AzTrials
AzTrials

Pulmonary EmbolismRELAX-PENCT02601846

Age-adjusted D-dimer Cut-off to Rule Out Pulmonary Embolism in the Emergency Department : A Real Life Impact Study

An observational study of Pulmonary Embolism, run by University Hospital, Geneva at 10 sites in 3 countries.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

A multicentre multinational prospective management outcome study has recently proven the safety of a diagnostic strategy combining clinical probability assessment with an age-adjusted D-dimer cut-off, defined as a value of (age x 10) in patients > 50 years, for ruling out PE in outpatients, with a very low likelihood… Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and older
Conditions the study is for
Pulmonary Embolism
How many people
1,507 participants
Where
10 sitesin 3 countries
Study dates
Nov 2015to Jun 2019
Phase
Observational
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 years and older
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Study population: All consecutive patients admitted to the emergency department with suspected PE defined as acute onset of new or worsening shortness of breath or chest pain without any other obvious etiology in whom PE has been considered ruled out by negative D-dimers using an age-adjusted cut-off will be screened for inclusion. Those with non-high probability and negative D-dimer (PE excluded by the non-invasive strategy using "new" D-dimer cut-off) will be included and followed-up for 3 months. The aim of including both patients above and under 50 years of age is to be able to compare the difference in thromboembolic event rates between patients with a D-dimer level between 500 µg/L and their age-ajusted cut-off and those with a D-dimer < 500 µg/L.

Who may be able to join

  • Consecutive out patients with suspected PE in whom PE has been considered ruled out by negative D-dimers using an age-adjusted cut-off.

Who cannot join

  • Life expectancy less than 3 months.
  • Geographic inaccessibility for follow-up.
  • Therapeutic anticoagulation for any indication.
  • Pregnancy.
  • Age less than 18.

Trial locations and contacts

10 sites in 3 countries.

10 sites in 3 countries

France5 sites
  • Albert Trinh-Duc

    Agen

  • Angers Univeristy Hospital

    Angers

  • Brest University Hospital

    Brest

  • Jeannot Schmidt

    Clermont-Ferrand

  • Guy Meyer

    Paris

Other trials in France

Switzerland4 sites
  • Hôpital Fribourgeois HFR

    Fribourg

  • Geneva University Hospitals

    Geneva

  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois

    Lausanne

  • Groupement Hospitalier de l'Ouest Lémanique

    Nyon

Other trials in Switzerland

Belgium1 site
  • Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc

    Brussels

Other trials in Belgium

About this study

A multicentre multinational prospective management outcome study has recently proven the safety of a diagnostic strategy combining clinical probability assessment with an age-adjusted D-dimer cut-off, defined as a value of (age x 10) in patients > 50 years, for ruling out PE in outpatients, with a very low likelihood of subsequent symptomatic VTE. Moreover, this study showed that such a strategy increased the diagnostic yield of D-dimers, as it allowed ruling out PE without further investigation in a significantly higher proportion of patients than when using standard cut-off, particularly so in patients 75 years or older.

The objective of the present study is to confirm in a prospective cohort of "real life" patients the usefulness of the age-adjusted D-dimer cut-off to rule out PE in patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected PE.

Read the detailed description

BACKGROUND

PE diagnostic strategies Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a frequently suspected diagnosis in the emergency room (ER) in patients presenting with shortness of breath and/or chest pain without any obvious cause identified. Historically, PE diagnosis required a pulmonary angiography, a costly and invasive procedure with associated morbidity and even mortality. Over the last 25 years, evolving diagnostic strategies have been developed and widely validated in prospective multicentre management outcome studies, with the aim of confirming or excluding the diagnosis of PE safely enough to avoid realising pulmonary angiography. Nowadays, PE diagnosis therefore relies on diagnostic strategies, including sequential evaluation of clinical probability, measurement of plasma D-dimer levels and most often CT pulmonary angiogram (CTPA), rather than a standalone test.

The initial and essential step is the assessment of pre-test clinical probability, either by gestalt or by validated clinical prediction rules (Wells rule of Geneva score). This initial evaluation separates patients into different groups of PE prevalence, and thus directly influences the negative and positive predictive values of the diagnostic tests used in these patients.

