Age Adjusted D-Dimer Edit 27-06-22
Age Adjusted D-Dimer Edit 27-06-22
Age Adjusted D-Dimer Edit 27-06-22
Retrospective Analysis
Ryan Cracknell, BMBS, MSc, BMedSci1 and Ehsan E. Salim, MBChB, BMedSci2
1
Golden Jubilee National Hospital, Clydebank, NHS Scotland
2
Monklands Hospital, Airdrie, NHS Scotland
Corresponding Author:
Email: [email protected]
Abstract
The d-dimer is a commonly utilised test in the assessment of Pulmonary Embolism (PE) in acute settings.
With a high sensitivity and low specificity, a significant number of false positive outcomes occur and lead to
A retrospective audit was carried out in a district general hospital by obtaining all acute CTPAs carried out
between December 2019 and August 2020. The age-adjusted d-dimer was calculated for each patient and
After exclusion, 133 patients under 50 years of age with low pre-test probability scores were included in the
analysis. Age-adjusted d-dimer was found to increase specificity from 2% to 28% whilst maintaining a
sensitivity of 94%.
Utilisation of the age-adjusted d-dimer results of the increased specificity with the potential to reduce the
number of unnecessary admissions, radiation and medication. A prospective study would be of use in the
Chest pain is a common presentation to emergency and acute medical departments throughout the world 1.
Despite its commonplace at the front door of the hospital, chest pain continues to be a symptom resulting in
diagnostic uncertainty. Around 15% of all chest pain presentations to acute medicine are screened for
2
pulmonary embolism .The process of diagnosis combines skilled history taking alongside routine and
symptom specific investigations, including pre-test probability scoring and the high sensitivity, low
specificity d-dimer test. Following a positive d-dimer, the patient then most commonly undergoes a
Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiogram (CTPA). CTPA is the gold-standard diagnostic test for PE
3
with a high positive and high negative sensitivity and specificity diagnostic value . Despite its high
diagnostic value, the CTPA has its disadvantages, such as radiation and contrast medium exposure, expense,
and time consumption/use of already constrained resources. Considering the negative factors associated with
CTPAs, their use should be avoided where possible. The d-dimer test acts as a gatekeeper to CT scanning. If
the d-dimer is negative and pre-test scoring identifies low/medium risk, PE can be excluded, without the
need for a scan. Despite its high negative predictive value, as a byproduct of cross-linked fibrin degradation,
a raised d-dimer can be attributed to a number of pro-thrombotic states, including those which are
4
physiological such as advanced age . The physiological increase in d-dimer value in older adults leads to an
The use of a poorly specific test in the Emergency Department and medical receiving wards results in
unnecessary admissions, increased risk of hospital acquired infections, cost to the health service, exposure of
A validated modification to account for physiological increases in d-dimer with age should result in
increased specificity with preserved sensitivity. In this study we add to the data which suggests that adjusting
the d-dimer for age is both validated and effective in the screening of PE.
Age adjusted d-dimers have been shown to have an increased specificity to PEs without any reduction in
5
sensitivity . By utilising this as a front door test, the expectation would be that the unnecessary risks afore
UK hospital site with the hope that age -adjusted d-dimers may be implemented across sites within the NHS
trust.
Methods
As part of a quality improvement project in a district general hospital, data was collected retrospectively for
a cohort of patients who had undergone a CTPA scan as part of the diagnostic work up for Pulmonary
Embolism between December 2019 and August 2020 (n=163). The local radiology department provided a
list of all patients with a CTPA requested directly from the Emergency department, or within the first 24
hours of admission to the medical receiving unit. Patients were excluded if they were under the age of 50
years (n=16), if they had a high Wells score (n=5), or if no-d-dimer was taken on admission (n=6).
Our local laboratory reports using d-dimer units as opposed to fibrinogen equivalent units and so the d-dimer
result was considered positive using our locally accepted cut-off of 230ng/L. The age adjustment process
considered the d-dimer to be negative if it was lower than the patient’s age in years multiplied by five. This
negative cut-off was chosen in light of previously published data which considered age adjustment in the
6
context of d-dimer units with a similar positive threshold
Data was analysed using SPSS version 28.0 and Microsoft Excel version 16.61. As a result of sample size,
the Shapiro-Wilk test was used to test normal distribution. Normally distributed values are represented as
mean and standard deviation, whilst those not normally distributed as median and interquartile range. The
Welch’s t-test was used to test normally distributed parametric variables for significance. Where not
normally distributed, the Mann-Whitney U test was used. The Chi-squared test was used to analyse
frequencies. A 95% confidence interval was used when referencing sensitivities and specificities.
163 patients who had undergone a CTPA (at ED or within 24hrs of
admission) between Dec 2019 - Aug 2020
Excluded patients:
16 under the age of 50
5 with a high Well's score
6 with no D-dimer test on admission
Results
From December 2020 - August 2021, a total of 163 patient underwent CTPA’s in the diagnostic work up of
PE. Following exclusion for not meeting inclusion criteria, 133 patients over the age of 50, with low to
moderate Well’s scores underwent CPTAs for suspected PE. Of the included patient, thirty-two patients
(24.0%) were diagnosed with PE. The confirmed PE group had significantly higher D-dimer levels than
those who were negative, however there were no significant differences in age or sex distribution.
