Review of D-dimer testing: Good, Bad, and Ugly.

D-dimer assays are commonly used in clinical practice to exclude a diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. More recently, they have been also been used to guide patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE) when faced with the decision to continue or stop anticoagulation after initial treatment is complete. D-dimer assays vary widely with respect to the antibody used, method of capture, instrumentation required, and calibration standard. These differences have an important influence on the operating characteristics of the assays. Consequently, the evidence available in the literature for one assay cannot simply be extrapolated to another. In this review, we will outline the general properties of D-dimer assays, discuss the concept of raising the D-dimer threshold used in diagnosis of VTE according to pretest probability and age, and provide clinical perspective on the role of D-dimer testing in the diagnosis and prognosis of VTE.

Questioning the use of an age-adjusted D-dimer threshold to exclude venous thromboembolism: analysis of individual patient data from two diagnostic studies.

Essentials It is unclear if raising the D-dimer level to exclude venous thrombosis in older patients is valid. We compared this 'age-adjusted' strategy with other ways of interpreting D-dimer results. A non-age adjusted increase, and using higher thresholds in younger patients, was just as accurate. Age-adjustment of D-dimer thresholds does not appear to be appropriate. Click to hear Prof. le Gal's presentation on controversies in venous thromboembolism diagnosis SUMMARY: Background Using a progressively higher D-dimer level to exclude venous thromboembolism (VTE) with increasing age has been proposed but is not well validated. Objective To determine whether it is appropriate to use a progressively higher D-dimer level to exclude VTE with increasing age. Patients/methods We analyzed clinical data and blood samples from 1649 patients with a first suspected deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. We compared the negative predictive values (NPVs) for VTE, and the proportions of patients with a negative D-dimer result, by using three D-dimer interpretation strategies: a progressively higher D-dimer threshold with increasing age (age-adjusted strategy); the same higher D-dimer threshold in all patients (mean D-dimer strategy); and a progressively higher D-dimer threshold with decreasing age (inverse age-adjusted strategy). Results The NPV with the age-adjusted strategy (99.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 99.0-99.9%) was not different from that with the mean D-dimer strategy (99.7%; 95% CI 99.0-99.9%) or that with the inverse age-adjusted strategy (99.8%; 95% CI 99.1-99.9%). The proportion of patients with a negative result with the age-adjusted strategy (50.9%; 95% CI 48.5-53.4%) was not different from the proportion of patients with a negative result with the mean D-dimer strategy (51.7%; 95% CI 49.3-54.1%) or with the inverse age-adjusted strategy (49.5%; 95% CI 47.1-51.9%). Conclusions Our analysis does not support the use of a progressively higher D-dimer level to exclude VTE with increasing age.

Rivaroxaban for treatment of suspected or confirmed heparin-induced thrombocytopenia study.

UNLABELLED: Essentials Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a thrombogenic condition that is difficult to treat. We evaluated rivaroxaban as a treatment option in patients with suspected or confirmed HIT. One patient had recurrent thrombosis and 9/10 patients with thrombocytopenia had platelet recovery. Rivaroxaban may be an effective and safe treatment option for HIT. SUMMARY: Background Rivaroxaban is a direct oral anti-Xa inhibitor that has the potential to greatly simplify treatment of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). Objectives To evaluate the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in this patient population, we conducted a multicenter, single-arm, prospective cohort study of patients with suspected or confirmed HIT. Patients/Methods Twenty-two consecutive adults with suspected or confirmed HIT received rivaroxaban 15 mg bid until a local HIT assay result was available. Participants with a positive local assay result continued rivaroxaban 15 mg bid until platelet recovery (or until day 21 if they had acute thrombosis at study entry), then stepped down to rivaroxaban 20 mg daily until day 30. Results and Conclusions The primary outcome measure, incidence of new symptomatic, objectively-confirmed venous and arterial thromboembolism at 30 days, occurred in one HIT-positive participant (4.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0-23.5%) and one HIT-positive participant required limb amputation despite platelet recovery. Platelet recovery was achieved in nine out of 10 HIT-positive patients with thrombocytopenia. Rivaroxaban appears to be effective for treating patients with confirmed HIT, although the small number of patients enrolled limits precision.

