Improving follow-up of incomplete lower extremity venous duplex ultrasound examinations performed for deep and superficial vein thromboses

OBJECTIVE

A lower extremity venous duplex ultrasound (LEVDUS) examination is the standard diagnostic test to evaluate patients for lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT). However, some studies will be incomplete for a variety of reasons, including patient-related factors such as pain, edema, a large leg circumference, or the presence of overlying bandages or orthopedic devices. We previously reported that the frequency of obtaining a follow-up examination after an incomplete and negative (I/N) LEVDUS examination was low but that the rates of DVT found on the follow-up studies of initially I/N LEVDUS studies were similar to the rates of DVT found with initially complete LEVDUS examinations. Therefore, we recommended process improvements to increase follow-up LEVDUS studies after an I/N LEVDUS examination. In the present study, we have described the results of appending a recommendation to obtain a follow-up LEVDUS study to preliminary and final reports of I/N LEVDUS.

METHODS

Starting in January 2019 through December 2019, a recommendation to obtain a repeat LEVDUS examination after an I/N study was appended to the preliminary and final reports of all I/N LEVDUS examination of patients who did not, otherwise, have an indication for anticoagulation (group 2). The patients were identified on an ongoing basis through the study period and entered into an Excel database (Microsoft Corp, Redmond, Wash). Group 2 was compared with a previously reported historic control cohort of patients identified from January 2017 to December 2017 (group 1). We compared groups 1 and 2 with respect to the frequency of the repeat studies performed within 4 weeks after an I/N LEVDUS examination and the DVT rates found from the follow-up LEVDUS examinations after an I/N LEVDUS study.

RESULTS

Of the patients in groups 1 and 2, 187 and 229 had had I/N LEVDUS examinations, with 28% and 40.2% of group 1 and 2 studies having follow-up LEVDUS examinations (P < .01). Previously unidentified lower extremity thrombi were discovered in 21% of the group 2 follow-up examinations. Also, the rate of new thrombi detected was not different between groups 2 and 1 (historic controls; DVT, 14.3% vs 18.5% [P = .25]; SVT, 6.3% vs 3.3% [P = .15]). A definitive finding of either positive or negative for DVT and SVT with a complete examination in 50% of the group 2 patients with follow-up examinations.

CONCLUSIONS

A recommendation to obtain a follow-up examination appended to the preliminary and final I/N LEVDUS reports was associated with an increased rate of follow-up examinations, which revealed many previously undetected DVTs and SVTs or had allowed for definitive exclusion of DVT.

Effects of a standardized emergency department protocol on after-hours use of venous duplex ultrasound

OBJECTIVE

Vascular laboratory (VL) venous duplex ultrasound is the "gold standard" for diagnosis of lower extremity deep venous thrombosis (DVT), which is linked to many morbid conditions. Decreasing night and weekend use of VL services in the emergency department (ED) represents a potentially viable means of reducing costs as skilled personnel must remain on call and receive a wage premium when activated. We investigated the effects of workflow changes that required ED providers to use a computerized decision-making tool, integrated into the electronic medical record, to calculate a Wells score for each patient considered for an after-hours venous duplex ultrasound study for suspected DVT.

METHODS

The rate of VL use and study positivity before and after implementation of the decision-making tool were examined in addition to measures of ED throughput, rate of concomitant pulmonary embolism, disposition of examined patients from the ED, observed thrombus distribution in duplex ultrasound studies positive for DVT, and calculated personnel costs of after-hours VL use.

