Abstract:Background The challenging clinical dilemma of detecting pulmonary embolism (PE) in suspected patients is encountered in a variety of healthcare settings. We hypothesized that the optimal diagnostic approach to detect these patients in terms of safety and efficiency depends on underlying PE prevalence, case mix, and physician experience, overall reflected by the type of setting where patients are initially assessed. The objective of this study was to assess the capability of ruling out PE by available diagnostic strategies across all possible settings. Methods and findings We performed a literature search (MEDLINE) followed by an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis (MA; 23 studies), including patients from self-referral emergency care ( n = 12,612), primary healthcare clinics ( n = 3,174), referred secondary care ( n = 17,052), and hospitalized or nursing home patients ( n = 2,410). Multilevel logistic regression was performed to evaluate diagnostic performance of the Wells and revised Geneva rules, both using fixed and adapted D-dimer thresholds to age or pretest probability (PTP), for the YEARS algorithm and for the Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC). All strategies were tested separately in each healthcare setting. Following studies done in this field, the primary diagnostic metrices estimated from the models were the “failure rate” of each strategy—i.e., the proportion of missed PE among patients categorized as “PE excluded” and “efficiency”—defined as the proportion of patients categorized as “PE excluded” among all patients. In self-referral emergency care, the PERC algorithm excludes PE in 21% of suspected patients at a failure rate of 1.12% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74 to 1.70), whereas this increases to 6.01% (4.09 to 8.75) in referred patients to secondary care at an efficiency of 10%. In patients from primary healthcare and those referred to secondary care, strategies adjusting D-dimer to PTP are the most efficient (range: 43% to 62%) at a failure rate ranging between 0.25% and 3.06%, with higher failure rates observed in patients referred to secondary care. For this latter setting, strategies adjusting D-dimer to age are associated with a lower failure rate ranging between 0.65% and 0.81%, yet are also less efficient (range: 33% and 35%). For all strategies, failure rates are highest in hospitalized or nursing home patients, ranging between 1.68% and 5.13%, at an efficiency ranging between 15% and 30%. The main limitation of the primary analyses was that the diagnostic performance of each strategy was compared in different sets of studies since the availability of items used in each diagnostic strategy differed across included studies; however, sensitivity analyses suggested that the findings were robust. Conclusions The capability of safely and efficiently ruling out PE of available diagnostic strategies differs for different healthcare settings. The findings of this IPD MA help in determining the optimum diagnostic strategies for ruling out PE per healthcare setting, balancing the trade-off between failure rate and efficiency of each strategy.

Failure rate of D‐dimer testing in patients with high clinical probability of pulmonary embolism: Ancillary analysis of three European studies

Clinical probability score and D-dimer estimation lack utility in the diagnosis of childhood pulmonary embolism

Ruling out pulmonary embolism across different healthcare settings: A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis

Implementation, Clinical Benefit and Safety of a D-Dimer-Focused Pulmonary Embolism Testing Pathway in the Emergency Department

D-dimer for risk stratification in patients with acute pulmonary embolism

Distinct age‐adjusted D‐dimer threshold to rule out acute pulmonary embolism in outpatients and inpatients

Utilization and yield of chest computed tomographic angiography associated with low positive D-dimer levels

Adjusted D-dimer cutoff levels to rule out pulmonary embolism in patients hospitalized for COPD exacerbation: results from the SLICE trial

D-dimer Levels for the exclusion of pulmonary embolism: making sense of international guideline recommendations

Predictive value of D-dimer test for recurrent venous thromboembolism at hospital discharge in patients with acute pulmonary embolism

Application of D-Dimer in Prognosis of Pulmonary Embolism

Using an age and fibrinogen levels adjusted D-dimer cutoff significantly improves the specificity of two equivalent D-dimer assays for excluding pulmonary embolism

Low Risk Meets High Stakes: Unraveling the Mystery of Low D-dimer Pulmonary Embolism

Pulmonary embolism diagnostic strategies in patients with COPD exacerbation: Post-hoc analysis of the PEP trial

Renal function-adapted D-dimer cutoffs in combination with a clinical prediction rule to exclude pulmonary embolism in patients presenting to the emergency department

A Narrative Review of Clinical Trials

Optimizing resource allocation: Cost-effectiveness of specified D-dimer cut-offs in cancer patients with suspected venous thromboembolism

D‐dimer Level for Ruling out Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter‐associated Upper Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis and Superficial Vein Thrombosis

Clinical Utility of D-Dimer for Rule-Out or Rule-In of Venous Thromboembolism in Syncope

Precision in Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis: Leveraging D-dimer Levels With Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiography (CTPA) Insights

Diagnostic Strategies in Pulmonary Embolism