Literature DB >> 2404142

Venous duplex imaging: should it replace hemodynamic tests for deep venous thrombosis?

A J Comerota1, M L Katz, L L Greenwald, E Leefmans, M Czeredarczuk, J V White.   

Abstract

Noninvasive diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis has traditionally relied on detection of alterations in venous hemodynamics. Although phleborheography is among the most sensitive tests, it is inadequate for diagnosing infrapopliteal and nonocclusive proximal thrombi and for surveillance of patients at high risk for deep venous thrombosis. Venous duplex imaging is a new technique being rapidly accepted, however, without the same critical analysis given to previous diagnostic modalities. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic acumen of venous duplex imaging compared to phleborheography and ascending phlebography in two distinct patient groups, and to determine whether patient selection, and thus the location or magnitude of thrombi have significant influence on these diagnostic tests. One hundred ten extremities in 103 patients were prospectively evaluated with venous duplex imaging, phleborheography, and ascending phlebography within the same 24-hour period. Patients were categorized into one of two groups: Diagnostic--patients evaluated because of clinical suspicion of acute deep venous thrombosis; and Surveillance--patients at high risk of postoperative deep venous thrombosis after total joint replacement, but not symptomatic. Patients in the diagnostic group had a greater frequency of deep venous thrombosis (p less than 0.001) and significantly more occluding above-knee thrombi (p = 0.054) compared to those in the surveillance group. Phleborheography detected 73% (27/37) of above-knee thrombi in the diagnostic group compared to 29% (2/7) in the surveillance group (p = 0.036). This difference was not noted with venous duplex imaging, which detected 100% of above-knee thrombi in both diagnostic and surveillance groups and 78% (7/9) of all below-knee thrombi.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2404142     DOI: 10.1067/mva.1990.16342

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vasc Surg        ISSN: 0741-5214            Impact factor:   4.268


  7 in total

Review 1.  Diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis.

Authors:  D Bergqvist; S E Bergentz
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  1990 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.352

2.  Meta-analysis of plethysmography and rheography in the diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis.

Authors:  T Locker; S Goodacre; F Sampson; A Webster; A J Sutton
Journal:  Emerg Med J       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 2.740

3.  Prospective study of deep vein thrombosis in patients with spinal cord injury not receiving anticoagulant therapy.

Authors:  S Matsumoto; K Suda; S Iimoto; K Yasui; M Komatsu; C Ushiku; M Takahata; Y Kobayashi; Y Tojo; K Fujita; A Minami
Journal:  Spinal Cord       Date:  2015-02-03       Impact factor: 2.772

4.  Duplex ultrasonography after total hip or knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  P S Ko; W F Chan; T H Siu; A Cheng; O B Lee; J J Lam
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2003-02-05       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 5.  A systematic review of the accuracy of ultrasound in the diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis in asymptomatic patients.

Authors:  Behrouz Kassaï; Jean-Pierre Boissel; Michel Cucherat; Sandrine Sonie; Nirav R Shah; Alain Leizorovicz
Journal:  Thromb Haemost       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 5.249

6.  Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography for deep vein thrombosis.

Authors:  Steve Goodacre; Fiona Sampson; Steve Thomas; Edwin van Beek; Alex Sutton
Journal:  BMC Med Imaging       Date:  2005-10-03       Impact factor: 1.930

7.  Early experience using duplex ultrasonography in the diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis; a prospective evaluation.

Authors:  P T Kennedy; W Loan; M Buckley; P Rice; P Hanley
Journal:  Ulster Med J       Date:  1999-11
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.