AJR Your Link to CME
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Friera, A.
Right arrow Articles by Suárez, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Friera, A.
Right arrow Articles by Suárez, C.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
AJR 2002; 178:1001-1005
© American Roentgen Ray Society


Deep Vein Thrombosis

Can a Second Sonographic Examination Be Avoided?

Alfonsa Friera1, Nuria R. Giménez2, Paloma Caballero1, Pilar S. Moliní2 and Carmen Suárez2

1 Radiology Department, Hospital de la Princesa, Diego de León, 62 28006 Madrid, Spain.
2 Internal Medicine Department, Hospital de la Princesa, 62 28006 Madrid, Spain.

OBJECTIVE. Our objective was to determine the prevalence of deep vein thrombosis in symptomatic patients and its distribution based on the assessment of prior clinical probability. We evaluated whether repeated sonography is necessary in patients with either intermediate or high clinical probability for deep vein thrombosis after an initial examination with negative findings.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS. We prospectively evaluated 438 consecutive patients with clinical suggestion of deep vein thrombosis of the lower limbs, classified according to the prior clinical probability (high, intermediate, low). Sonography with positive findings was diagnostic for deep vein thrombosis. Negative findings in low-risk patients excluded thrombosis. Patients with intermediate or high clinical risk whose initial sonographic examination showed negative findings underwent a second examination after 1 week.

RESULTS. Of the 438 patients with clinical symptoms, 112 patients (26%) had positive findings on sonography, and 326 (74%) had negative findings. Of the 202 intermediate- and high-risk patients with negative initial sonography, 140 patients underwent a single follow-up sonographic examination 1 week later. In three cases, findings were positive for deep vein thrombosis. Two other patients developed pulmonary embolism. Sonographic follow-up increased the detection of deep vein thrombosis in the patients with intermediate or high probability from 32.5% to 33.5%; the prevalence of thromboembolic disease in this group was 34%.

CONCLUSION. The prevalence of deep vein thrombosis studied by sonography in the patients with intermediate or high clinical risk was 33.5%. Initial sonography revealed a 32.5% prevalence, and a second examination 1 week later detected an additional 1%. Sonography did not reveal 0.5% of thromboembolic events. Our results do not justify a routine second scanning at 1 week.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
RadiologyHome page
R. M. Subramaniam, R. Heath, T. Chou, K. Cox, G. Davis, and M. Swarbrick
Deep Venous Thrombosis: Withholding Anticoagulation Therapy after Negative Complete Lower Limb US Findings
Radiology, October 1, 2005; 237(1): 348 - 352.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2002 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.