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.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
62 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