RESULTS

A total of 391 after-hours, ED-initiated venous duplex ultrasound studies were obtained during the 4-year study period (n = 213 before intervention, n = 178 after intervention; P = .12). Whereas the period immediately after the start of the intervention saw a decrease in VL use, this was not sustained. Studies performed after the intervention were not more likely to be positive for acute DVT (12.2% vs 18%; P = .1179). The average Wells score was 2.8 (range, 0-6). VL personnel were called in 347 times during the 4-year period, with a total cost of $14,643.40. Nurse-ordered studies were significantly more likely to be positive, with 22% revealing acute DVT compared with 12% for physician-ordered studies (P = .042). The intervention resulted in significant improvements in ED throughput, with time between triage and study request falling from 226 minutes to 165 minutes (P < .001). Observed thrombus distribution revealed involvement of the most proximal external iliac system in a minority of cases (11%), whereas most thrombi (89%) were limited to the femoropopliteal, calf, and superficial venous systems.

CONCLUSIONS

A requirement for ED providers to document a Wells score before obtaining an after-hours venous duplex ultrasound study resulted in only a transient decrease in VL use but improved ED throughput. Studies ordered by nurses were significantly more likely to be positive, possibly as a result of consistent protocol adherence compared with the physicians. Future studies may warrant investigation into this provider variance.

Day of Week, Site of Service, and Patient Complexity Differences in Venous Ultrasound Interpreted by Radiologists Versus Nonradiologists

OBJECTIVE

Nationally, nonradiologists interpret an increasing proportion of lower extremity venous duplex ultrasound (LEVDU) examinations. We aimed to study day of week, site of service, and patient complexity differences in LEVDU services interpreted by radiologists versus nonradiologists.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using carrier claims files for a 5% national sample of Medicare beneficiaries from 2012 to 2015, we retrospectively classified all LEVDU examinations by physician specialty (radiologist versus nonradiologist), day of week (weekday versus weekend), site of service, and patient Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) scores. Pearson's χ² was used to test statistical significance.

RESULTS

Of 760,433 LEVDU examinations for which provider specialty could be determined, 439,964 (58%) were interpreted by radiologists and 320,469 (42%) by nonradiologists. On weekends, radiologists interpreted 75% (66,094 of 88,244) and nonradiologists 25% (22,150 of 88,244) (P < .0001). Of LEVDU examinations interpreted by radiologists, 57% were performed in the inpatient or emergency department settings, and 70% of LEVDU examinations interpreted by nonradiologists were performed in the private office or outpatient hospital setting. Radiologists interpreted a slightly larger proportion (17%) of their examinations on patients with more comorbidities (CCI of ≥3) than nonradiologists (15%) (P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

Compared with nonradiologists, radiologists interpret a disproportionately larger share of weekend (versus weekday) LEVDU examinations and a considerably larger proportion in higher acuity settings. Additionally, the patients on whom they render services have more comorbidities. To optimize around-the-clock patient access to necessary imaging, emerging quality payment programs should consider the timing and sites of service, as well as patient complexity.

A systematic review of clinical prediction scores for deep vein thrombosis

Objective Diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis remains a challenging problem. Various clinical prediction rules have been developed in order to improve diagnosis and decision making in relation to deep vein thrombosis. The purpose of this review is to summarise the available clinical scores and describe their applicability and limitations. Methods A systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance using the keywords: clinical score, clinical prediction rule, risk assessment, clinical probability, pretest probability, diagnostic score and medical Subject Heading terms: 'Venous Thromboembolism/diagnosis' OR 'Venous Thrombosis/diagnosis'. Both development and validation studies were eligible for inclusion. Results The search strategy returned a total of 2036 articles, of which 102 articles met a priori criteria for inclusion. Eight different diagnostic scores were identified. The development of these scores differs in respect of the population included (hospital inpatients, hospital outpatients or primary care patients), the exclusion criteria, the inclusion of distal deep vein thrombosis and the use of D-dimer. The reliability and applicability of the scores in the context of specific subgroups (inpatients, cancer patients, elderly patients and those with recurrent deep vein thrombosis) remains controversial. Conclusion Detailed knowledge of the development of the various clinical prediction scores for deep vein thrombosis is essential in understanding the power, generalisability and limitations of these clinical tools.