Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism remains a challenge for clinicians as its differential diagnosis is wide. The use of sequential diagnostic strategies based on the assessment of clinical probability, D-dimer measurement, and computed tomography pulmonary angiography have been validated in large prospective outcome studies. D-dimer measurement at a standard cutoff of 500 μg/L has gained wide acceptance to rule out pulmonary embolism in around 20 to 30% of patients with a clinically suspected pulmonary embolism. To improve the efficiency of D-dimer measurement, different ways of selecting a higher, albeit safe cutoff were explored: the age-adjusted D-dimer cutoff and the clinical adapted D-dimer cutoff. While both have been prospectively validated in large studies, some differences do exist. In particular, the prevalence of pulmonary embolism in these different validation studies was very different. Overall, the age-adjusted cutoff seems to be safer and less efficient, while the clinical probability adapted cutoff seems more efficient and less safe. Here, we report the available data regarding these two different ways to increase the diagnostic yield of D-dimer. Also, well beyond the accuracy of these adjusted/adapted cutoffs, some external factors, such as the prevalence of pulmonary embolism in the tested population and the clinical setting, have an important impact of the negative predictive value and on the overall efficiency of these cutoffs. Therefore, we also discuss which cutoff should be used according to the expected prevalence of the disease and according to the clinical setting.