Vein Thrombosis In Outpatients Research Articles

Oral rivaroxaban for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis in outpatients: a propensity score-matched comparison with a historical inpatient population.

Despite the guidelines' appeal to treat patients with deep vein thrombosis and low-risk pulmonary embolism in outpatient settings, the real-world evidence shows a high prevalence of inpatient therapy leading to unwarranted health resource utilization. The study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in outpatient settings compared to inpatient treatment. A propensity score-matched comparison with a historical inpatient population was performed based on a retrospective analysis of patients with deep vein thrombosis and without pulmonary embolism treated as outpatients with oral rivaroxaban. Inpatient controls were treated with oral rivaroxaban following a short-term initial therapy with low-molecular-weight heparins. The relevant outcomes extracted from electronic medical records were as follows: recurrent deep vein thrombosis and symptomatic pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major bleeding, minor bleeding, unscheduled hospitalization, and death. Among 209 outpatients who were never admitted to the hospital the deep vein thrombosis recurrence rate was 3.3% (95%CI, 1.6-6.8%), clinically relevant non-major bleeding rate 2.9% (95%CI, 1.3-6.1), minor bleeding rate 6.2% (95%CI, 3.7-10.0%), unscheduled hospitalization rate 1.4% (95%CI, 0.5- 4.1%), mortality rate 1.4% (95%CI, 0.5-4.1%). No symptomatic pulmonary embolism or major bleeding was detected. No statistically significant differences were observed when compared with inpatient controls. The outpatient use of rivaroxaban for deep vein thrombosis treatment is a safe and effective approach for patients without pulmonary embolism, with no significant differences when compared to inpatient therapy with oral rivaroxaban following a short-term initial therapy with low-molecular-weight heparins.

Commentary on “Diagnosis of Deep Vein Thrombosis in Outpatients With Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Survey of Orthopedic and Sports Academies”

Commentary on “Diagnosis of Deep Vein Thrombosis in Outpatients With Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Survey of Orthopedic and Sports Academies”

Diagnosis of Deep Vein Thrombosis in Outpatients With Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Survey of Orthopaedic and Sports Academies

PURPOSE: Venous thromboembolism can present as either a deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or a pulmonary embolism. The purpose of this study was to determine if there was a difference in physical therapists' estimation of the probability of a patient having a DVT in patient vignettes as compared with the modified Wells criteria prediction. METHODS: Members of the American Academy of Orthopaedics, Academy of Orthopaedic Physical Therapists (AOPT), and American Academy of Sports Physical Therapy (AASPT) completed patient vignettes. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and sign tests assessed for differences between responses of the presence of DVT (likely or unlikely) and whether referral was necessary. RESULTS: Six hundred and seventy consented, and 521 completed the survey of 24,028 members from the AOPT and AASPT. In total, 7.2% did not feel competent to screen for DVT. Descriptive statistics revealed difficulty in determining whether a DVT was likely or unlikely in 4/5 vignettes as compared with the modified Wells criteria, with only vignette 2 having 95.9% correctly answering as DVT being unlikely. In the other 4 vignettes, approximately 60% to 70% of respondents estimated DVT to be likely, despite 2 of these being unlikely. Across the vignettes, between 2.3% and 19.2% more respondents chose to refer when they determined if a DVT was likely. Across vignettes, statistically significant differences between DVT being likely or unlikely and decision to refer were present. Respondents consistently chose to refer even when a DVT was unlikely (P < .001 for vignettes 1, 3–5. P = .038 for vignette 2). CONCLUSIONS: Venous thromboembolisms are potentially life-threatening conditions seen by physical therapists. Members of the AOPT and AASPT have difficulty in determining the presence or absence of DVT in clinical case vignettes, with some demonstrating a conservative management decision to refer despite low probability of DVT. Efforts to educate members should be considered to improve the understanding of DVT assessment. Clinical Pearls: Members of the AOPT and AASPT appear to have difficulty in determining the presence of a DVT in clinical patient vignettes. Respondents chose to refer patients perhaps with conservative caution. Efforts to educate therapists should be considered to improve the understanding of DVT assessment.