PE No PE Significance
Number 32 101
and true negative results of 32 and 2, respectively. This is relayed as a sensitivity of 1.00 (95% CI 0.89-1.00)
and a specificity of 0.02 (95% CI 0.002-0.069). The positive predictive value (PPV) and the negative
predictive value (NPV) of the conventional d-dimer were 0.244 (95%CI 0.237-0.247) and 1.00 respectively.
Age adjusted d-dimer demonstrated a reduction in false positive results (n=73) and an increase in true
negative results (n=28). The age-adjusted d-dimer resulted in a false negative total of two. The sensitivity
was 0.94 (95%CI 0.79-0.99) and the specificity 0.28 (95%CI 0.19-0.38). The PPV and NPV were
Age adjustment was also calculated with an age adjusted cut-off of 6x the patient’s age. This resulted in the
following results:
The sensitivity was 0.90(95%CI 0.75-0.98) with a specificity of 0.44 (95%CI 0.34-0.54). The PPV was 0.34
Discussion
Most published studies looking at the use of age adjusted d-dimers in the assessment of PE have
considered the conventional assay threshold of 500nm/ml, age adjusting to 10X the age of the patient.
These studies have demonstrated that when compared to conventional d-dimer thresholds, the age-
adjusted d-dimer has a higher specificity without reduction in sensitivity. There are limited studies in the
literature which have considered age adjusted d-dimer in the context of the Instrumentation Lab D-dimer
assay, which has a normal value threshold of 230nm/mL. This study has aimed to fill a gap in the literature
looked at age adjusted d-dimer in the context of the Instrumentation Lab D-dimer assay. Considering the
age-adjusted cut of is roughly half that of the conventional d-dimer assay, a cut off of 5X the patient’s age
was used. Whilst we demonstrated an improvement in specificity of over ten times when age adjusting the
d-dimer, the sensitivity was only minimally reduced by 6% to 94%. Both false negative results pertained to
CTPA confirmed sub-segmental PE’s with no segmental or lobar involvement. `These findings are similar to
7,8
studies by Douma, et al and Dutton et al . A recent study by Dutton et al. considered alternative age
adjustment thresholds showing an improved specificity with only a mild reduction in sensitivity when age
adjusting by 6X the patient’s age8. We have therefore also considered this is our data evaluation. In this
study, multiplication of the patient’s age by six rather than five increased the specificity from 27% to 44%
but reduced sensitivity from 94% to 90% due to an additional false negative result which was a segmental
PE.
Many argue that sub segmental PEs are not pathological and are simply part of the impact of physiological
aging on the lungs, therefore disputing the need for harmful diagnostics and treatments.
We conducted ad-hoc analysis where we considered sub-segmental PEs as negative findings. The sensitivity
of 5X age adjusted d-dimer in our cohort increased from 94% to 100% whilst the sensitivity of 6X age
Limitations
This is self-limiting retrospective study which carries its own inherent limitations. The findings however are
similar to those obtained in prospective studies using the traditional 500ng/mL threshold. The study
excludes patients with high risk scores and does not assess age adjusted D-dimer in varying age ranges.
Despite the selected population, the NPV is reassuringly high. It would be useful to perform a prospective
study using the age adjusted threshold with this d-dimer assay.
Conclusion
Age adjusting the d-dimer cut-off by 5X the patient’s age is safe when utilised in non-high risk patients,
under 50 years old. It an effective approach to increasing the specificity whilst maintaining a high level of
sensitivity in the clinical setting of suspected PE. The number of False positive results are therefore reduced
which is turns improve service utilization by minimizing further futile investigations and pharmacological
interventions. In our cohort 5X age adjustment would have resulted in 30 (23%) patient avoiding
We would like to acknowledge the support from the radiology department at our affiliated district general
hospital, Inverclyde Royal Hospital, for providing the data required to carry out this study. Dr Shiva
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit
sectors.
References
1. Ruigómez A, Rodríguez LAG, Wallander MA, Johansson S, Jones R. Chest pain in general
doi:10.1093/FAMPRA/CMI124
https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2005/1115/p2012.html
3. Stein PD, Fowler SE, Goodman LR, et al. Multidetector Computed Tomography for Acute
doi:10.1056/NEJMOA052367/SUPPL_FILE/NEJM_STEIN_2317SA1.PDF
4. Moresco RN, Vargas LCR, Voegeli CF, Vianna Santos RC. D-dimer and its relationship to
5. Robert-Ebadi H, Robin P, Hugli O, et al. Impact of the Age-Adjusted D-Dimer Cutoff to Exclude
6. Dutton J, Dachsel M, Crane R. Can the use of an age-adjusted D-dimer cut-off value help in our
doi:10.7861/CLINMEDICINE.18-4-293
7. Carrier M, Klok FA. Symptomatic subsegmental pulmonary embolism: to treat or not to treat?
8. Douma RA, le Gal G, Söhne M, et al. Potential of an age adjusted D-dimer cut-off value to improve
the exclusion of pulmonary embolism in older patients: a retrospective analysis of three large