Practice variation in the management of distal deep vein thrombosis in primary vs. secondary cares: A clinical practice survey

Abstract

IntroductionDistal deep-vein thromboses (iDDVT) are infra-popliteal DVTs. They are as frequent but less serious than proximal DVT. Their management is debated. MethodsClinical practice survey among a random selection of 111 general practitioners (GP) and 56 vascular medicine physicians (VMP) working in Languedoc-Roussillon (France) to assess and compare iDDVTs management by GP and VMP. ResultsIn case of DVT, GP manage their patients alone in 35% of cases. In case of collaborative management, VMP initiate and stop anticoagulants (>74% of cases) whereas GP monitor anticoagulation (>76% of cases). With iDDVT, there was no difference between GP and VMP in terms of use (94% vs. 92%) and intensity of anticoagulation (full dose: 99%vs.100%). Duration of anticoagulation differed: GP modulated less frequently duration of anticoagulation in presence of a transient risk factor (58% vs. 90%, p<0.05) or according to the deep-calf or muscular location of iDDVT (6% vs. 36%, p<0.05) and treated more frequently iDDVT as long as proximal DVT (49% vs. 13%, p<0.05). When comparing GP, there was no significant difference in terms of therapeutic management between those who used to manage DVT alone and those who used to manage in collaboration with a thrombosis expert. ConclusionTreatment of iDDVT differed between GP and VMP. Half of GP don’t modulate treatment according to anatomical location or to the provoked/unprovoked character of DVT. Given the low frequency of exposure to DVT in general practice, systematic referral to a thrombosis expert rather than continuous medical formation program seems appropriate to improve management.