Rapid quantitative D-dimer to exclude pulmonary embolism: a prospective cohort management study.

UNLABELLED: ESSENTIALS: It is not known if D-dimer testing alone can safely exclude pulmonary embolism (PE). We studied the safety of using a quantitative latex agglutination D-dimer to exclude PE in 808 patients. 52% of patients with suspected PE had a negative D-dimer test and were followed for 3 months. The negative predictive value of D-dimer testing alone was 99.8%, suggesting it may safely exclude PE. BACKGROUND: Strategies are needed to exclude pulmonary embolism (PE) efficiently without the need for imaging tests. Although validated rules for clinical probability assessment can be combined with D-dimer testing to safely exclude PE, the rules can be complicated or partially subjective, which limits their use. OBJECTIVES: To determine if PE can be safely excluded in patients with a negative D-dimer without incorporating clinical probability assessment. PATIENTS/METHODS: We enrolled consecutive outpatients and inpatients with suspected PE from four tertiary care hospitals. All patients underwent D-dimer testing using the MDA D-dimer test, a quantitative latex agglutination assay. PE was excluded in patients with a D-dimer less than 750 µg FEU L(-1) without further testing. PATIENTS: with D-dimer levels of 750 µg FEU L(-1) or higher underwent standardized imaging tests for PE. All patients in whom PE was excluded had anticoagulant therapy withheld and were followed for 3 months for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Suspected events during follow-up were adjudicated centrally. RESULTS: Eight hundred and eight patients were enrolled, of whom 99 (12%) were diagnosed with VTE at presentation. Four hundred and twenty (52%) patients had a negative D-dimer level at presentation and were not treated with anticoagulants; of these, one had VTE during follow-up. The negative predictive value of D-dimer testing for PE was 99.8% (95% confidence interval, 98.7-99.9%). CONCLUSIONS: A negative latex agglutination D-dimer assay is seen in about one-half of patients with suspected PE and reliably excludes PE as a stand-alone test.

Monitoring the anticoagulant effect after a massive rivaroxaban overdose.

Rivaroxaban is a direct factor Xa inhibitor approved for prevention of stroke, prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism and secondary prevention of acute coronary syndrome in many countries. As the use of this agent increases, so does the potential for overdose, both intentional and unintentional. Clinical data on overdoses of rivaroxaban in humans are limited. We report the case of a 42-year-old man who took an overdose of 1400 mg of rivaroxaban and describe how resolution of the anticoagulant effect was monitored using readily available coagulation assays.

Use of different D-dimer levels to exclude venous thromboembolism depending on clinical pretest probability.

Currently, the same D-dimer cut-off point is used to define a positive result for all patients with suspected venous thromboembolism, regardless of their pretest probability. However, use of a relatively high D-dimer cut-off point (lower sensitivity) for those with a low clinical pretest probability, and a low D-dimer cut-off point (higher sensitivity) for those with a high clinical pretest probability, may be preferable. To determine if using three different D-dimer cut-off points according to low, moderate or high clinical pretest probability has greater utility for exclusion of venous thromboembolism than using the same single D-dimer cut-off point in all patients. Data from a previously published study of 571 patients was used to identify the highest D-dimer cut-off point with a negative predictive value of at least 98% for the subgroup of patients with low and high pretest probability. The D-dimer cut-off point for those with moderate clinical pretest probability remained unchanged [0.5 fibrinogen equivalent units (FEU) microgram mL(-1)]. Accuracy of D-dimer testing for venous thromboembolism using three cut-off points vs. one cut-off point was than determined. D-dimer cut-off points of 0.2 and 2.1 FEU microgram mL(-1) were selected for the high and low pretest probability groups, respectively. When three pretest probability-specific cut-off points were used instead of the previously determined single D-dimer cut-off point (0.5 FEU microgram mL(-1)), sensitivity and negative predictive value were unchanged (95 and 98%, respectively), but specificity increased from 44.7 to 60.4% (P < 0.001). This resulted in exclusion of venous thromboembolism in 80 additional patients. Use of three pretest probability-specific D-dimer cut-off points rather than a single D-dimer cut-off point for all patients, has the potential to increase the utility of D-dimer testing for the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism.