Alexandra C Brewster1, Aubrey E Jones2, Stacy A Johnson2, John A Saunders3, Daniel M Witt3. 1. University of Utah College of Pharmacy, 30 2000 E, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, United States. Electronic address: alex.brewster@pharm.utah.edu. 2. University of Utah School of Medicine, 295 Chipeta Way, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, United States. 3. University of Utah College of Pharmacy, 30 2000 E, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Isolated distal deep vein thrombosis (IDDVT) is a common subtype of deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Consensus guidelines provide conflicting recommendations for IDDVT management; some recommend anticoagulant treatment, while others suggest serial compression ultrasonography (CUS) monitoring for patients not at "high risk" of proximal extension. The purpose of this study was to describe outcomes of serial CUS-monitored IDDVT and identify risk factors for proximal thrombus extension or anticoagulant treatment initiation. METHODS: A retrospective descriptive study was conducted using electronic data from University of Utah Health. Adult subjects with objectively confirmed, serial CUS-monitored IDDVT were included. Subjects were followed for 30 days for occurrence of a composite outcome of proximal thrombus extension or anticoagulant treatment initiation. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize characteristics of the study population. Characteristics were compared across outcome groups using inferential statistics. RESULTS: A total of 182 subjects were included, with 53 subjects (29.1%) experiencing the composite outcome. Of these, 12 (22.6%) experienced proximal thrombus extension and 41 (77.4%) initiated anticoagulant treatment. A prior history of venous thromboembolism (VTE) was significantly higher in those who experienced the composite outcome than in those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that 70% of patients with serial CUS-monitored IDDVT did not experience thrombus extension or require anticoagulant treatment within 30 days of diagnosis, regardless of risk factors for proximal extension. Serial CUS monitoring may be a useful management strategy for IDDVT. A history of VTE may identify patients more likely to experience proximal thrombus extension or require anticoagulation.
BACKGROUND: Isolated distal deep vein thrombosis (IDDVT) is a common subtype of deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Consensus guidelines provide conflicting recommendations for IDDVT management; some recommend anticoagulant treatment, while others suggest serial compression ultrasonography (CUS) monitoring for patients not at "high risk" of proximal extension. The purpose of this study was to describe outcomes of serial CUS-monitored IDDVT and identify risk factors for proximal thrombus extension or anticoagulant treatment initiation. METHODS: A retrospective descriptive study was conducted using electronic data from University of Utah Health. Adult subjects with objectively confirmed, serial CUS-monitored IDDVT were included. Subjects were followed for 30 days for occurrence of a composite outcome of proximal thrombus extension or anticoagulant treatment initiation. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize characteristics of the study population. Characteristics were compared across outcome groups using inferential statistics. RESULTS: A total of 182 subjects were included, with 53 subjects (29.1%) experiencing the composite outcome. Of these, 12 (22.6%) experienced proximal thrombus extension and 41 (77.4%) initiated anticoagulant treatment. A prior history of venous thromboembolism (VTE) was significantly higher in those who experienced the composite outcome than in those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that 70% of patients with serial CUS-monitored IDDVT did not experience thrombus extension or require anticoagulant treatment within 30 days of diagnosis, regardless of risk factors for proximal extension. Serial CUS monitoring may be a useful management strategy for IDDVT. A history of VTE may identify patients more likely to experience proximal thrombus extension or require anticoagulation.
Authors: A N Nicolaides; J Fareed; A K Kakkar; A J Comerota; S Z Goldhaber; R Hull; K Myers; M Samama; J Fletcher; E Kalodiki; D Bergqvist; J Bonnar; J A Caprini; C Carter; J Conard; B Eklof; I Elalamy; G Gerotziafas; G Geroulakos; A Giannoukas; I Greer; M Griffin; S Kakkos; M R Lassen; G D Lowe; A Markel; P Prandoni; G Raskob; A C Spyropoulos; A G Turpie; J M Walenga; D Warwick Journal: Int Angiol Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 2.789
Authors: Clive Kearon; Elie A Akl; Joseph Ornelas; Allen Blaivas; David Jimenez; Henri Bounameaux; Menno Huisman; Christopher S King; Timothy A Morris; Namita Sood; Scott M Stevens; Janine R E Vintch; Philip Wells; Scott C Woller; Lisa Moores Journal: Chest Date: 2016-01-07 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Wiktoria Kuczmik; Waldemar E Wysokinski; Thanila Macedo; David Froehling; Paul Daniels; Ana Casanegra; Damon Houghton; Danielle Vlazny; Ryan Meverden; Teresa Lang; Launia White; David Hodge; Robert D McBane Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2021-04-09 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: H K Nielsen; S E Husted; L R Krusell; H Fasting; P Charles; H H Hansen; B O Nielsen; J B Petersen; P Bechgaard Journal: Thromb Res Date: 1994-02-15 Impact factor: 3.944