Blood Res 2021; 56(3):
Published online September 30, 2021
https://doi.org/10.5045/br.2021.2021069
© The Korean Society of Hematology
Correspondence to : Bahareh Safaeian, M.D.
Department of Internal Medicine, Medical School, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Hezar Jerib street, Isfahan 8174673461, Iran
E-mail: b_s_508@yahoo.com
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Background
Considering that pulmonary embolism (PE) is one of the leading causes of mortality among pregnant women and that the D-dimer level in pregnancy can be highly fluctuating, a new and reliable D-dimer reference value is essential to identifying PE in this group of patients. Hence, the present study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic effect of D-dimer testing in pregnant women with suspected PE.
Methods
This study recruited 100 women with confirmed pregnancy or six weeks after delivery or abortion with suspected PE symptoms. Wells criteria, D-dimer values, and pregnancy trimesters were recorded. Definitive PE results were obtained using multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) or pulmonary ventilation/perfusion scans.
Results
D-dimer cut-off point in PE diagnosis was higher than 1,447 µg/L [sensitivity, 87.5%; specificity, 63.04%; area under the curve (AUC)=0.735; P =0.003]. In addition, the combination of Wells criteria with the D-dimer test indicated that the cut-off points of D-dimer in PE likely and unlikely women were 1,962 and 1,447 µg/L, respectively, and had acceptable and significant diagnostic value in PE detection. In addition, the diagnostic value of D-dimer in pregnancy trimesters was not found to be significant (P >0.05).
Conclusion
The new cut-off points of 1,447 and 1,962 µg/L were determined for D-dimer in pregnant women with likely and unlikely PE, respectively. Moreover, the new cut-off points in the first and second trimesters of pregnancy were 1,701 µg/L and 1,451 µg/L, respectively, which indicated no statistically acceptable diagnostic value.
Keywords D-dimer, Pregnancy, Pulmonary embolism, Clinical decision ruleD-dimer, Pregnancy, Pulmonary embolism, Clinical decision rule
Blood Res 2021; 56(3): 150-155
Published online September 30, 2021 https://doi.org/10.5045/br.2021.2021069
Copyright © The Korean Society of Hematology.
Somayeh Sadeghi, Marjan Golshani, Bahareh Safaeian
Department of Internal Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
Correspondence to:Bahareh Safaeian, M.D.
Department of Internal Medicine, Medical School, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Hezar Jerib street, Isfahan 8174673461, Iran
E-mail: b_s_508@yahoo.com
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Background
Considering that pulmonary embolism (PE) is one of the leading causes of mortality among pregnant women and that the D-dimer level in pregnancy can be highly fluctuating, a new and reliable D-dimer reference value is essential to identifying PE in this group of patients. Hence, the present study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic effect of D-dimer testing in pregnant women with suspected PE.
Methods
This study recruited 100 women with confirmed pregnancy or six weeks after delivery or abortion with suspected PE symptoms. Wells criteria, D-dimer values, and pregnancy trimesters were recorded. Definitive PE results were obtained using multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) or pulmonary ventilation/perfusion scans.
Results
D-dimer cut-off point in PE diagnosis was higher than 1,447 µg/L [sensitivity, 87.5%; specificity, 63.04%; area under the curve (AUC)=0.735; P =0.003]. In addition, the combination of Wells criteria with the D-dimer test indicated that the cut-off points of D-dimer in PE likely and unlikely women were 1,962 and 1,447 µg/L, respectively, and had acceptable and significant diagnostic value in PE detection. In addition, the diagnostic value of D-dimer in pregnancy trimesters was not found to be significant (P >0.05).
Conclusion
The new cut-off points of 1,447 and 1,962 µg/L were determined for D-dimer in pregnant women with likely and unlikely PE, respectively. Moreover, the new cut-off points in the first and second trimesters of pregnancy were 1,701 µg/L and 1,451 µg/L, respectively, which indicated no statistically acceptable diagnostic value.
Keywords: D-dimer, Pregnancy, Pulmonary embolism, Clinical decision ruleD-dimer, Pregnancy, Pulmonary embolism, Clinical decision rule
Table 1 . Baseline characteristics and the score of Wells criteria..
