Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Steady-state end-tidal alveolar dead space fraction and D-dimer: bedside tests to exclude pulmonary embolism.

Chest 2001 July
STUDY OBJECTIVE: Less than 35% of patients suspected of having pulmonary embolism (PE) actually have PE. Safe bedside methods to exclude PE could save health-care resources and improve access to diagnostic testing for suspected PE. In patients with suspected PE, we sought to determine the sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value of (1) a steady-state end-tidal alveolar dead space fraction (AVDSf) of < 0.15, (2) a negative D-dimer result, and (3) the combination of a steady-state end-tidal AVDSf of < 0.15 and a negative D-dimer result.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study.

SETTING: Tertiary-care center in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

PATIENTS: Consecutive inpatients, outpatients, and emergency department patients with suspected PE referred to the Departments of Nuclear Medicine or Radiology for investigation of suspected PE.

INTERVENTIONS AND MEASUREMENTS: All study patients had D-Dimer and alveolar dead space measurements prior to determining outcome (PE or no PE) with ventilation/perfusion scans and/or noninvasive leg vein imaging and/or pulmonary angiography.

RESULTS: Two hundred forty-six eligible and consenting patients underwent diagnostic imaging that excluded PE in 163 patients, diagnosed PE in 49 patients, and was indeterminant in 34 patients. A negative D-dimer result excluded PE with a sensitivity of 83.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 69.2 to 92.4%), a negative predictive value of 91.2% (95% CI, 83.4 to 96.1%), and a specificity of 57.6%. A steady-state end-tidal AVDSf of < 0.15 excluded PE with a sensitivity of 79.5% (95% CI, 63.5 to 90.7%), a negative predictive value of 90.7% (95% CI, 82.5 to 95.9%), and a specificity of 70.3%. The combination of a negative D-dimer result and a steady-state end-tidal AVDSf of < 0.15 excluded PE with a sensitivity of 97.8% (95% CI, 88.5 to 99.9%), a negative predictive value of 98.0% (95% CI, 89.4 to 99.9%), and a specificity of 38.0%.

CONCLUSION: This simple combination of bedside tests may safely rule out PE without further diagnostic testing in large numbers of patients with suspected PE.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app