Article

Safety and Feasibility of a Diagnostic Algorithm Combining Clinical Probability, d-Dimer Testing, and Ultrasonography for Suspected Upper Extremity Deep Venous Thrombosis: A Prospective Management Study.

Annals of internal medicine (Impact Factor: 16.1). 04/2014; 160(7):451-7. DOI: 10.7326/M13-2056
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Although well-established for suspected lower limb deep venous thrombosis, an algorithm combining a clinical decision score, d-dimer testing, and ultrasonography has not been evaluated for suspected upper extremity deep venous thrombosis (UEDVT).
To assess the safety and feasibility of a new diagnostic algorithm in patients with clinically suspected UEDVT.
Diagnostic management study. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01324037) SETTING: 16 hospitals in Europe and the United States.
406 inpatients and outpatients with suspected UEDVT.
The algorithm consisted of the sequential application of a clinical decision score, d-dimer testing, and ultrasonography. Patients were first categorized as likely or unlikely to have UEDVT; in those with an unlikely score and normal d-dimer levels, UEDVT was excluded. All other patients had (repeated) compression ultrasonography. The primary outcome was the 3-month incidence of symptomatic UEDVT and pulmonary embolism in patients with a normal diagnostic work-up.
The algorithm was feasible and completed in 390 of the 406 patients (96%). In 87 patients (21%), an unlikely score combined with normal d-dimer levels excluded UEDVT. Superficial venous thrombosis and UEDVT were diagnosed in 54 (13%) and 103 (25%) patients, respectively. All 249 patients with a normal diagnostic work-up, including those with protocol violations (n = 16), were followed for 3 months. One patient developed UEDVT during follow-up, for an overall failure rate of 0.4% (95% CI, 0.0% to 2.2%).
This study was not powered to show the safety of the substrategies. d-Dimer testing was done locally.
The combination of a clinical decision score, d-dimer testing, and ultrasonography can safely and effectively exclude UEDVT. If confirmed by other studies, this algorithm has potential as a standard approach to suspected UEDVT.
None.

5 Followers
 · 
76 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Central venous catheters (CVC) play an essential role in the management of cancer patients. Venous thrombosis is a common complication of CVC. The incidence of CVC-associated venous thromboembolism (CVC-VTE) is 1.7 per 1000 catheter days. Risk factors for CVC-VTE include the patient's underlying cancer, a history of previous thrombotic events and the location and type of CVC. Anticoagulant prophylaxis is not effective for CVC-VTE. Anticoagulation alone is the preferred initial treatment for CVC-VTE. CVC removal may be considered in refractory cases or when anticoagulation is contraindicated. Thrombolytic therapy is reserved for patients with limb-threatening thrombosis or thrombosis unresponsive to conventional treatment. Anticoagulation should be continued for at least 3 months or as long as the CVC is present.
    Expert Review of Hematology 08/2014; 7(5):1-18. DOI:10.1586/17474086.2014.954541 · 2.14 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Venous thromboembolism is a common complication in cancer patients, and thromboembolism is the second most common cause of death after cancer progression. A number of clinical practice guidelines provide recommendations for the management of cancer-associated thrombosis. However, the guidelines lack recommendations covering commonly encountered clinical challenges (for example, thrombocytopenia, recurrent venous thromboembolism, etc.) for which little or no evidence exists. Accordingly, recommendations were developed to provide expert guidance to medical oncologists and other health care professionals caring for patients with cancer-associated thrombosis. The current expert consensus was developed by a team of 21 clinical experts. For each identified clinical challenge, the literature in medline, embase, and Evidence Based Medicine Reviews was systematically reviewed. The quality of the evidence was assessed, summarized, and graded. Consensus statements were generated, and the experts voted anonymously using a modified Delphi process on their level of agreement with the various statements. Statements were progressively revised through separate voting iterations and were then finalized. Clinicians using these recommendations and suggestions should tailor patient management according to the risks and benefits of the treatment options, patient values and preferences, and local cost and resource allocations.
    02/2015; 22(1):49-59. DOI:10.3747/co.22.2392