Age-Adjusted D-Dimer in the Prediction of Pulmonary Embolism: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background: Pulmonary embolism (PE), depending on the severity, carries a high mortality and morbidity. Proper evaluation, especially in patients with low probability for PE, is important to avoid unnecessary diagnostic testing. Objective: To review the diagnostic utility of conventional versus age-...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kenneth Iwuji, Hasan Almekdash, Kenneth M. Nugent, Ebtesam Islam, Briget Hyde, Jonathan Kopel, Adaugo Opiegbe, Duke Appiah
Formato: article
Lenguaje:EN
Publicado: SAGE Publishing 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://doaj.org/article/bd0fe943c89c4ff79f34230d579621c6
Etiquetas: Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
Descripción
Sumario:Background: Pulmonary embolism (PE), depending on the severity, carries a high mortality and morbidity. Proper evaluation, especially in patients with low probability for PE, is important to avoid unnecessary diagnostic testing. Objective: To review the diagnostic utility of conventional versus age-adjusted D-dimer cutoff values in patients 50 years and older with suspected pulmonary embolism. Methods: Systematic review with univariant and bivariant meta-analysis. Data sources: We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, and EBSCO for studies published before September 20th, 2020. We cross checked the reference list of relevant studies that compares conventional versus age-adjusted D-dimer cutoff values in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. Study selection: We included primary published studies that compared both conventional (500 µg/L) and age-adjusted (age × 10 µg/L) cutoff values in patients with non-high clinical probability for pulmonary embolism. Results: Nine cohorts that included 47 720 patients with non-high clinical probability were included in the meta-analysis. Both Age-adjusted D-dimer and conventional D-dimer have high sensitivity. However, conventional D-dimer has higher false positive rate than age-adjusted D-dimer. Conclusion: Age-adjusted D-dimer cutoffs combined with low risk clinical probability assessment ruled out PE diagnosis in suspected patients with a decreased rate of false positive tests.