4.5 Article

Do Emergency Physicians Use Serum D-Dimer Effectively to Determine the Need for CT When Evaluating Patients for Pulmonary Embolism? Review of 5,344 Consecutive Patients

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY
卷 192, 期 5, 页码 1319-1323

出版社

AMER ROENTGEN RAY SOC
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.08.1346

关键词

CT angiography; D-dimer; emergency department; pulmonary embolism

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to investigate whether D-dimer screening is being used effectively to determine the need for MDCT in diagnosing acute pulmonary embolism ( PE) in emergency department patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS. We performed a retrospective review of all patients who underwent D-dimer testing or MDCT in the emergency department from January 1, 2003, through October 31, 2005. A D-dimer value of > 0.43 mu g/mL was considered positive. Diagnosis of PE was made on the basis of the MDCT. Clinical algorithms for diagnosing PE mandate that patients with a low clinical suspicion for PE undergo D-dimer testing, then MDCT if positive. For patients with a high clinical suspicion for PE, MDCT should be performed without D-dimer testing. RESULTS. Of 3,716 D-dimer tests, 1,431 (39%) were positive and 2,285 (61%) were negative. MDCT was performed in 166 (7%) patients with negative D-dimer results and in 826 (58%) patients with positive D-dimer results. The prevalence of PE in patients with a high clinical suspicion and no D-dimer testing was 9% (139/1,628), which was higher than the rate of PE in the positive D-dimer group at 2% (19/826) ( p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in the prevalence of PE in the positive and negative D-dimer groups (2% vs 0.6%, respectively) (p = 0.23). The sensitivity and negative predictive value of D-dimer for PE were 95% ( 95% CI, 73.1-99.7%) and 99% (95% CI, 96.2-99.9%), respectively. CONCLUSION. D-dimer screening is not used according to established diagnostic algorithms to determine the need for MDCT in diagnosing acute pulmonary embolism in our emergency department.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据