BACKGROUND: With suspected deep venous thrombosis and normal results on proximal vein ultrasonography, a negative d-dimer result may exclude thrombosis and a positive D-dimer result may be an indication for venography. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the safety of 2 diagnostic strategies for deep venous thrombosis. DESIGN: Randomized, multicenter trial. SETTING:Four university hospitals. PATIENTS: 810 outpatients with suspected deep venous thrombosis and negative results on proximal vein ultrasonography. INTERVENTIONS: Erythrocyte agglutination D-dimer testing followed by no further testing if the result was negative and venography if the result was positive (experimental) or ultrasonography repeated after 1 week in all patients (control). MEASUREMENTS: Symptomatic deep venous thrombosis diagnosed initially and symptomatic venous thromboembolism during 6 months of follow-up. RESULTS: Nineteen of 408 patients (4.7%) in the D-dimer group and 3 of 402 patients (0.7%) in the repeated ultrasonography group initially received a diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis (P < 0.001). During follow-up of patients without a diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis on initial testing, 8 patients (2.1% [95% CI, 0.9% to 4.0%]) in the D-dimer group and 5 patients (1.3% [CI, 0.4% to 2.9%]) in the repeated ultrasonography group developed symptomatic venous thromboembolism (difference, 0.8 percentage point [CI, -1.1 to 2.9 percentage points]; P > 0.2). Venous thromboembolism occurred in 1.0% (CI, 0.2% to 2.8%) of those with a negative D-dimer result. LIMITATIONS: Seventy patients (8.6%) deviated from the diagnostic protocols, and 9 patients (1.1%) had inadequate follow-up. CONCLUSION: In outpatients with suspected deep venous thrombosis who initially had normal results on ultrasonography of the proximal veins, a strategy based on D-dimer testing followed by no further testing if the result was negative and venography if the result was positive had acceptable safety and did not differ from the safety of a strategy based on withholding anticoagulant therapy and routinely repeating ultrasonography after 1 week.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: With suspected deep venous thrombosis and normal results on proximal vein ultrasonography, a negative d-dimer result may exclude thrombosis and a positive D-dimer result may be an indication for venography. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the safety of 2 diagnostic strategies for deep venous thrombosis. DESIGN: Randomized, multicenter trial. SETTING: Four university hospitals. PATIENTS: 810 outpatients with suspected deep venous thrombosis and negative results on proximal vein ultrasonography. INTERVENTIONS: Erythrocyte agglutination D-dimer testing followed by no further testing if the result was negative and venography if the result was positive (experimental) or ultrasonography repeated after 1 week in all patients (control). MEASUREMENTS: Symptomatic deep venous thrombosis diagnosed initially and symptomatic venous thromboembolism during 6 months of follow-up. RESULTS: Nineteen of 408 patients (4.7%) in the D-dimer group and 3 of 402 patients (0.7%) in the repeated ultrasonography group initially received a diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis (P < 0.001). During follow-up of patients without a diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis on initial testing, 8 patients (2.1% [95% CI, 0.9% to 4.0%]) in the D-dimer group and 5 patients (1.3% [CI, 0.4% to 2.9%]) in the repeated ultrasonography group developed symptomatic venous thromboembolism (difference, 0.8 percentage point [CI, -1.1 to 2.9 percentage points]; P > 0.2). Venous thromboembolism occurred in 1.0% (CI, 0.2% to 2.8%) of those with a negative D-dimer result. LIMITATIONS: Seventy patients (8.6%) deviated from the diagnostic protocols, and 9 patients (1.1%) had inadequate follow-up. CONCLUSION: In outpatients with suspected deep venous thrombosis who initially had normal results on ultrasonography of the proximal veins, a strategy based on D-dimer testing followed by no further testing if the result was negative and venography if the result was positive had acceptable safety and did not differ from the safety of a strategy based on withholding anticoagulant therapy and routinely repeating ultrasonography after 1 week.
Authors: Shannon M Bates; Roman Jaeschke; Scott M Stevens; Steven Goodacre; Philip S Wells; Matthew D Stevenson; Clive Kearon; Holger J Schunemann; Mark Crowther; Stephen G Pauker; Regina Makdissi; Gordon H Guyatt Journal: Chest Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Jan Jacques Michiels; Janneke Maria Michiels; Wim Moossdorff; Mildred Lao; Hanny Maasland; Gualtiero Palareti Journal: World J Crit Care Med Date: 2015-02-04
Authors: D-A Clevert; E M Jung; K Pfister; K Stock; G Schulte-Altedorneburg; C Fink; D-A Clevert; M Reiser Journal: Radiologe Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 0.635
Authors: G J Geersing; N P A Zuithoff; C Kearon; D R Anderson; A J Ten Cate-Hoek; J L Elf; S M Bates; A W Hoes; R A Kraaijenhagen; R Oudega; R E G Schutgens; S M Stevens; S C Woller; P S Wells; K G M Moons Journal: BMJ Date: 2014-03-10
Authors: Amra Hot; Norbert Benda; Patrick M Bossuyt; Oke Gerke; Werner Vach; Antonia Zapf Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2022-07-25 Impact factor: 4.612
Authors: Giampiero Avruscio; Giuseppe Camporese; Elena Campello; Enrico Bernardi; Paolo Persona; Christian Passarella; Franco Noventa; Marco Cola; Paolo Navalesi; Annamaria Cattelan; Ivo Tiberio; Annalisa Boscolo; Luca Spiezia; Paolo Simioni Journal: Clin Transl Sci Date: 2020-10-23 Impact factor: 4.689