Pulmonary Embolism in Patients With Covid-19 Pneumonia: The Utility of D-dimer

Rodríguez‐Sevilla, Juan José; Rodó-Pin, Anna; Giménez, Irene Espallargas; Villar-García, Judit; Molina, Lluís; Terán, Purificación Pérez; Sánchez, A. Vázquez; Masclans, Joan Ramón; Jiménez, Carmen; Millán, Raúl; Zuccarino, Flavio; Salar, Antonio; Rodríguez-Chiaradia, Diego A.

doi:10.1016/j.arbr.2020.10.008

Cited by 11 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thirty-nine full-text articles were eliminated on account of incomplete data or unrelated outcomes (severe/dead/VTE events). Thirty-three eligible studies met our inclusion criteria, 6- 34 of which one was excluded due to the combined model of dyslipidemia and D-dimer levels for VTE prediction in COVID-19, and 3 due to insufficient data. Finally, 8 studies on the predictive power of D-dimer for disease severity, 6- 13 12 for mortality 6,11,14 - 23 and 12 for COVID-19-related VTE events 11,24- 34 were included in the meta-analysis, which included 2014, 4468 and 2158 patients respectively.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic Value of D-Dimer in COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression

Zhan

Chen

Liu

et al. 2021

Clin Appl Thromb Hemost

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The prognostic role of hypercoagulability in COVID-19 patients is ambiguous. D-dimer, may be regarded as a global marker of hemostasis activation in COVID-19. Our study was to assess the predictive value of D-dimer for the severity, mortality and incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) events in COVID-19 patients. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases were searched. The pooled diagnostic value (95% confidence interval [CI]) of D-dimer was evaluated with a bivariate mixed-effects binary regression modeling framework. Sensitivity analysis and meta regression were used to determine heterogeneity and test robustness. A Spearman rank correlation tested threshold effect caused by different cut offs and units in D-dimer reports. The pooled sensitivity of the prognostic performance of D-dimer for the severity, mortality and VTE in COVID-19 were 77% (95% CI: 73%-80%), 75% (95% CI: 65%-82%) and 90% (95% CI: 90%-90%) respectively, and the specificity were 71% (95% CI: 64%-77%), 83% (95% CI: 77%-87%) and 60% (95% CI: 60%-60%). D-dimer can predict severe and fatal cases of COVID-19 with moderate accuracy. It also shows high sensitivity but relatively low specificity for detecting COVID-19-related VTE events, indicating that it can be used to screen for patients with VTE.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic Value of D-Dimer in COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression

Zhan

Chen

Liu

et al. 2021

Clin Appl Thromb Hemost

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Physicians require additional investigations such as biological parameters (D-dimer, creatinine, BNP, troponin) and radiological exams (chest x-ray, thoracic CT or angio CT) to make appropriate patient management decisions. Both types of exams are required for managing differential diagnoses when COVID-19 POCT results are negative and for diagnoses of complications when COVID-19 POCT results are positive, particularly for pulmonary embolism and bacterial pneumonia [ [22] , [23] , [24] , [25] , [26] , [27] ]. We did not assess thoracic angio-CT prescriptions due to the lack of consensus about D-dimer threshold selection [ 26 , 27 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical and operational impact of rapid point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 detection in an emergency department

Gerlier

Pilmis

Ganansia

et al. 2021

The American Journal of Emergency Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study objective Rapid point-of-care (POC) SARS-CoV-2 detection with Abbott ID NOW™ COVID-19 test has been implemented in our Emergency Department (ED) for several months. We aimed to evaluate the operational impact and potential benefits of this innovative clinical pathway. Methods We conducted a prospective, descriptive, interventional, non-randomized study, before-after trial with the comparison of patient cohorts from two consecutive periods of seven weeks (observational pre-POC period vs interventional POC period). Results In 2020, throughout weeks 37 to 50, 3333 patients were assessed for eligibility and among them 331 (9.9%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 infections. Among the included patients, 136 (9.2%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection in the pre-POC period and 195 (10.5%) in the POC period. Among positive patients for SARS-CoV-2 related infection in-hospital mortality rate was similar between the two groups but the hospitalization rate was higher in the POC group (81.6% vs. 65.4%; p < 0.001). More patients in the POC period were able to leave the ED within 6 h. We examined rates of antibiotic, anticoagulant, and corticosteroid prescriptions among patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 in the ED. Only the rate of prescribed anticoagulants was found to be higher in the POC period (40% vs. 24.2%; p < 0.003). Conclusion We demonstrated that COVID-19 point-of-care testing speeds up clinical decision-making, improving use of recommended treatments for COVID-19, such as anticoagulants. Moreover, it improves the boarding time and significantly shortened the length of stay in the ED for patients requiring outpatient care.

show abstract

“… Ackermann et al, 2020 , Bunce et al, 2011 , Ceriani et al, 2010 , Chen et al, 2020 , Chi et al, 2020 , Choi et al, 2020 , Connors and Levy, 2020 , Egger et al, 2011 , Fauvel et al, 2020 , Alonso-Fernández et al, 2020 , Flumignan et al, 2020 , Fox et al, 2020 , Gervaise et al, 2020 , Gupta and Madhavan, 2020 , Hajra et al, 2020 , Jalaber et al, 2020 , Jevnikar et al, 2020 , Jiménez et al, 2020 , Higgins et al, 2003 , Ameri et al, 2020 , Huisman et al, 2018 , Kim et al, 2007 , Kirsch et al, 2020 , Konstantinides et al, 2019 , Kosior et al, 2020 , Kunutsor and Laukkanen, 2020 , Lax et al, 2020 , Liao et al, 2020 , Llitjos et al, 2020 , Artifoni et al, 2020 , Mestre-Gómez et al, 2020 , Mouhat et al, 2020 , Mueller-Peltzer et al, 2020 , Nopp et al, 2020 , Ooi et al, 2020 , Pandey and Agarwal, 2020 , Planquette et al, 2021 , Rodriguez-Sevilla et al, 2020 , Poyiadji et al, 2020 , Salje et al, 2020 , Bavaro et al, 2020 , ShiL et al, 2020 , Soumagne et al, 2020 , Soumagne et al, 2020 , Sungnak et al, 2020 , van Dam et al, 2020 , Varga et al, 2020 , Ventura-Diaz et al, 2020 , Watchmaker et al, 2020 , Worldometer COVID-19 Data 2020 , Wu et al, 2020 , Zeng et al, 2015 , Zheng et al, 2020 , Bilaloglu et al, 2020 , BujaL et al, 2020…”

Section: Uncited Referencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk factors for pulmonary embolism in patients with COVID-19: a systemic review and meta-analysis

Cui¹,

Cheng²,

Mou³

et al. 2021

International Journal of Infectious Diseases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

show abstract

Pulmonary Embolism in Patients With Covid-19 Pneumonia: The Utility of D-dimer

Cited by 11 publications

References 10 publications

Diagnostic Value of D-Dimer in COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression

Diagnostic Value of D-Dimer in COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression

Clinical and operational impact of rapid point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 detection in an emergency department

Risk factors for pulmonary embolism in patients with COVID-19: a systemic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About