Literature DB >> 27639819

An analysis of deep vein thrombosis in burn patients (Part 1): Comparison of D-dimer and Doppler ultrasound as screening tools.

Rajeev B Ahuja1, Priya Bansal2, Gaurav S Pradhan3, Manju Subberwal4.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The high prevalence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) reported in prospective studies and the unreliability of clinical diagnosis mandates prospective screening for DVT in burn patients. Our study seeks to compare D-dimer and Doppler ultrasound (DUS) in search for a practical, inexpensive and a reliable screening tool.
METHODS: One hundred burn patients (inclusion criteria: 30-60% TBSA burn, >18 years of age, admitted within 48h of burn) were computer randomized into two equal groups. The study (prophylaxis) group received low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) (0.5mg/kg, twice daily-max 60mg/day) from day one, till discharge. Screening D-dimer assays and DUS of the lower extremities were performed on all 100 patients on day five, and then weekly, till discharge.
RESULTS: Signs and symptoms simulating DVT (pain, swelling, redness, warmth, positive Homans' and Moses' sign) were present in majority of patients with lower limb burns. 43/50 patients (86%) in the control group and 38/50 patients (76%) in the study (prophylaxis) group had positive D-dimer values (>0.5μg/ml) on the 5th post-burn day. D-dimer was positive in all the four patients identified with DVT. However, only 4/100 patients enrolled in the study demonstrated DVT on DUS. Thus, the specificity of the D-dimer assay was only 20% with a positive predictive value of 5%. Absolute D-dimer values were found to have no correlation to the extent of burns.
CONCLUSION: We conclude that D-dimer is not a useful screening tool for DVT in burns contrary to its accepted value in general trauma and medical patients.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd and ISBI. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  D-dimer; DVT in burns; DVT screening; Deep vein thrombosis

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27639819     DOI: 10.1016/j.burns.2016.08.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Burns        ISSN: 0305-4179            Impact factor:   2.744


  5 in total

1.  Anticoagulants for thrombosis prophylaxis in acutely ill patients admitted to hospital: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ruben J Eck; Tessa Elling; Alex J Sutton; Jørn Wetterslev; Christian Gluud; Iwan C C van der Horst; Reinold O B Gans; Karina Meijer; Frederik Keus
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2022-07-04

2.  Systematic review of clinical outcome reporting in randomised controlled trials of burn care.

Authors:  Amber E Young; Anna Davies; Sophie Bland; Sara Brookes; Jane M Blazeby
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-02-15       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 3.  From Classical Laboratory Parameters to Novel Biomarkers for the Diagnosis of Venous Thrombosis.

Authors:  Larisa Anghel; Radu Sascău; Rodica Radu; Cristian Stătescu
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2020-03-11       Impact factor: 5.923

4.  Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis practice and its association with outcomes in Australia and New Zealand burns patients.

Authors:  Lincoln M Tracy; Peter A Cameron; Yvonne Singer; Arul Earnest; Fiona Wood; Heather Cleland; Belinda J Gabbe
Journal:  Burns Trauma       Date:  2021-02-11

5.  Review on Disasters and Lower Limb Venous Disease.

Authors:  Sergio Gianesini; Erica Menegatti; Oscar Bottini; Yung-Wei Chi
Journal:  Ann Vasc Dis       Date:  2021-12-25
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.