Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • For authors
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Author FAQs
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • For authors
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Author FAQs
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions

Pulmonary embolism in COVID-19: D-dimer threshold selection should not be based on maximising Youden's index

Daniël A. Korevaar, Josien van Es
European Respiratory Journal 2021 57: 2004279; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.04279-2020
Daniël A. Korevaar
Dept of Respiratory Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Josien van Es
Dept of Respiratory Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

D-dimer thresholds for ruling-out pulmonary embolism should not be selected based on the “optimal” Youden's index https://bit.ly/2Mfp4on

To the Editor:

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has raised new challenges in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) [1]. Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are at increased risk of developing venous thromboembolism, but symptoms of COVID-19 and PE may overlap, which makes it difficult to identify those with a higher likelihood of PE. Simple and minimally invasive diagnostic algorithms that can safely rule-out PE in patients with COVID-19 are urgently needed. Therefore, we read with interest the recent paper by Mouhat et al. [2] in the European Respiratory Journal.

In their study, the authors retrospectively evaluated factors associated with PE among 162 hospitalised patients with severe COVID-19 who had undergone computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) as the reference standard for PE. They reported that two variables were significantly associated with PE: not receiving anticoagulant therapy and D-dimer testing. The authors report that they “identified a D-dimer cut-off value of 2590 ng·mL−1 to best predict occurrence of PE”. They propose that “our data plead in favour of a wider screening strategy for PE by performing CTPA in COVID-19 patients who have signs of clinical severity and D-dimer levels >2590 ng·mL−1”, and that “particular attention should be paid to search for potential PE in patients […] with a D-dimer level above 2590 ng·mL−1”. However, we believe that the rationale for selecting this D-dimer threshold is not clinically relevant, and that it cannot be safely applied in COVID-19 patients.

D-dimer testing is insufficiently accurate to be used as a standalone test in the diagnosis of PE [3]. Therefore, diagnostic algorithms such as the Wells’ rule and the YEARS criteria have been developed, in which D-dimer is used as a triage test [4, 5]. In patients with a low D-dimer (usually, a threshold of 500 or 1000 ng·mL−1 is applied), PE can safely be ruled-out without CTPA. In contrast, in those with a D-dimer above the threshold, subsequent CTPA needs to be performed. In these algorithms, D-dimer thresholds were selected based on the fact that they correspond to a negative predictive value (NPV) that is close to 100%, ensuring that PE can be safely ruled-out without further testing [6].

Whether similar D-dimer thresholds can be applied in COVID-19 patients suspected of PE is unknown, because COVID-19 triggers a hyperinflammatory state with endothelial activation and high D-dimer levels [7]. In their article, Mouhat et al. [2] propose a threshold of 2590 ng·mL−1. This threshold was not selected to obtain an NPV close to 100%, but it was based on the highest “Youden's index”. This works as follows: within the study population, for every D-dimer threshold, a corresponding sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing PE is calculated. If the D-dimer threshold is set at 0 ng·mL−1, every patient is considered “positive”, implying that sensitivity is 100% and specificity is 0%. When increasing the threshold, more patients will have a “negative” D-dimer, resulting in a decreasing sensitivity and an increasing specificity. Each possible D-dimer threshold corresponds to a pair of sensitivity and specificity, and these pairs can be plotted into a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (figure 5 in the article of Mouhat et al. [2]). The threshold that provides the highest Youden's index is the one that maximises the sum of (sensitivity + specificity). It is also the threshold that maximises the odds ratio in logistic regression modelling.

In most situations, selecting the positivity threshold for a biomarker based on the highest Youden's index may be statistically meaningful, but is clinically irrelevant. Not only is such data-driven selection of an “optimal” threshold likely to result in biased accuracy estimates and poor reproducibility [8], but it generally also leads to sensitivity and specificity parameters that are too low to, respectively, rule-out or rule-in the target condition with a sufficient level of certainty. In the study by Mouhat et al. [2], the proposed D-dimer threshold of 2590 ng·mL−1 leads to a sensitivity of 83.3% (95% CI 68.6–93.0) and a specificity of 83.8% (95% CI 73.8–91.1), corresponding to a positive predictive value of 72.9% (95% CI 61.7–81.8) and an NPV of 90.5% (95% CI 82.9–95.0). This implies that using this threshold in clinical practice would result in missing 17% of PE, which is unacceptable.

We believe that Mouhat et al. [2] should have provided an ROC table, showing sensitivity and specificity at multiple D-dimer thresholds, so that a threshold corresponding to an NPV close to 100% could have been identified, as this is clinically much more meaningful. We strongly urge physicians not to apply the threshold proposed by the authors in clinical practice, as this is likely to result in a considerable proportion of PE being missed. We also encourage researchers evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of markers such as D-dimer to select thresholds based on minimally acceptable targets of accuracy estimates rather than on maximising Youden's index [9]. There are considerable concerns regarding the quality of diagnostic accuracy and prediction model studies in the COVID-19 literature [10, 11]. It is crucial that researchers make efforts to improve this by applying the available methodological and reporting guidelines for such studies [12, 13].