Variations in ultrasound scanning protocols in the UK for suspected deep vein thrombosis in outpatients

To assess current ultrasound scanning protocol in outpatients with suspected deep vein thrombosis (DVT), in particular whether practitioners routinely scanned calf veins. A standard questionnaire was sent out via post to all radiology departments in the United Kingdom (UK) and via the British Medical Ultrasound Society (BMUS) website in 2010. Responses were entered into Access® and database queries were run to analyse responses. Free-text comments were taken into account in our analysis. A total of 277 responses (50 through the BMUS website) were received (46% postal response rate). Of them, six were excluded as these were incomplete. Thus, 97 (36%) were consultants, 13 (5%) accredited vascular scientists (AVSs), 153 (56%) sonographers and six (2%) higher radiology trainees. All AVSs scanned the whole limb and used all three modalities of compression, colour and pulse wave Dopplers. Practice across other health-care professionals varied. In all, 120/176 (68%) of other health-care professionals trained in vascular ultrasound scanned the whole limb routinely and 82/120 of these used all three scanning modalities. Trained sonographers scanned the whole limb significantly more than the medical cohort (P = 0.017). The use of all three modalities varied significantly between AVS and the non-AVS trained professionals (P = 0.0194), the trained medical cohort of consultants and sonographers (P = 0.0001), and trained and non-trained respondents (P = 0.0113). The commonly chosen reason for not scanning the whole limb was that it had poor sensitivity for calf vein DVTs. Free-text reasons for not scanning the whole limb routinely included local protocols prohibiting it. There is a discrepancy between the scanning protocols of medically trained and allied health-care professionals, trained or otherwise in vascular ultrasound, and between these groups and AVSs. This is likely to have an impact on clinical governance.

Validation study for use of an algorithm for the diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis in out-patients

In a previous study we demonstrated that the use of an algorithm can decrease unnecessary emergency venous duplex evaluations (VDE) in out-patients and increase the percentage of positive yields. The present study was undertaken to validate the safety of following such an algorithm. During a six month period we suspended the application of the algorithm and performed VDE on all requests for out-patients. A total of 94 requests were received from the Emergency Department and all were honored. Of the 94 out-patients who underwent emergency VDE for deep vein thrombosis (DVT), eleven were positive for DVT (11.8%) and 83 were negative (88.2%). Had the algorithm been applied for patients screening, all the 11 positive studies would have gone to emergency VDE (100%). 10 patients had proximal DVT and 1 had isolated peroneal DVT. The application of an algorithm for inclusion/exclusion of out-patients for emergency VDE is a safe and effective means for limiting emergency access to the non-invasive vascular laboratory.

Improving the Diagnostic Process for Deep Vein Thrombosis in Orthopaedic Outpatients

Prompt diagnosis of proximal lower extremity deep vein thrombosis in outpatients is critical because of the risk of pulmonary embolism. Our purpose was to determine the accuracy of orthopaedists' clinical decisions regarding the diagnosis of proximal deep vein thrombosis in outpatients. A nationally representative random sample of 2300 orthopaedists received a survey of six clinical vignettes. They were asked to estimate the probability of proximal lower extremity deep vein thrombosis using defined criteria and to specify their planned diagnostic tests. A clinical decision rule and evidence-based diagnostic test recommendations from the general literature served as the gold standard for comparison. Six-hundred seventy-six (29%) surgeons completed the survey. The orthopaedists' planned diagnostic tests differed from the gold standard, but these differences varied depending on the probability of deep vein thrombosis. For the moderate and high risk vignettes, the diagnostic test recommendations agreed with the gold standard approximately 70% of the time. With the exception of gender, no differences were found between respondents and nonrespondents. Orthopaedists' approach to the diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis in outpatients potentially could be improved by applying a clinical decision rule and current evidence on diagnostic test usage.

