Utility and limitations of patient‐adjusted D‐dimer cut‐off levels for diagnosis of venous thromboembolism—A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Abstract

PURPOSE: To systematically assess test performance of patient-adapted D-dimer cut-offs for the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism (VTE). METHODS: Systematic review and analysis of articles published in PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Library databases. Investigations assessing patient-adjusted D-dimer thresholds for the exclusion of VTE were included. A hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model was used to assess diagnostic accuracy. Risk of bias was assessed by Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 score. RESULTS: A total of 68 studies involving 141,880 patients met the inclusion criteria. The standard cut-off revealed a sensitivity of 0.99 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98-0.99) and specificity of 0.23 (95% CI 0.16-0.31). Sensitivity was comparable to the standard cut-off for age-adjustment (0.97 [95% CI 0.96-0.98]) and YEARS algorithm (0.98 [95% CI 0.91-1.00]) but lower for pretest probability (PTP)-adjusted (0.95 [95% CI 0.89-0.98) and COVID-19-adapted thresholds (0.93 [95% CI 0.82-0.98]). Specificity was significantly higher across all adjustment strategies (age: 0.43 [95% CI 0.36-0.50]; PTP: 0.63 [95% CI 0.51-0.73]; YEARS algorithm: 0.65 [95% CI 0.39-0.84]; and COVID-19: 0.51 [95% CI 0.40-0.63]). The YEARS algorithm provided the best negative likelihood ratio (0.03 [95% CI 0.01-0.15]), followed by age-adjusted (both 0.07 [95% CI 0.05-0.09]), PTP (0.08 [95% CI 0.04-0.17), and COVID-19-adjusted thresholds (0.13 [95% CI 0.05-0.32]). CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that adjustment of D-dimer thresholds to patient-specific factors is safe and embodies considerable potential for reduction of imaging. However, robustness, safety, and efficiency vary considerably among different adjustment strategies with a high degree of heterogeneity.

Topics & Concepts