No abstract

No abstract

Background In primary care, D-dimer—combined with a clinical assessment—is recommended for ruling-out venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, D-dimer testing frequently yields false-positive results, notably in the elderly, and the search for novel biomarkers thus continues. We assessed the added diagnostic value of 4 promising laboratory tests. Methods Plasma samples from 256 primary care patients suspected of VTE were collected. We explored added value (beyond D-dimer) of C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT), thrombin–antithrombin III complex (TAT-c), and factor VIII (FVIII). Diagnostic performance of these biomarkers was assessed univariably and by estimating their area under the receiver operating curve (AUC). Added diagnostic potential beyond D-dimer testing was assessed using multivariable logistic regression. Results Plasma samples of 237 VTE-suspected patients were available for analysis—36 patients (25%) confirmed deep vein thrombosis, 11 patients (12%) pulmonary embolism. Apart from D-dimer, only CRP, and FVIII levels appeared to be higher in patients with VTE compared to patients without VTE. The AUCs for these 3 markers were 0.76 (95% CI: 0.69–0.84) and 0.75 (95% CI: 0.68–0.83), respectively, whereas the AUC for D-dimer was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.86–0.94). Combining these biomarkers in a multivariable logistic model with D-dimer did not improve these AUCs meaningfully. Conclusions In our dataset, we were unable to demonstrate any added diagnostic performance beyond D-dimer testing of novel biomarkers in patients suspected of VTE in primary care. As such, D-dimer testing appears to remain the best choice in the exclusion of clinically suspected VTE in this setting. Trial Registration Netherlands Trial Register NL5974. (METC protocol number: 16-356/M; NL56475.041.16.)

Clinical judgement in primary care is more often decisive than in the hospital. Clinical decision rules (CDRs) can help general practitioners facilitating the work-through of differentials that follows an initial suspicion, resulting in a concrete ‘course of action’: a ‘rule-out’ without further testing, a need for further testing, or a specific treatment. However, in daily primary care, the use of CDRs is limited to only a few isolated rules. In this paper, we aimed to provide insight into the laborious path required to implement a viable CDR. At the same time, we noted that the limited use of CDRs in primary care cannot be explained by implementation barriers alone. Through the case study of the Oudega rule for the exclusion of deep vein thrombosis, we concluded that primary care CDRs come out best if they are tailor-made, taking into consideration the specific context of primary health care. Current CDRs should be evaluated frequently, and future decision rules should anticipate the latest developments such as the use of point-of-care (POC) tests. Hence, such new powerful diagnostic CDRs could improve and expand the possibilities for patient-oriented primary care.