Age-adjusted D-dimer Cutoff Levels to Rule Out Deep Vein Thrombosis: a Prospective Outcome Study
NCT ID: NCT02384135
Last Updated: 2018-10-01
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
UNKNOWN
NA
3300 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2015-03-31
2019-10-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
D-dimer to Select Patients With First Unprovoked Venous Thromboembolism Who Can Have Anticoagulants Stopped at 3 Months
NCT00720915
Diagnosis Exclusion of Recurrent Deep Vein Thrombosis of the Lower Limbs
NCT03868956
Diagnostic Algorithm in Suspected Upper Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis
NCT01324037
D-dimer to Predict Recurrence in Patients With Multiple Episodes of Venous Thromboembolism
NCT00428441
D-dimer and Pre-test Clinical Probability Score in Cancer Patients With Suspected Deep Vein Thrombosis of the Legs
NCT02341937
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Clinical probability has a fair predictive accuracy either evaluated implicitly or by clinical prediction rules and is useful for identifying patients with a low prevalence of DVT who can be usually fully investigated by non invasive tests.
The D-dimer test has been extensively evaluated in the exclusion of DVT, particularly in outpatients. ELISA D-dimer and second-generation latex agglutination (immuno-turbidimetric tests) have a remarkably high sensitivity and have been proved safe first-line tests in association with clinical probability to rule out DVT in outcome studies. The clinical usefulness of D-dimer is defined by the proportion of patients in whom DVT may be ruled out by a normal result and it is determined by the specificity. However, ELISA and second-generation latex agglutination (immuno-turbidimetric tests) tests have a quite limited overall specificity of around 35% to 40%.3 Therefore, many investigators tried to increase the D-dimer thresholds in particular in elderly patients to increase the rate of patients in whom the diagnosis could be excluded by this easy and inexpensive test. Several studies have shown that D-dimer levels increase with age, which turns in a decreased specificity of the D-dimer test at the usual threshold in the elderly, and thus to a less useful test to exclude both DVT and pulmonary embolism (PE) in older patients. For example, ELISA D-dimer is able to rule out PE in 60% of patients aged less than 40 years, but in only 5% of patients above the age of 80. In this study, raising the cutoff value to various points between 600 microg/L and 1000 microg/L increased specificity, but this came at the cost of safety with more false negative test results. In this analysis, however, no stratification was made for clinical probability and the sample was small.
Recently, the investigators retrospectively assessed the value of a progressive cutoff adjusted to age in a wide sample of 1712 patients with suspected PE. This "new" cutoff was defined for D-Dimer test positivity in each patient by multiplying patient's age by 10. All patients with a D-Dimer level below 500 microg/L, and all patients above 50 years whose D-Dimer levels were inferior to their age multiplied by 10 were considered as having a negative D-Dimer test. Using the conventional cutoff, the VIDAS® D-Dimer test was negative (below 500 microg/L) in 512/1712 patients (29.9%) and none had PE during initial workup or the three-month follow-up period.
Using the cutoff adjusted to age (cutoff for D-Dimer test positivity equals age multiplied by ten, in microg/L), the figure was as follows. D-Dimer levels were below the adjusted cutoff in 615/1712 patients (35.9%, number needed to test 2.8). This represented a statistically significant 20.1% increase in the number of patients in whom the D-Dimer test was considered as negative, p=0.0002. Of these 615 patients, 5 had PE during initial workup (0.8%, 95 percent confidence interval 0.4 to 1.9%).
In a recently published a prospective outcome validation study of the age-adjusted cutoff in patients with a clinically suspected PE.13 The study included more than 3300 patients with suspected PE and showed that the three-month thromboembolic risk in patients with an nonhigh (or unlikely) clinical probability and a D-Dimer level between 500 microg/L and the age-adjusted cutoff was of 0.3% (95% CI: 0.1 5 to 1.7%). These results were in line with the one found in patients with a D-dimer level below the usual cutoff of 500 microg/L: 0.1% (95% CI: 0.0% to 0.7%). Moreover, in patients above 75 years the age-adjusted cutoff allowed to increase five-fold the number of patients in whom PE could be excluded without imaging test.
As PE and DVT are often considered as a similar disease, the investigators plan a prospective outcome study in which this progressive or "new" cutoff (age X 10 µg/L) will be used in patients with suspected DVT. In this multicentre study, clinical probability will be assessed by the Wells score (Table 1) and an ELISA D-dimer test (Vidas D-dimer Exclusion® test (Biomérieux, Marcy l'Etoile, Paris, France) or an immuno-turbidimetric test Innovance D-dimer (Siemens, Munich, Germany) will be performed. Patients with a nonhigh or "unlikely" clinical probability with the Wells score and a normal "new" D-dimer cutoff will be considered as not having DVT, and will be followed for three-months to assess possible VTE recurrences. The main outcome will be the rate of thromboembolic events during a formal 3-month follow-up in patients not anticoagulated on the basis of this strategy. Patients with a D-dimer measurement above the age-adjusted cutoff will be investigated with CUS as currently admitted.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
NA
SINGLE_GROUP
DIAGNOSTIC
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
interventional
Patients with D-dimer levels between the usual cutoff and the age-adjusted cutoff will be left untreated and followed-up for three months
Three-month thromboembolic risk in patient with D-dimer levels between the usual cut-off and the age-adjusted cut-off
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Three-month thromboembolic risk in patient with D-dimer levels between the usual cut-off and the age-adjusted cut-off
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Exclusion Criteria
* Pregnancy.
* Patients anticoagulated for a disease other than venous thromboembolism (for instance, atrial fibrillation)
* Concommitant PE suspicion
* Life expectancy less than 3 months
* Absence of informed consent
* Incapacity to deliver informed consent
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
The Ottawa Hospital
OTHER
University Medical Center Groningen
OTHER
University Hospital, Geneva
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Marc Righini
Prof
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Marc Righini, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
University Hospital, Geneva
Grégoire Le Gal, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Ottawa University Hospital
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Foothills Medical Centre
Calgary, Calgary/Alberta, Canada
Hamilton General Hospital
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Hôpital Monfort
Monfort, Ontario, Canada
Hopital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Jewish General Hospital
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Royal University Hospital
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
Providence Health Care
Vancouver, Vancouver/British Columbia, Canada
Kingston General Hospital
Kingston, Ontario, , Canada
The Ottawa Hospital
Ottawa, , Canada
Thunder Bay regional Health Sciences center
Thunder Bay, Ontario, , Canada
University Health network
Toronto, Ontario, , Canada
Grégoire LE GAL
Brest, , France
Marc Righini
Geneva, , Switzerland
Geneva University Hospital
Geneva, , Switzerland
University Hospital of Geneva
Geneva, , Switzerland
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
Facility Contacts
Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
14-191
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.