D-dimer measurement Plasma D-dimer measurement has been extensively evaluated for the exclusion of PE in outpatients. The diagnostic usefulness of D-dimers lies in their high sensitivity and hence their capacity to exclude PE when below a certain cut-off ("negative D-dimers") without further investigations. Indeed, in patients with "non-high" clinical probability (low and intermediate groups in a three category score or unlikely group in a dichotomic score), a highly sensitive negative D-dimer test safely excludes PE without additional investigations. Sensitive D-dimer tests include those performed by the ELISA technique (median sensitivity 99%; Vidas®, Stratus®, AxSYM®) and by quantitative latex methods (median sensitivity 96%; STA Liatest®, Tinaquant®). In patients with high clinical probability or likely PE, the negative predictive value of even a highly sensitive D-dimer test will be insufficient to exclude PE. D-dimer measurement is thus not used in these patients.

Performance of D-dimers in elderly patients The specificity of the ELISA and quantitative latex D-dimer tests for venous thromboembolism (VTE) is limited, ranging from 35 to 40%. Indeed, D-dimers increase in various clinical situations, including cancer, infectious or inflammatory states, pregnancy or during post-operative periods, but also with age, leading to reduced specificity of the test in elderly patients. In other words, the probability of having a negative test result is reduced, so that the number of patients needed to test (NNT) to exclude one PE without further investigations is higher. Indeed, whereas PE can be ruled out in presence of non-high clinical probability and negative D-dimers in one out of 3 outpatients presenting to the emergency room with suspected PE, it can be excluded in only one out of 20 patients > 80 years. As current diagnostic strategies for PE include imaging (most often CTPA) in patients with positive D-dimers, lack of specificity of D-dimers in the elderly leads to a high proportion of these patients undergoing CTPA.

Age-adjusted D-dimer cut-off The question of a higher D-dimer cut-off in elderly patients was raised a decade ago, but studies confirming the potential security of such a strategy by retrospectively applying age-adjusted cut-offs to large prospective cohorts of consecutive patients with suspected VTE were published between 2010 and 2012 and confirmed the safety of using age-adjusted cut-offs on an overall population of several thousands of patients.

A progressive age-adjusted D-dimer cut-off (agex10 microg/L in patients > 50 years) was retrospectively derived and validated in a sample of 1712 patients with suspected PE. The retrospective validation study showed that the age-adjusted cut-off could increase by around 20% the number of patients in whom the D-dimer test was considered negative, without increasing the proportion of false-negative results when compared to the standard cut-off (<500 microg/L). The increase in the diagnostic yield of D-dimers was particularly pronounced in patients over 80 years, as the age-adjusted cut-off allowed an increase in the proportion of "negative" D-dimers from 9% to 21%, without any false negative result.

This progressive age-adjusted D-dimer cut-off has been prospectively validated in the ADJUST-PE study, a large multicentre multinational (19 centres in Belgium, France, the Netherlands, and Switzerland) management outcome study published at the beginning of this year. All consecutive patients who presented to the emergency department with clinically suspected PE were assessed by a sequential diagnostic work-up using clinical probability assessment (by one of the two following scores: simplified, revised Geneva score or the two-level Wells score for PE), highly sensitive D-dimer measurement (ELISA or immuno-turbidimetric assays), and CTPA. Patients with a D-dimer level below their age-adjusted cut-off did not undergo further investigations and were thus left without anticoagulant treatment and followed-up for a period of 3 months.

The ADJUST-PE study included a total of 3346 patients with suspected PE, from whom 22 were excluded (D-dimers not performed in 21 and 1 consent withdrawal), leaving 3324 patients included for the analysis. The subgroup of particular interest was of course patients having D-dimer levels between 500 microg/L and their age-adjusted cut-off (n=337). None of these patients was lost to follow-up and 6 patients received therapeutic anticoagulation for another indication than VTE. Of the remaining 331, 7 died and 7 had suspected VTE. Only one of these 14 events was adjudicated as confirmed VTE (nonfatal PE). The so-called "failure-rate" of the age-adjusted cut-off was thus very low at 1 / 331 (0.3%; 95% CI 0.1%-1.7%), so that this strategy can be considered as very safe.

