@article {Tucke155, author = {Alexander A Tuck and Harriet L White and Badr A Abdalla and Gwendolen J Cartwright and Katherine R Figg and Emily N Murphy and Benjamin C Pyrke and Mark A Reynolds and Rana M Taha and Hasan N Haboubi}, title = {To scan or not to scan {\textendash} D-dimers and computed tomography pulmonary angiography in the era of COVID-19}, volume = {21}, number = {2}, pages = {e155--e160}, year = {2021}, doi = {10.7861/clinmed.2020-0664}, publisher = {Royal College of Physicians}, abstract = {The COVID-19 pandemic has had many ramifications on healthcare delivery and practice. As part of this, utilising biomarkers to risk stratify patients has become increasingly popular. During the COVID-19 pandemic the use of D-dimer has increased due to the evidence of COVID-19 induced thrombo-embolic disease. We evaluated the use of D-dimer on all hospital admissions during the peak of the pandemic and evaluated its sensitivity in diagnosing pulmonary embolic disease (PE). Patients without COVID-19 infection were as likely to have evidence of PE as their COVID-positive counterparts. However, the sensitivity of a D-dimer was higher in COVID-positive patients at a lower D-dimer level (\>1,500 μg/L, sensitivity 81\%, specificity 70\%) than in those without clinical, immunological or radiological evidence of COVID-19 infection (D-dimer \>2,000 μg/L, sensitivity 80\%, specificity 76\%). These data suggest higher D-dimer thresholds should be considered for the exclusion of pulmonary emboli.}, issn = {1470-2118}, URL = {https://www.rcpjournals.org/content/21/2/e155}, eprint = {https://www.rcpjournals.org/content/21/2/e155.full.pdf}, journal = {Clinical Medicine} }