Diagnostic and prognostic value of the D-dimer test in emergency department patients: secondary analysis of an observational study

Background D-dimer measurement improves the rule-out of thromboembolic disease. However, little is known about the risk of false positive results for the diagnosis of thromboembolic disease and its prognostic value. Herein, we investigated factors influencing the accuracy of D-dimer and its prognost...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine 2019-10, Vol.57 (11), p.1730-1736
Hauptverfasser: Vögeli, Alaadin, Ghasemi, Mohammad, Gregoriano, Claudia, Hammerer, Angelika, Haubitz, Sebastian, Koch, Daniel, Kutz, Alexander, Mueller, Beat, Schuetz, Philipp
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background D-dimer measurement improves the rule-out of thromboembolic disease. However, little is known about the risk of false positive results for the diagnosis of thromboembolic disease and its prognostic value. Herein, we investigated factors influencing the accuracy of D-dimer and its prognostic value in a large cohort of emergency department (ED) patients. Methods This is a secondary analysis of a prospective observational single center, cohort study. Consecutive patients, for whom a D-dimer test was requested by the treating physician, were included. Associations of clinical parameters on admission with false positive D-dimer results for the diagnosis of thromboembolic disease were investigated with logistic regression analysis. Results A total of 3301 patients were included, of which 203 (6.1%) had confirmed thromboembolic disease. The negative and positive predictive values of the D-dimer test at the 0.5 mg/L cut-off were 99.9% and 11.4%, respectively. Several factors were associated with positive D-dimer results potentially falsely indicating thromboembolic disease in multivariate analysis including advanced age (odds ratio [OR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.05, p 
ISSN:1434-6621
1437-4331
DOI:10.1515/cclm-2019-0391