Characteristicsa) | Total (N=100) | PE (N=8) | Non-PE (N=92) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Age, year | 30.38±6.67 | 32.57±7.48 | 30.21±6.62 | 0.369 |
Gestational age, week | 30.20±7.55 | 25.33±16.02 | 30.58±6.55 | 0.461 |
1st trimester | 5 (5%) | 2 (25%) | 3 (3.3%) | 0.015 |
2nd trimester | 16 (16%) | 0 (0%) | 16 (17.4%) | |
3rd trimester | 79 (79%) | 6 (75%) | 73 (79.3%) | |
Twin infants | 1 (1%) | 1 (12.5%) | 0 (0%) | 0.080 |
Preeclampsia | 4 (4%) | 0 (0%) | 4 (4.3%) | 0.547 |
Hormone therapy | 3 (3%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (3.3%) | 0.604 |
Fever | 11 (11%) | 3 (37.5%) | 8 (8.7%) | 0.041 |
Chest pain | 32 (32%) | 2 (25%) | 30 (32.6%) | 0658 |
D-dimer, mg/Lb) | 1,325.50 (186.0–9,547.0) | 2,110.0 (785–9,547) | 1,274.50 (186–7,977) | 0.029 |
Wells score | 3.60±0.94 | 4.44±1.97 | 3.53±0.76 | 0.008 |
PE likely according to Wells criteria | 36 (36%) | 5 (62.5%) | 31 (33.7) | 0.104 |
The Wells criteria | ||||
Symptoms of DVTc) | 2 (2%) | 2 (25%) | 0 (0%) | 0.006 |
PE is the most likely diagnosis | 100 (100%) | 8 (100%) | 92 (100%) | - |
Tachycardia | 32 (32%) | 3 (37.5%) | 29 (31.5%) | 0.708 |
Immobilization/surgery | 2 (2%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.2%) | 0.674 |
Previous DVT/PE | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | - |
Hemoptysis | 3 (3%) | 1 (12.5%) | 2 (2.2%) | 0.223 |
Active malignancy | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | - |
a)Data is presented as mean±SD or N (%). b)Data is presented as median (minimum, maximum). c)Venous ultrasound positive for DVT..
Abbreviations: DVT, deep vein thrombosis; PE, pulmonary embolism..
Table 2 . Specification of the diagnostic value of the Wells criteria and D-Dimer level for PE detection..
Variables | Clinical probability of PEa) | Cut-off | Sen. | Spec. | PPV | NPV | AUC | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wells score | Total | 3 | 75.00 | 35.87 | 9.2 | 94.3 | 0.557 | 0.497 |
D-dimer, mg/L | Total | 1,447 | 87.50 | 63.04 | 17.1 | 98.3 | 0.735 | 0.003 |
PE unlikely (N=67) | 1,447 | 83.33 | 65.57 | 19.2 | 97.6 | 0.730 | 0.019 | |
PE likely (N=33) | 1,962 | 99.00 | 78.12 | 22.2 | 99.0 | 0.781 | <0.001 |
a)Based on Wells score..
Abbreviations: AUC, area under the curve; NPV, negative predictive value; PE, pulmonary embolism; PPV, positive predictive value; Sen., sensitivity; Spec., specificity..
Table 3 . Specification of the diagnostic value of D-dimer level for PE detection considering the pregnancy trimester..
D-dimer, mg/L | PE/non-PE | Mean | 5th centile | Median | 95th centile | Cut-off | Sen. | Spec. | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1st trimester | 2/3 | 1,017.60 | 242.00 | 592.00 | 1,678.00 | 1,701.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 0.083 |
2nd trimester | 0/16 | 1,925.31 | 523.00 | 1,348.00 | 2,653.00 | - | - | - | - |
3rd trimester | 6/73 | 1,716.67 | 337.00 | 1,327.00 | 5,189.00 | 1,451.0 | 83.33 | 60.27 | 0.189 |
1st trimester gestational weeks <15 weeks. 2nd trimester gestational weeks 15-27 weeks. 3rd trimester gestational weeks >27 weeks..
Abbreviations: PE, pulmonary embolism; Sen., sensitivity; Spec., specificity..
Feras Almarshad, Ali Alaklabi, Abdulrahman Al Raizah, Yousof AlZahrani, Somaya Awad Aljohani, Rawaby Khalid AlShammari, Al-zahraa Saleh Al-mahlawi, Abdulaziz Abdullah Alahmary, Mosaad Almegren, Dushad Ram
Blood Res 2023; 58(1): 51-60Young Hoon Park
Blood Res 2022; 57(S1): S79-S85Somayeh Sadeghi, Maryam Nasirian, Elaheh Keivany, Peiman Nasri, Maryam Sadat Mirenayat
Blood Res 2021; 56(4): 293-300