What level of D-dimers can safely exclude pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 patients presenting to the emergency department?

Abstract

ObjectivesTo identify which level of D-dimer would allow the safe exclusion of pulmonary embolism (PE) in COVID-19 patients presenting to the emergency department (ED).MethodsThis retrospective study was conducted on the COVID database of Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP). COVID-19 patients who presented at the ED of AP-HP hospitals between March 1 and May 15, 2020, and had CTPA following D-dimer dosage within 48h of presentation were included. The D-dimer sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated for different D-dimer thresholds, as well as the false-negative and failure rates, and the number of CTPAs potentially avoided.ResultsA total of 781 patients (mean age 62.0 years, 53.8% men) with positive RT-PCR for SARS-Cov-2 were included and 60 of them (7.7%) had CTPA-confirmed PE. Their median D-dimer level was significantly higher than that of patients without PE (4,013 vs 1,198 ng·mL−1, p < 0.001). Using 500 ng·mL−1, or an age-adjusted cut-off for patients > 50 years, the sensitivity and the NPV were above 90%. With these thresholds, 17.1% and 31.5% of CTPAs could have been avoided, respectively. Four of the 178 patients who had a D-dimer below the age-adjusted cutoff had PE, leading to an acceptable failure rate of 2.2%. Using higher D-dimer cut-offs could have avoided more CTPAs, but would have lowered the sensitivity and increased the failure rate.ConclusionThe same D-Dimer thresholds as those validated in non-COVID outpatients should be used to safely rule out PE.Key Points• The median D-dimer level was significantly higher in COVID-19 patients with PE as compared to those without PE (4,013 ng·mL−1 vs 1,198 ng·mL−1 respectively, p < 0.001).• Using 500 ng·mL−1, or an age-adjusted D-dimer cut-off to exclude pulmonary embolism, the sensitivity and negative predictive value were above 90%.• Higher cut-offs would lead to a reduction in the sensitivity below 85% and an increase in the failure rate, especially for patients under 50 years.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00330-021-08377-9.