Literature DB >> 17112931

Diagnosis of lower limb deep venous thrombosis in emergency department patients: performance of Hamilton and modified Wells scores.

Rathan M Subramaniam1, Brad Snyder, Rebekah Heath, Fiona Tawse, Jamie Sleigh.   

Abstract

STUDY
OBJECTIVE: We validate and compare the Hamilton score for assessment of lower limb deep venous thrombosis with the modified Wells score.
METHODS: Consecutive patients presenting to the emergency department of a tertiary center for suspected lower limb deep venous thrombosis were prospectively recruited. Hamilton score and modified Wells score calculations, D-dimer, and complete (calf veins included), single lower limb ultrasonographic examination were performed for all patients. All patients with a negative ultrasonographic examination result for deep venous thrombosis were followed up for 3 months.
RESULTS: The study population consisted of 116 men and 193 women, with an average age of 55.6 years (SD 20.1). A total of 67 (21.7%) patients were diagnosed with deep venous thrombosis. Forty (59.7%) of these patients had isolated calf deep venous thrombosis, and the other 27 (40.3%) patients had proximal deep venous thrombosis. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), positive likelihood ratio (LR+), and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) for an unlikely Hamilton score (score < or = 2) and D-dimer were 99% (95% confidence interval [CI] 92% to 99.96%), 42 % (95% CI 36% to 49%), 32% (95% CI 26% to 39%), 99% (95% CI 95% to 99.98%), 1.7 (95% CI 1.52% to 1.9%), and 0.04 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.25), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, LR+ and LR- for an unlikely modified Wells score (score < or = 1) and D-dimer were 99% (95% CI 92% to 99.96%), 33 % (95% CI 27% to 39%), 29% (95% CI 23% to 35%), 99% (95% CI 93% to 99.97%), 1.47 (95% CI 1.34 to 1.62), and 0.05 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.32), respectively.
CONCLUSION: An unlikely probability of Hamilton score and a negative D-dimer may effectively exclude a lower limb deep venous thrombosis. Hamilton and modified Wells scores have similar performance characteristics.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17112931     DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2006.04.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Emerg Med        ISSN: 0196-0644            Impact factor:   5.721


  4 in total

1.  Diagnosis of DVT: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines.

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

2.  Application of 128-slice spiral CT combination scanning in the diagnosis of embolisms in pulmonary arteries and lower extremity veins.

Authors:  Linyou Wang; Wugen Kang; Maoheng Zu; Qingqiao Zhang; Jianmin Shen; Liang Wu; Dongguo Wang
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2013-11-25       Impact factor: 2.447

3.  Evaluation of the modified Wells score in predicting venous thromboembolic disease in patients with tuberculosis or HIV in a South African setting.

Authors:  Tweedy Keokgale; Sarah A van Blydenstein; Ishmail S Kalla
Journal:  South Afr J HIV Med       Date:  2022-03-23       Impact factor: 2.744

4.  Safety of a strategy combining D-dimer testing and whole-leg ultrasonography to rule out deep vein thrombosis.

Authors:  Synne G Fronas; Camilla T Jørgensen; Anders E A Dahm; Hilde S Wik; Jostein Gleditsch; Nezar Raouf; René Holst; F A Klok; Waleed Ghanima
Journal:  Blood Adv       Date:  2020-10-27
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.