS

The nine surveyed hospitals performed an average of 116 chest CT examinations with NPIS each year. Of these, an average of 24 cases (21%) were contrast chest CT. Of the 9 pulmonologists we surveyed, 5 (56%) agreed that patients who showed abnormalities in serum D-dimer required contrast chest CT. All 9 surveyed radiologists agreed that the image quality of the chest CT with NPIS was sufficient for CT image interpretation regarding pneumonia or pulmonary embolism. Furthermore, in our 9 surveyed infectionologists, 5 (56%) agreed that a risk of secondary infection in the CT room after temporary opening of NPIS could be prevented through a process of disinfection.

CONCLUSION

Experienced physicians considered that the effects of NIPS on chest CT image quality was minimal in patients with COVID-19, and the risk of CT room contamination was easily controlled.

Pulmonary CT angiography in the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: Comparison between patients with and without infection and with a pre-pandemic series

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

To analyze the diagnostic performance of pulmonary CT angiography and to compare different D-dimer cutoffs for the diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism in patients with and without SARS-CoV-2 infections.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analysed all consecutive pulmonary CT angiography studies done for suspected pulmonary embolism in a tertiary hospital during two time periods: the first December 2020 through February 2021 and the second December 2017 through February 2018. D-dimer levels were obtained less than 24 h before the pulmonary CT angiography studies. We analysed the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), and pattern of pulmonary embolism for six different values of D-dimer and the extent of the embolism. During the pandemic period, we also analysed whether the patients had COVID-19.

RESULTS

After excluding 29 poor-quality studies, 492 studies were analysed; 352 of these were done during the pandemic, 180 in patients with COVID-19 and 172 in patients without COVID-19. The absolute frequency of pulmonary embolism diagnosed was higher during the pandemic period (34 cases during the prior period and 85 during the pandemic; 47 of these patients had COVID-19). No significant differences were found in comparing the AUCs for the D-dimer values. The optimum values calculated for the receiver operating characteristic curves differed between patients with COVID-19 (2200 mcg/l), without COVID-19 (4800 mcg/l), and diagnosed in the prepandemic period (3200 mcg/l). Peripheral distribution of the emboli was more common in patients with COVID-19 (72%) than in those without COVID-19 and than in those diagnosed before the pandemic [OR 6.6, 95% CI: 1.5-24.6, p < 0.05 when compared to central distribution].

CONCLUSIONS

The number of CT angiography studies and the number of pulmonary embolisms diagnosed during the pandemic increased due to SARS-CoV-2 infection. The optimal d-dimer cutoffs and the distribution of the pulmonary embolisms differed between the groups of patients with and without COVID-19.

COVID-19 Biomarkers at the Crossroad between Patient Stratification and Targeted Therapy: The Role of Validated and Proposed Parameters

Clinical knowledge about SARS-CoV-2 infection mechanisms and COVID-19 pathophysiology have enormously increased during the pandemic. Nevertheless, because of the great heterogeneity of disease manifestations, a precise patient stratification at admission is still difficult, thus rendering a rational allocation of limited medical resources as well as a tailored therapeutic approach challenging. To date, many hematologic biomarkers have been validated to support the early triage of SARS-CoV-2-positive patients and to monitor their disease progression. Among them, some indices have proven to be not only predictive parameters, but also direct or indirect pharmacological targets, thus allowing for a more tailored approach to single-patient symptoms, especially in those with severe progressive disease. While many blood test-derived parameters quickly entered routine clinical practice, other circulating biomarkers have been proposed by several researchers who have investigated their reliability in specific patient cohorts. Despite their usefulness in specific contexts as well as their potential interest as therapeutic targets, such experimental markers have not been implemented in routine clinical practice, mainly due to their higher costs and low availability in general hospital settings. This narrative review will present an overview of the most commonly adopted biomarkers in clinical practice and of the most promising ones emerging from specific population studies. Considering that each of the validated markers reflects a specific aspect of COVID-19 evolution, embedding new highly informative markers into routine clinical testing could help not only in early patient stratification, but also in guiding a timely and tailored method of therapeutic intervention.