In the ADJUSt-PE study, the overall number of patients ≥ 75 years was 766, of whom 673 had non-high clinical probability (87.9%). Among these 673 patients, the proportion of patients with D-dimer levels <500 microg/L was 43/673 (6.4%; 95% CI 4.8%-8.5%). Additional 157/673 patients (23.3%) had D-dimer levels below their age-adjusted cut-off. This means that among the patients ≥ 75 years with suspected PE and non-high clinical probability, 200/673 (29.7%; 95% CI 26.4%-33.3%) had a "negative" D-dimer result when age-adjusted cut-off was used. After excluding 5 of these patients who received anticoagulation for another indication, none of the remaining 195 patients experienced confirmed VTE during the 3 month follow-up (0.0%; 95% CI 0.0%-1.9%). The diagnostic yield of D-dimers was thus particularly increased by using an age-adjusted cut-off in patients ≥ 75 years, as the number of patients needed to test to exclude one PE diminished from 16 with conventional cut-off to 3.4 with age-adjusted cut-off, a figure that corresponds to the NNT in the general population in previous studies.

Increasing the proportion of patients in whom PE can be ruled out based on clinical probability assessment and D-dimer measurement without further testing is particularly interesting in older patients. Indeed, the higher prevalence of renal failure in this population increases the potential risk of contrast-induced nephropathy related to CTPA or even contra-indicates this test, and ventilation-perfusion lung scan (which can be performed in patients with severe renal failure) provides a high proportion of inconclusive results in older patients. Moreover, ruling out PE based on clinical probability and a simple blood test could contribute to reduce the time spent in the emergency department and the costs related to PE diagnostic work-up. Indeed, a previous study had shown that D-dimer measurement with conventional cut-off was highly cost-saving in patients less than 80 years, but not in patients over 80 years. Using an age-adjusted D-dimer cut-off dramatically increases the proportion of patients in whom PE can be ruled out and is thus highly likely to reduce the costs of PE diagnosis in the emergency department.

Being tested
No intervention
Medical subject headings
Pulmonary Embolism

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • No interventionOther

    This is an observational study, without any specific intervention.

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. The incidence of symptomatic thromboembolic events during follow-up in patients with PE excluded based on a negative D-dimer using the age-adjusted cutoff

    Adjudicated objectively confirmed pulmonary embolism and/or deep vein thrombosis

    Measured: Three months

Secondary outcomes (1)
  1. Additional diagnostic yield of the age-adjusted D-dimer cut-off compared with the standard cut-off of 500µg/L

    Proportion of patients with a non-high clinical probability and a D-dimer result between 500µg/L and their age-adjusted cut-off value

    Measured: Three months

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted10 Nov 2015 (estimated)
  2. Study startNov 2015
  3. Primary completionJun 2019
  4. Study completionJun 2019

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Observational
Observational model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrolment
1,507 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT02601846
Sponsor's protocol ID
Geneva 15-010
Acronym
RELAX-PE
Status last verified
May 2021
First submitted
14 Sep 2015
Last updated
6 May 2021
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No

Publications

  • Righini M, Van Es J, Den Exter PL, Roy PM, Verschuren F, Ghuysen A, Rutschmann OT, Sanchez O, Jaffrelot M, Trinh-Duc A, Le Gall C, Moustafa F, Principe A, Van Houten AA, Ten Wolde M, Douma RA, Hazelaar G, Erkens PM, Van Kralingen KW, Grootenboers MJ, Durian MF, Cheung YW, Meyer G, Bounameaux H, Huisman MV, Kamphuisen PW, Le Gal G. Age-adjusted D-dimer cutoff levels to rule out pulmonary embolism: the ADJUST-PE study. JAMA. 2014 Mar 19;311(11):1117-24. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.2135.

    PubMed 24643601
  • Robert-Ebadi H, Robin P, Hugli O, Verschuren F, Trinh-Duc A, Roy PM, Schmidt J, Fumeaux T, Meyer G, Hayoz D, Carron PN, Salaun PY, Sarasin F, Rutschmann O, Le Gal G, Righini M. Impact of the Age-Adjusted D-Dimer Cutoff to Exclude Pulmonary Embolism: A Multinational Prospective Real-Life Study (the RELAX-PE Study). Circulation. 2021 May 4;143(18):1828-1830. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.052780. Epub 2021 May 3. No abstract available.

    PubMed 33939529

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

An observational study of Pulmonary Embolism, run by University Hospital, Geneva at 10 sites in 3 countries.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 5 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 6 May 2021. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 10 sites in France, Switzerland, Belgium. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

The incidence of symptomatic thromboembolic events during follow-up in patients with PE excluded based on a negative D-dimer using the age-adjusted cutoff (time frame: Three months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02601846, which also lists 2 linked publications.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 6 May 2021.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in