Outcome of patients with suspected lower limb symptomatic deep vein thrombosis and a normal ultrasound-based initial diagnostic workup: a prospective study

Direct-access to sonographic diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis in general practice: a descriptive cohort study

Background

Suspicion of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is common and requires urgent and efficient investigation due to hazardous prognosis. The traditional diagnostic pathway can be complex and time-consuming, and innovative solutions may provide easy access to diagnostics and better use of healthcare resources. We aimed to describe use, clinical outcomes and time used when providing general practitioners (GPs) with a direct-access pathway to hospital-based, single whole-leg compression ultrasound (CUS) for patients with suspected DVT. Furthermore we aimed to describe the resources used in the new direct-access pathway and compare it with the previous pathway.

Methods

We conducted a 2-year descriptive cohort study (2016–2017) including 449 consecutively referred patients for diagnosis of DVT in a Danish regional hospital. The previous pathway included pre-test at the medical department, a proximal leg CUS if required based on the pre-test and a re-scan if the first CUS was negative. The new pathway included two strategies: 1) a ‘yes-no strategy’, where GPs referred patients directly to whole-leg CUS and if positive, treated at the medical department and if negative, discharged to the GP, 2) a ‘follow-up strategy’ where GPs could require that patients were seen at the medical department, irrespective of the CUS result. Data included extractions from the Radiology Information and Patient Administrative Systems, and mean salaries of healthcare professionals at Silkeborg Regional Hospital, Denmark. Descriptive statistics were used to describe prevalence, timelines and costs.

Results

GPs referred 318 (71%) patients through the yes-no strategy and 131 (29%) via the follow-up strategy with DVT diagnosed in 48 (15%) and 51 (39%) patients, respectively (p < 0.001). For the 263 patients completed after CUS in the yes-no strategy, median pathway time was 24 min (IQI: 16–36), and for those with DVT (including both strategies) 202 min (IQI: 158–273). Direct-access pathway costs were €49.7 less per patient than the previous pathway.

Conclusion

Direct-access to CUS for suspected DVT was achievable, had short time intervals and required fewer resources. The difference in DVT prevalence indicates that GPs distinguish between patients with low and high risk of DVT.

The Prevalence of Concomitant Deep Vein Thrombosis, Symptomatic or Asymptomatic, Proximal or Distal, in Patients With Symptomatic Pulmonary Embolism

Patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) may have symptomatic or asymptomatic concomitant deep vein thrombosis (DVT). The reported prevalence of PE-associated DVT is variable, and thus, the utility of routine testing is controversial. The aim of our study was to analyze the prevalence of DVT and the factors associated with proximal DVT/whole-leg DVT in patients with symptomatic PE. In 428 consecutive patients (mean age: 59 ± 16.4 years; 52.3% men), we performed clinical examination and complete bilateral compression ultrasound and ascertained medical history and risk factors for DVT/PE. χ² and t tests were used. Deep vein thrombosis was found in 70.6%; proximal DVT in 49.5%. Sensitivity/specificity of DVT symptoms was 42.7%/93.7% for whole-leg DVT and 47.6%/83.3% for proximal DVT. Male gender significantly prevailed among those with whole-leg DVT and with proximal DVT (58.9% and 61.8%). Active malignancy was significantly more frequent in the patients with proximal DVT than without proximal DVT (10.4% vs 3.7%). In conclusion, the prevalence of PE-associated DVT is quite high but clinical diagnosis is unreliable. In our group, male gender and active malignancy were significantly associated with the presence of concomitant proximal DVT.

Diagnosis of deep-vein thrombosis

The diagnostic approach to suspected symptomatic deep-vein thrombosis of the lower extremities is usually based on non-invasive methods, including the estimation of clinical probability, the measurement of D-dimer levels, and ultrasonography. The present review discusses the evidence available from the literature about the management of the first episode of suspected deep-vein-thrombosis.

Deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism

Deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, collectively referred to as venous thromboembolism, constitute a major global burden of disease. The diagnostic work-up of suspected deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism includes the sequential application of a clinical decision rule and D-dimer testing. Imaging and anticoagulation can be safely withheld in patients who are unlikely to have venous thromboembolism and have a normal D-dimer. All other patients should undergo ultrasonography in case of suspected deep vein thrombosis and CT in case of suspected pulmonary embolism. Direct oral anticoagulants are first-line treatment options for venous thromboembolism because they are associated with a lower risk of bleeding than vitamin K antagonists and are easier to use. Use of thrombolysis should be limited to pulmonary embolism associated with haemodynamic instability. Anticoagulant treatment should be continued for at least 3 months to prevent early recurrences. When venous thromboembolism is unprovoked or secondary to persistent risk factors, extended treatment beyond this period should be considered when the risk of recurrence outweighs the risk of major bleeding.