Literature DB >> 19620161

Predicting deep venous thrombosis in pregnancy: out in "LEFt" field?

Wee-Shian Chan1, Agnes Lee, Frederick A Spencer, Mark Crowther, Marc Rodger, Tim Ramsay, Jeffrey S Ginsberg.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Clinicians' assessment of pretest probability, based on subjective criteria or prediction rules, is central to the diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis (DVT). Pretest probability assessment for DVT diagnosis has never been evaluated in pregnant women.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of clinicians' subjective assessment of pretest probability for DVT diagnosis and identify prediction variables that could be used for pretest probability assessment in pregnant women with suspected DVT.
DESIGN: A cross-sectional study conducted over 7 years (March 2000 to April 2007).
SETTING: 5 university-affiliated, tertiary care centers in Canada. PATIENTS: 194 unselected pregnant women with suspected first DVT. INTERVENTION: Diagnosis of DVT was established with abnormal compression ultrasonography at presentation or on serial imaging. Pretest probability by subjective assessment was recorded by thrombosis experts for each patient before knowledge of results. MEASUREMENTS: The sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and likelihood ratios of subjective pretest probability assessment and their corresponding 95% CIs were calculated on the basis of the diagnosis of DVT. Patients were DVT positive if they had diagnostic compression ultrasonography at initial or serial testing or symptomatic venous thromboembolism on follow-up. Patients were DVT negative if they had negative compression ultrasonography at presentation and no venous thromboembolism on follow-up. A prediction rule for assessing DVT was derived, and an internal validation study was done to explore its performance.
RESULTS: The prevalence of DVT was 8.8%. Clinicians' subjective assessment of pretest probability categorized patients into 2 groups: low pretest probability (two thirds of patients) with a low prevalence of DVT (1.5% [95% CI, 0.4% to 5.4%]) and a negative predictive value of 98.5% (CI, 94.6% to 99.6%), and nonlow pretest probability with a higher prevalence of DVT (24.6% [CI, 15.5% to 36.7%]). Three variables (symptoms in the left leg [L], calf circumference difference > or = 2 cm [E], and first trimester presentation [Ft]) were highly predictive of DVT in pregnant patients. LIMITATIONS: Few outcomes occurred. Altogether, 17 events were diagnosed during the study. The prediction rule derived should be validated on an independent sample before applying it to clinical practice.
CONCLUSION: Subjective assessment of pretest probability seems to exclude DVT when the pretest probability is low. Moreover, 3 objective variables ("LEFt") may improve the accuracy of the diagnosis of DVT in pregnancy. Prospective validation studies are needed. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19620161     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-2-200907210-00004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  14 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

Review 2.  Diagnosis of suspected venous thromboembolism.

Authors:  Clive Kearon
Journal:  Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program       Date:  2016-12-02

3.  Venous thromboembolism and stroke in pregnancy.

Authors:  Kelley McLean; Mary Cushman
Journal:  Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program       Date:  2016-12-02

4.  American Society of Hematology 2018 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: venous thromboembolism in the context of pregnancy.

Authors:  Shannon M Bates; Anita Rajasekhar; Saskia Middeldorp; Claire McLintock; Marc A Rodger; Andra H James; Sara R Vazquez; Ian A Greer; John J Riva; Meha Bhatt; Nicole Schwab; Danielle Barrett; Andrea LaHaye; Bram Rochwerg
Journal:  Blood Adv       Date:  2018-11-27

5.  Accurate diagnosis of iliac vein thrombosis in pregnancy with magnetic resonance direct thrombus imaging (MRDTI).

Authors:  Charlotte E A Dronkers; Alexandr Srámek; Menno V Huisman; Frederikus A Klok
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2016-12-13

6.  Predicting deep venous thrombosis in pregnancy: external validation of the LEFT clinical prediction rule.

Authors:  Marc Righini; Christelle Jobic; Françoise Boehlen; Jean Broussaud; François Becker; Morgan Jaffrelot; Marc Blondon; Bruno Guias; Grégoire Le Gal
Journal:  Haematologica       Date:  2012-10-12       Impact factor: 9.941

Review 7.  Imaging of acute pulmonary embolism.

Authors:  Maria Komissarova; Suzanne Chong; Kirk Frey; Baskaran Sundaram
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2012-11-14

8.  Safety of withholding anticoagulation in pregnant women with suspected deep vein thrombosis following negative serial compression ultrasound and iliac vein imaging.

Authors:  Wee-Shian Chan; Frederick A Spencer; Agnes Y Y Lee; Sanjeev Chunilal; James D Douketis; Marc Rodger; Jeffrey S Ginsberg
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2013-01-14       Impact factor: 8.262

9.  Severe venous thromboembolism in the puerperal period caused by thrombosis: A case report.

Authors:  Ji Zhang; Jing-Li Sun
Journal:  World J Clin Cases       Date:  2020-04-06       Impact factor: 1.337

Review 10.  Risk of recurrence after venous thromboembolism in men and women: patient level meta-analysis.

Authors:  James Douketis; Alberto Tosetto; Maura Marcucci; Trevor Baglin; Benilde Cosmi; Mary Cushman; Paul Kyrle; Daniela Poli; R Campbell Tait; Alfonso Iorio
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2011-02-24
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.