Current and Emerging Knowledge in COVID-19

COVID-19 has emerged as a pandemic leading to a global public health crisis of unprecedented morbidity. A comprehensive insight into the imaging of COVID-19 has enabled early diagnosis, stratification of disease severity, and identification of potential sequelae. The evolution of COVID-19 can be divided into early infectious, pulmonary, and hyperinflammatory phases. Clinical features, imaging features, and management are different among the three phases. In the early stage, peripheral ground-glass opacities are predominant CT findings, and therapy directly targeting SARS-CoV-2 is effective. In the later stage, organizing pneumonia or diffuse alveolar damage pattern are predominant CT findings and anti-inflammatory therapies are more beneficial. The risk of severe disease or hospitalization is lower in breakthrough or Omicron variant infection compared with nonimmunized or Delta variant infections. The protection rates of the fourth dose of mRNA vaccination were 34% and 67% against overall infection and hospitalizations for severe illness, respectively. After acute COVID-19 pneumonia, most residual CT abnormalities gradually decreased in extent, but they may remain as linear or multifocal reticular or cystic lesions. Advanced insights into the pathophysiologic and imaging features of COVID-19 along with vaccine benefits have improved patient care, but emerging knowledge of post-COVID-19 condition, or long COVID, also presents radiology with new challenges.

The application of an age adjusted D-dimer threshold to rule out suspected venous thromboembolism (VTE) in an emergency department setting: a retrospective diagnostic cohort study

BACKGROUND

Venous Thromboembolic disease (VTE) poses a diagnostic challenge for clinicians in acute care. Over reliance on reference standard investigations can lead to over treatment and potential harm. We sought to evaluate the pragmatic performance and implications of using an age adjusted D-dimer (AADD) strategy to rule out VTE in patients with suspected disease attending an emergency department (ED) setting. We aimed to determine diagnostic test characteristics and assess whether this strategy would result in proportional imaging reduction and potential cost savings.

METHODS

Design: Single centre retrospective diagnostic cohort study. All patients > 50 years old evaluated for possible VTE who presented to the emergency department over a consecutive 12-month period between January and December 2016 with a positive D-dimer result. Clinical assessment records and reference standard imaging results were followed up by multiple independent adjudicators and coded as VTE positive or negative.

RESULTS

During the study period, there were 2132 positive D-dimer results. One thousand two hundred thirty-six patients received reference standard investigations. A total increase of 314/1236 (25.1%) results would have been coded as true negatives as opposed to false positive if the AADD cut off point had been applied, with 314 reference standard tests subsequently avoided. The AADD cut off had comparable sensitivity to the current cut off despite this increase in specificity; sensitivities for the diagnosis of DVT were 99.28% (95% CI 96.06-99.98%) and 97.72% for PE (95% CI 91.94% to 97.72). There were 3 false negative results using the AADD strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with suspected VTE with a low or moderate pre-test probability, the application of AADD appears to increase the proportion of patients in which VTE can be excluded without the need for reference standard imaging. This management strategy is likely to be associated with substantial reduction in anticoagulation treatment, investigations and cost/time savings.

Acute Pulmonary Embolism: A Review

IMPORTANCE

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is characterized by occlusion of blood flow in a pulmonary artery, typically due to a thrombus that travels from a vein in a lower limb. The incidence of PE is approximately 60 to 120 per 100 000 people per year. Approximately 60 000 to 100 000 patients die from PE each year in the US.

OBSERVATIONS

PE should be considered in patients presenting with acute chest pain, shortness of breath, or syncope. The diagnosis is determined by chest imaging. In patients with a systolic blood pressure of at least 90 mm Hg, the following 3 steps can be used to evaluate a patient with possible PE: assessment of the clinical probability of PE, D-dimer testing if indicated, and chest imaging if indicated. The clinical probability of PE can be assessed using a structured score or using clinical gestalt. In patients with a probability of PE that is less than 15%, the presence of 8 clinical characteristics (age <50 years, heart rate <100/min, an oxygen saturation level of > 94%, no recent surgery or trauma, no prior venous thromboembolism event, no hemoptysis, no unilateral leg swelling, and no estrogen use) identifies patients at very low risk of PE in whom no further testing is needed. In patients with low or intermediate clinical probability, a D-dimer level of less than 500 ng/mL is associated with a posttest probability of PE less than 1.85%. In these patients, PE can be excluded without chest imaging. A further refinement of D-dimer threshold is possible in patients aged 50 years and older, and in patients with a low likelihood of PE. Patients with a high probability of PE (ie, >40% probability) should undergo chest imaging, and D-dimer testing is not necessary. In patients with PE and a systolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or higher, compared with heparin combined with a vitamin K antagonist such as warfarin followed by warfarin alone, direct oral anticoagulants such as apixaban, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, or dabigatran, are noninferior for treating PE and have a 0.6% lower rate of bleeding. In patients with PE and systolic blood pressure lower than 90 mm Hg, systemic thrombolysis is recommended and is associated with an 1.6% absolute reduction of mortality (from 3.9% to 2.3%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In the US, PE affects approximately 370 000 patients per year and may cause approximately 60 000 to 100 000 deaths per year. First-line therapy consists of direct oral anticoagulants such as apixaban, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, or dabigatran, with thrombolysis reserved for patients with systolic blood pressure lower than 90 mm Hg.