Shareable PDF

Supplementary Material

This one-page PDF can be shared freely online.

Shareable PDF ERJ-04279-2020.Shareable

Footnotes

  • Conflict of interest: D.A. Korevaar has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: J. van Es has nothing to disclose.

  • Received November 20, 2020.
  • Accepted December 14, 2020.
  • Copyright ©ERS 2021
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Rosovsky RP,
    2. Grodzin C,
    3. Channick R, et al.
    Diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary embolism during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: a position paper from the National PERT Consortium. Chest 2020; 158: 2590–2601. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2020.08.2064
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. Mouhat B,
    2. Besutti M,
    3. Bouiller K, et al.
    Elevated D-dimers and lack of anticoagulation predict PE in severe COVID-19 patients. Eur Respir J 2020; 56: 2001811. doi:10.1183/13993003.01811-2020
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Gibson NS,
    2. Sohne M,
    3. Gerdes VE, et al.
    The importance of clinical probability assessment in interpreting a normal D-dimer in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. Chest 2008; 134: 789–793. doi:10.1378/chest.08-0344
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. ↵
    1. Wells PS,
    2. Anderson DR,
    3. Rodger M, et al.
    Excluding pulmonary embolism at the bedside without diagnostic imaging: management of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism presenting to the emergency department by using a simple clinical model and D-dimer. Ann Intern Med 2001; 135: 98–107. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-135-2-200107170-00010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. ↵
    1. van Es J,
    2. Beenen LF,
    3. Douma RA, et al.
    A simple decision rule including D-dimer to reduce the need for computed tomography scanning in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. J Thromb Haemost 2015; 13: 1428–1435. doi:10.1111/jth.13011
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Dronkers CEA,
    2. van der Hulle T,
    3. Le Gal G, et al.
    Towards a tailored diagnostic standard for future diagnostic studies in pulmonary embolism: communication from the SSC of the ISTH. J Thromb Haemost 2017; 15: 1040–1043. doi:10.1111/jth.13654
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. Varga Z,
    2. Flammer AJ,
    3. Steiger P, et al.
    Endothelial cell infection and endotheliitis in COVID-19. Lancet 2020; 395: 1417–1418. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30937-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Leeflang MM,
    2. Moons KG,
    3. Reitsma JB, et al.
    Bias in sensitivity and specificity caused by data-driven selection of optimal cutoff values: mechanisms, magnitude, and solutions. Clin Chem 2008; 54: 729–737. doi:10.1373/clinchem.2007.096032
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Korevaar DA,
    2. Gopalakrishna G,
    3. Cohen JF, et al.
    Targeted test evaluation: a framework for designing diagnostic accuracy studies with clear study hypotheses. Diagn Progn Res 2019; 3: 22. doi:10.1186/s41512-019-0069-2
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Wynants L,
    2. Van Calster B,
    3. Collins GS, et al.
    Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of Covid-19 infection: systematic review and critical appraisal. BMJ 2020; 369: m1328. doi:10.1136/bmj.m1328
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Collins GS,
    2. van Smeden M,
    3. Riley RD
    . COVID-19 prediction models should adhere to methodological and reporting standards. Eur Respir J 2020; 56: 2002643. doi:10.1183/13993003.02643-2020
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Cohen JF,
    2. Korevaar DA,
    3. Altman DG, et al.
    STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration. BMJ Open 2016; 6: e012799. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012799
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. Moons KG,
    2. Altman DG,
    3. Reitsma JB, et al.
    Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2015; 162: W1–W73. doi:10.7326/M14-0698
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
View this article with LENS
Vol 57 Issue 2 Table of Contents
European Respiratory Journal: 57 (2)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Pulmonary embolism in COVID-19: D-dimer threshold selection should not be based on maximising Youden's index
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
Pulmonary embolism in COVID-19: D-dimer threshold selection should not be based on maximising Youden's index
Daniël A. Korevaar, Josien van Es
European Respiratory Journal Feb 2021, 57 (2) 2004279; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.04279-2020

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Pulmonary embolism in COVID-19: D-dimer threshold selection should not be based on maximising Youden's index
Daniël A. Korevaar, Josien van Es
European Respiratory Journal Feb 2021, 57 (2) 2004279; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.04279-2020
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Shareable PDF
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

Agora

  • Clump material within drainage chest tubes contains diagnostic information
  • Leukocyte telomere length and mycophenolate therapy in CHP
  • Connexins and the pulmonary vascular response to hypoxia
Show more Agora

Correspondence

  • Fixed breathing protocols in multiple-breath washout testing in children
  • Fixed breathing protocols in multiple-breath washout testing in children
  • Connexins and the pulmonary vascular response to hypoxia
Show more Correspondence

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About the ERJ

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Reviewers
  • CME
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Submit a manuscript
  • ERS author centre

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • Podcasts
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN:  0903-1936
Online ISSN: 1399-3003

Copyright © 2021 by the European Respiratory Society