Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 11, 2026

A Porcine Model of Acute Autologous Pulmonary Embolism
Published on: September 6, 2024
Is stand-alone D-dimer testing safe to rule out acute pulmonary embolism?
N van Es1, T van der Hulle2, H R Büller1
1Department of Vascular Medicine, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Abstract:
Essentials A stand-alone D-dimer below 750 μg/L has been proposed to rule out acute pulmonary embolism (PE). This was a post-hoc analysis on data from 6 studies comprising 7268 patients with suspected PE. The negative predictive value of a D-dimer <750 μg/L ranged from 79% to 96% in various subgroups. Stand-alone D-dimer testing seems to be unsafe to rule out PE in all patients.
Summary:
Background Recently, stand-alone D-dimer testing at a positivity threshold of 750 μg L-1 has been proposed as a safe and efficient approach to rule out acute pulmonary embolism (PE), without additional imaging, but this approach needs validation. Objectives To evaluate stand-alone D-dimer testing at a positivity threshold of 750 μg L-1 to rule out PE. Methods Individual data from 7268 patients with suspected PE previously enrolled in six prospective management studies were used. Patients were assessed by the Wells rule followed by quantitative D-dimer testing in those with a 'PE unlikely' score. Patients were classified post hoc as having a negative (< 750 μg L-1 ) or positive (≥ 750 μg L-1 ) D-dimer. Using a one-stage meta-analytic approach, the negative predictive value (NPV) of stand-alone D-dimer testing was evaluated overall and in different risk subgroups. Results The pooled incidence of PE was 23% (range, 13-42%). Overall, 44% of patients had a D-dimer < 750 μg L-1 , of whom 2.8% were diagnosed with PE at baseline or during 3-month follow-up (NPV, 97.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 94.9-98.5). The NPV was highest in patients with a low probability of PE according to the Wells rule (99.2%; 95% CI, 98.6-99.5%) and lowest in those with a high probability of PE (79.3%; 95% CI, 53.0-92.8%). The NPVs in patients with active cancer, patients with previous venous thromboembolism and inpatients were 96.2% (95% CI, 85.6-99.1%), 94.7% (95% CI, 88.6-97.6%) and 92.7% (95% CI, 79.3-97.7%), respectively. Conclusions Our findings suggest that stand-alone D-dimer testing at a positivity threshold of 750 μg L-1 is not safe to rule out acute PE.
Insights
A stand-alone D-dimer test below 750 μg/L is proposed to rule out acute pulmonary embolism (PE). However, this study found it unsafe for all patients, with varying negative predictive values across subgroups.
Area of Science:
- Emergency Medicine
- Diagnostic Testing
- Cardiology
Background:
- A positivity threshold of 750 μg L-1 for stand-alone D-dimer testing has been proposed to rule out acute pulmonary embolism (PE).
- This approach aims for safe and efficient PE diagnosis without additional imaging.
- Validation of this diagnostic strategy is necessary.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the safety and efficacy of stand-alone D-dimer testing at a 750 μg L-1 threshold for ruling out PE.
- To determine the negative predictive value (NPV) of this threshold across diverse patient subgroups.
Main Methods:
- A post-hoc analysis of individual data from 7268 patients with suspected PE across six prospective studies.
- Patients were stratified using the Wells rule, followed by quantitative D-dimer testing for those with 'PE unlikely' scores.
- A meta-analytic approach assessed the NPV of D-dimer < 750 μg L-1 overall and in risk subgroups.
Main Results:
- The pooled incidence of PE was 23%. Overall, 44% of patients had a D-dimer < 750 μg L-1, with a 2.8% PE diagnosis rate (NPV 97.2%).
- The NPV was highest in low-probability PE patients (99.2%) and lowest in high-probability PE patients (79.3%).
- NPVs were also reported for patients with active cancer (96.2%), previous venous thromboembolism (94.7%), and inpatients (92.7%).
Conclusions:
- Stand-alone D-dimer testing at a 750 μg L-1 threshold is not universally safe for ruling out acute PE.
- The NPV varies significantly across different patient risk profiles.
- Clinical decisions should consider patient-specific risk factors alongside D-dimer results.
Related Concept Videos
Pulmonary Embolism II: Diagnostic Studies and Interprofessional Care
Pulmonary Embolism III: Nursing Management
Pulmonary Embolism I: Introduction
Venous Thrombosis II: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies
Venous Thrombosis III: Interprofessional Care
Acute Coronary Syndrome III: Diagnostic Studies