Pulmonary embolism in patients with COVID-19 and D-dimer diagnostic value: A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

D-dimer levels are significantly higher in COVID-19 patients with Pulmonary Thromboembolism (PTE) as compared to those without PTE, but its clinical utility is still uncertain.

PURPOSE

To determine the D-dimer performance for ruling out PTE in patients with COVID-19. We also assessed clinical and laboratory factors associated with the presence of PTE on CT Pulmonary Angiogram (CTPA).

METHODS

Retrospective study involving all patients who presented at a tertiary care hospital from March 2020 to May 2021 with severe acute respiratory syndrome from COVID-19, who underwent CTPA and had D-dimer collected within 48 hours from CTPA. The D-dimer ability to classify patients with or without PTE according to CTPA was evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 697 patients [382 (54.8%) men; mean (SD) age, 59 (20.5) years] were included, of which 71.5% required intensive care admission, 32.4% had PTE, and 35.6% died during hospitalization. PTE was independently associated with mortality [42.5% vs. 32.3%; p = 0.038]. D-dimer levels were higher in patients with PTE [9.1 (3.9; 20) vs. 2.3 (1.2; 5.1); p < 0.001]. Using the D-dimer cutoff of 0.5 μg/mL or above, sensitivity was 98.2% and specificity 5.7%. The 0.3 μg/mL threshold was associated with 100% of sensitivity for the presence of PTE, with which 99.1% of patients had increased values. ROC curve AUC was 0.77, demonstrating moderate discriminative power of D-dimers to detect PTE.

CONCLUSIONS

D-dimer levels are higher among COVID-19 hospitalized patients with PTE as compared to those without PTE and have moderate discriminative power to detect PTE, but its use to exclude PTE in this population may have limited clinical utility.

D-dimers-"Normal" Levels versus Elevated Levels Due to a Range of Conditions, Including "D-dimeritis," Inflammation, Thromboembolism, Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation, and COVID-19

D-dimers reflect a breakdown product of fibrin. The current narrative review outlines how D-dimers can arise in normal individuals, as well as in patients suffering from a wide range of disease states. D-dimers in normal individuals without evident thrombosis can arise from background fibrinolytic activity in various tissues, including kidney, mammary and salivary glands, which ensures smooth flow of arising fluids where any blood contamination could be immediately lysed. In addition, healthy individuals can also regularly sustain minor injuries, often unbeknown to them, and wound healing follows clot formation in these situations. D-dimers can also arise in anxiety and following exercise, and are also markers of inflammation. Lung inflammation (triggered by microbes or foreign particles) is perhaps also particularly relevant, since the hemostasis system and fibrinolysis help to trap and remove such debris. Lung inflammation in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) may contribute to D-dimer levels additive to thrombosis in patients with COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019). Indeed, severe COVID-19 can lead to multiple activation events, including inflammation, primary and secondary hemostasis, and fibrinolysis, all of which may contribute to cumulative D-dimer development. Finally, D-dimer testing has also found a role in the diagnosis and triaging of the so-called (COVID-19) vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia.

D-dimer Thresholds to Exclude Pulmonary Embolism among COVID-19 Patients in the Emergency Department: Derivation with Independent Validation

Objective

To derive and validate a D-dimer cutoff for ruling out pulmonary embolism (PE) in COVID-19 patients presenting to the emergency department (ED).

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was performed in an integrated healthcare system including 22 adult ED's between March 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021. Results were validated among patients enrolled in the RECOVER Registry, representing data from 154 ED's from 26 US states. Consecutive ED patients with laboratory confirmed COVID-19, a D-dimer performed within 48 h of ED arrival, and with objectively confirmed PE were compared to those without PE. After identifying a D-dimer threshold at which the 95% confidence lower bound of the negative predictive value for PE was higher than 98% in the derivation cohort, it was validated using RECOVER registry data.

Results

Among 3978 patients with a D-dimer result, 3583 with confirmed COVID-19 infection were included in the derivation cohort. Overall, PE incidence was 4.1% and a D-dimer cutoff of <2 μ/mL (2000 ng/mL) was associated with a NPV of 98.5% (95% CI = 98.0%−98.9%). In the validation cohort of 13,091 patients with a D-dimer, 7748 had confirmed COVID-19 infection, and the PE incidence was 1.14%. A D-dimer cutoff of <2 μ/mL was associated with a NPV of 99.5% (95% CI = 99.3%−99.7%).

Conclusion

A D-dimer cutoff of <2 μ/ml was associated with a high negative predictive value for PE among patients with COVID-19. However, the resultant sensitivity for PE result at that threshold without pre-test probability assessment would be considered clinically unsafe.