Isolated Deep Venous Thrombosis: Implications for 2-Point Compression Ultrasonography of the Lower Extremity - 24/08/15
, Wes Zeger, DO b, Christopher Thom, MD c, J. Matthew Fields, MD cAbstract |
Study objective |
Two-point compression ultrasonography focuses on the evaluation of common femoral and popliteal veins for complete compressibility. The presence of isolated thrombi in proximal veins other than the common femoral and popliteal veins should prompt modification of 2-point compression technique. The objective of this study is to determine the prevalence and distribution of deep venous thrombi isolated to lower-extremity veins other than the common femoral and popliteal veins in emergency department (ED) patients with clinically suspected deep venous thrombosis.
Methods |
This was a retrospective study of all adult ED patients who received a lower-extremity venous duplex ultrasonographic examination for evaluation of deep venous thrombosis during a 6-year period. The ultrasonographic protocol included B-mode, color-flow, and spectral Doppler scanning of the common femoral, femoral, deep femoral, popliteal, and calf veins.
Results |
Deep venous thrombosis was detected in 362 of 2,451 patients (14.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 13.3% to 16.1%). Thrombus confined to the common femoral vein alone was found in 5 of 362 cases (1.4%; 95% CI 0.2% to 2.6%). Isolated femoral vein thrombus was identified in 20 of 362 patients (5.5%; 95% CI 3.2% to 7.9%). Isolated deep femoral vein thrombus was found in 3 of 362 cases (0.8%; 95% CI –0.1% to 1.8%). Thrombus in the popliteal vein alone was identified in 53 of 362 cases (14.6%; 95% CI 11% to 18.2%).
Conclusion |
In our study, 6.3% of ED patients with suspected deep venous thrombosis had isolated thrombi in proximal veins other than common femoral and popliteal veins. Our study results support the addition of femoral and deep femoral vein evaluation to standard compression ultrasonography of the common femoral and popliteal vein, assuming that this does not have a deleterious effect on specificity.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
| Please see page 263 for the Editor’s Capsule Summary of this article. |
|
| Supervising editors: Jeffrey Kline, MD; Donald M. Yealy, MD |
|
| Author contributions: SA and WZ conceived and designed the study and were responsible for data collection and data entry. All authors participated in data analysis. SA drafted the article, and WZ, CT, and MJF contributed substantially to its revision. SA takes responsibility for the paper as a whole. |
|
| Funding and support: By Annals policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article as per ICMJE conflict of interest guidelines (see www.icmje.org/). The authors have stated that no such relationships exist. |
|
| A BNM9GCN survey is available with each research article published on the Web at www.annemergmed.com. |
|
| A podcast for this article is available at www.annemergmed.com. |
Vol 66 - N° 3
P. 262-266 - septembre 2015 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?