Preliminary Validation of Clinical Assessment for Deep Vein Thrombosis in Orthopaedic Outpatients

The purpose of our study was to determine if a previously published clinical decision rule designed to estimate the probability of proximal deep vein thrombosis in outpatients is valid when applied exclusively to outpatients with musculoskeletal disorders. We also sought to determine whether probability estimates differed for patients with or without trauma, fracture, or recent orthopaedic surgery. Data collected from outpatients with surgical and nonsurgical musculoskeletal disorders (n = 464) were extracted from the datasets of three previously published studies done on heterogeneous groups of patients (n = 3424). Followup for all patients was 3 months. Testing of all patients for thromboembolic disease was done using validated diagnostic procedures. Probability estimates for orthopaedic outpatients were consistent with estimates from published studies. The proportion of patients who had venous thromboembolism was 5.6% (95% confidence interval, 3.5-8.7%) for the low probability group, 14.1% (95% confidence interval, 8.6-22.4%) for the moderate probability group, and 47.4% (95% confidence interval, 35.3-60%) for the high probability group. Validity estimates for patients with and without recent trauma, surgery, or fracture differed, but not dramatically. The validity of the clinical decision rule as applied to outpatients with musculoskeletal disorders was supported.

Diagnosis of Lower-Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis in Outpatients With Musculoskeletal Disorders: A National Survey Study of Physical Therapists

Prompt identification of outpatients who may have proximal lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis (PDVT) is important, in part, because of the risk of pulmonary embolism. The purposes of our study were to determine the degree of accuracy of physical therapists' estimates of the probability of PDVT in hypothetical patient vignettes and to determine whether physical therapists would contact the referring physician about the hypothetical patients' condition as recommended in published evidence. A survey instrument consisting of 6 vignettes was sent to a nationally representative random sample of 1,500 physical therapists. The clinical decision rule developed by Wells and colleagues served as the gold standard for PDVT probability. A total of 969 (65% response rate) physical therapists completed the survey. We found no evidence of nonresponse bias. For the 2 high-probability vignettes, 87% and 64% of the physical therapists underestimated the probability of PDVT. For the 2 high-probability cases, 32% and 27% of the physical therapists reported that they would not have contacted the referring physician. For the 2 moderate-probability cases, 15% and 30% of the physical therapists would not have contacted the referring physician. Therapist experience, certification status, place of practice, and region of the country did not explain the findings. The care of outpatients who are at risk for PDVT could potentially be improved by use of the clinical decision rule developed by Wells and colleagues, although more study is warranted.

D-Dimers Testing Is not Recommended for the Exclusion of Deep Vein Thrombosis in Outpatients with Lower Limb Erysipelas

D-Dimers Testing Is not Recommended for the Exclusion of Deep Vein Thrombosis in Outpatients with Lower Limb Erysipelas -

Validation Study for Use of an Algorithm for the Diagnosis of Deep Vein Thrombosis in Out-patients

In a previous study we demonstrated that the use of an algorithm can decrease unnecessary emergency venous duplex evaluations (VDE) in out-patients and increase the percentage of positive yields. The present study was undertaken to validate the safety of following such an algorithm. During a six month period we suspended the application of the algorithm and performed VDE on all requests for out-patients. A total of 94 requests were received from the Emergency Department and all were honored. Of the 94 out-patients who underwent emergency VDE for deep vein thrombosis (DVT), eleven were positive for DVT (11.8%) and 83 were negative (88.2%). Had the algorithm been applied for patients screening, all the 11 positive studies would have gone to emergency VDE (100%). 10 patients had proximal DVT and 1 had isolated peroneal DVT. The application of an algorithm for inclusion/exclusion of out-patients for emergency VDE is a safe and effective means for limiting emergency access to the non-invasive vascular laboratory.

Validation study for use of an algorithm for the diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis in out-patients

Validation study for use of an algorithm for the diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis in out-patients

Measurement of fibrinogen-fibrin-related antigen in serum as aid to diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis in outpatients.

A study of serum levels of fibrinogen-fibrin-related antigen (F.R.-antigen) in outpatients presenting with clinical features suggesting deep vein thrombosis was undertaken. A raised serum level of this antigen (greater than 12 mg/1) is strong evidence in favour of the diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis. It is virtually conclusive evidence if other known causes of a raised level of the antigen are absent. On the other hand, a normal serum level of F.R.-antigen does not exclude even extensive thrombosis, and other objective techniques are required to substantiate the diagnosis.