ABSTRACT
Importance Ruling out pulmonary embolism (PE) among patients presenting to the Emergency Department (ED) with suspected or confirmed SARS-COV-2 is challenging due to symptom overlap, known increased pro-thrombotic risk, and unclear D-dimer test interpretation.
Objective Our primary objective was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of standard and age-adjusted D-dimer test thresholds for predicting 30-day pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosis in patients with suspected SARS-COV-2 infection.
Design, Setting, and Participants This was a retrospective observational study using data from 50 sites enrolling patients into the Canadian COVID-19 ED Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN) registry between March 1, 2020 to July 2, 2021. Adults (≥18 years) with SARS-COV-2 testing performed at index ED visit were included if they had any of the following presenting complaints: chest pain, shortness of breath, hypoxia, syncope/presyncope, or hemoptysis. We excluded patients with duplicate records or no valid provincial healthcare number.
Main Outcomes and Measures Our primary end point was 30-day PE diagnosis based on a positive computed tomography pulmonary angiogram (CTPA) or hospital discharge diagnosis code of PE. The outcome measure was the diagnostic accuracy of an age adjusted D-dimer strategy as compared to absolute D-dimer thresholds (500 – 5000 ng/mL).
Results 52,038 patients met inclusion criteria. Age-adjusted D-dimer had a sensitivity (SN) of 96% (95% CI 93-98%) and a specificity (SP) of 48% (95% CI 48-49%) which was comparable to the most sensitive absolute threshold of 500 ng/mL (SN 98%, 95% CI 96-99%; SP 41%, 95% CI 40-42%). Other absolute D-dimer thresholds did not perform well enough for clinical reliability (SN <90%). Both age-adjusted and absolute D-dimer performed better in SARS-COV-2 negative patients as compared to SARS-COV-2 positive patients for predicting 30-day PE diagnosis (c-statistic 0.88 vs 0.80).
Conclusions and Relevance In this large Canadian cohort of ED patients with suspected SARS-COV-2 infection, an age-adjusted D-dimer strategy had similar sensitivity and superior specificity to the most sensitive D-dimer threshold of 500 ng/mL for predicting 30-day PE diagnosis irrespective of SARS-COV-2 infection status. Adopting an age-adjusted D-dimer strategy in patients with suspected SARS-COV-2 may help avoid unnecessary CTPA testing without compromising safety.
Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04702945
Question What is the diagnostic accuracy of age-adjusted and absolute D-dimer thresholds for investigating PE in ED patients with suspected SARS-COV-2?
Findings An age-adjusted D-dimer strategy had comparable sensitivity and higher specificity for 30-day PE diagnosis compared to the most sensitive absolute threshold of 500 ng/mL irrespective of patient’s SARS-COV-2 status.
Meaning Consider using an age-adjusted D-dimer threshold for PE risk stratification in ED patients with suspected SARS-COV-2.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
https://www.cmajopen.ca/content/9/1/E261
Funding Statement
The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (447679), Ontario Ministry of Colleges and Universities (C-655-2129), Saskatchewan Health Research Foundation (5357), Genome BC (COV024, VAC007), Fondation du CHU de Quebec (Octroi No. 4007) and the Public Health Agency of Canada provided peer-reviewed funding. The BC Academic Health Science Network and BioTalent Canada provided non-peer reviewed funding. These organizations are not-for-profit, and had no role in study conduct, analysis, or manuscript preparation.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
We received ethics approval for this work from the following institutional research ethics boards: Alberta - University of Calgary Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board (REB20-0534); British Columbia - University of British Columbia Clinical Research Ethics Board (H20-01015); Manitoba - University of Manitoba Health Research Ethics Board (H2020:261); New Brunswick - Horizon Health Network Research Ethics Board (100890); Nova Scotia - Nova Scotia Health Authority Research Ethics Board (1025682); Ontario - Queens University Health Sciences & Affiliated Teaching Hospitals Research Ethics Board (2165); Quebec - Centre integre de sante et de services sociaux de Chaudiere-Appalaches(MP-23-2021-766); Saskatchewan - University of Saskatchewan Biomedical Research Ethics Board (1935).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵* Co-senior authors
Funding: The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (447679), Ontario Ministry of Colleges and Universities (C-655-2129), Saskatchewan Health Research Foundation (5357), Genome BC (COV024, VAC007), Fondation du CHU de Québec (Octroi No. 4007) and the Public Health Agency of Canada provided peer-reviewed funding. The BC Academic Health Science Network and BioTalent Canada provided non-peer reviewed funding. These organizations are not-for-profit, and had no role in study conduct, analysis, or manuscript preparation.
Declaration of interests: The study authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Data Availability
CCEDRRN accepts applications for access to data by external investigators, prioritizing data requests by network Members. https://www.ccedrrn.com/knowledge-users
