Upper-Extremity Suppurative Thrombophlebitis and Septic Pulmonary Emboli

JAMA ◽  
1978 ◽  
Vol 240 (14) ◽  
pp. 1519 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerald Weinberg
Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 6-6
Author(s):  
David A Froehling ◽  
Damon E. Houghton ◽  
Waldemar E. Wysokinski ◽  
Robert D. McBane ◽  
Danielle Vlazny ◽  
...  

Background:There is limited published data on the association between malignancy and the location of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in the body. Aims:Assess the location of VTE in the body in patients with active cancer and compare these results in patients without malignancy. Methods:Consecutive patients enrolled in the Mayo Clinic VTE Registry between March 1, 2013 and November 30, 2019 for acute VTE were followed prospectively. Anatomical site of thrombosis and malignancy status were recorded. Patient outcomes were assessed in person, by mailed questionnaire, or by a scripted phone interview. Active cancer was defined as treatment for malignancy within the last six months or not yet in remission. Results:During the study period there were 2,798 patients with acute VTE (1256 with and 1542 without active cancer). Pulmonary emboli were more common in patients with active cancer compared to patients without cancer (49.5% vs. 39.7%, p<0.001). Upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (11.4 % vs. 7.7%, p<0.001), renal vein thrombi (1.4% vs. 0.2%, p<0.001) and splanchnic vein thrombi (9.3% vs. 6.0%, p=0.001) were all more common in patients with active cancer compared to patients without cancer. Conclusion:Compared to those without malignancy, patients with active cancer were more likely to have pulmonary emboli, upper extremity deep vein thrombosis, renal vein thrombi, and splanchnic vein thrombi. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 325-325
Author(s):  
Damon E. Houghton ◽  
Henny Heisler H. Billett ◽  
Manila Gaddh ◽  
Oluwatomiloba Onadeko ◽  
Gemlyn George ◽  
...  

Background: Standard treatment for catheter-associated upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) is anticoagulation. If catheter removal is otherwise indicated, it is unknown if catheter removal close to the time of initiation of anticoagulation is associated with a higher incidence of pulmonary embolization. Methods: A multicenter retrospective cohort study was performed at 8 participating institutions through the Venous thromboEmbolism Network US (VENUS). ICD-9/10 codes were used to identify patients with hematologic malignancies and upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) from 1/1/2010 through 12/31/2016. Identified patients underwent medical record review to verify diagnostic codes and determine if a catheter was associated with the upper extremity DVT and assess for outcomes. Patients were excluded if the UEDVT was not catheter provoked or if there were associated lower extremity DVT and/or pulmonary emboli. The anticoagulant start and finish date as well as the timing of the catheter removal, total follow up, and death were recorded. Patients started on anticoagulation at the time of their diagnosis were divided into two groups: 1) anticoagulation with delayed (> 48 hrs) or no catheter removal and 2) anticoagulation with early catheter removal (< 48 hrs). Outcomes were also assessed in patients with no anticoagulation initiation but catheter removal as the only treatment. The primary outcome was clinically identified pulmonary emboli within 7 days and the secondary outcome was pulmonary emboli or death from any cause within 7 days. Baseline characteristics were compared between groups using Χ2 for categorical variables, 2-tailed t-tests for continuous variables, and Wilcoxon rank-sum for nonparametric continuous variables. Fisher's exact test was used to evaluate the primary and secondary outcomes. Results: 663 patients with hematologic malignancies and isolated catheter-associated UEDVT underwent chart review. 512 patients were treated with anticoagulation of which 312 underwent early catheter removal while 200 had delayed or no catheter removal (Figure 1). 151 patients received no anticoagulation and 119 underwent catheter removal alone as the treatment for the DVT. Among patients who were treated with anticoagulation, the mean age was 52.6 years and 44% were male; age and sex did not differ between patients with early vs. delayed or no catheter removal (Table 1). Type of hematologic malignancy, type of central catheter, and DVT location were significantly different between groups. Patients with PICC lines were more likely to have early catheter removal (71% vs. 49%). The median platelet count was not significantly different among patients treated with anticoagulation, but was lower in patients treated with catheter removal only. Most patients were initially treated with low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) and anticoagulation treatment did not differ between groups. Pulmonary emboli within 7 days occurred in 2 patients (0.64%) with early catheter removal compared to 1 patient (0.5%) with delayed or no removal (p=1.0). Pulmonary emboli or any cause death within 7 days occurred in 3 patients (1.0%) with early removal compared to 3 patients (1.5%) with delayed or no removal (p=0.68). In patients treated with catheter removal only (no anticoagulation), there were no pulmonary emboli within 7 days and 3 deaths. All 3 patients with pulmonary emboli within 7 days had PICC lines and leukemia/MDS and the sites of most proximal DVT involvement were brachiocephalic veins (2 patients) and subclavian vein (1 patient). Conclusions: In patients with hematological malignancy and catheter-associated UEDVT, removal of catheters within 48 hours was not associated with increased risk of pulmonary emboli compared to delayed or no removal. Disclosures Billett: Albert Einstein College of Medicine: Patents & Royalties: Patent application pending for NETs AI software. Gaddh:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Hema Biologics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics LLC: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Oo:Medical Education Speakers Network: Honoraria; Janssen and Janssen: Other: Research: site co-investigator . Jaglal:NOVARTIS: Consultancy. Streiff:Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Portola: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Research Funding. Baumann Kreuziger:Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Consultancy; CSL Behring: Consultancy.


2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 240.e5-240.e8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin R. Wallace ◽  
Donald T. Baril ◽  
Rabih A. Chaer

2015 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 836.e9-836.e13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sang Tae Choi ◽  
Hong Seok Park ◽  
Yeon Hee Lee ◽  
Yu Mi Jeong ◽  
Eun Young Kim ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sumon Roy ◽  
Vinay P. Goswamy ◽  
Kirolos N. Barssoum ◽  
Devesh Rai

We present a unique case of vancomycin-induced drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome masquerading as elusive endocarditis. A 37-year-old female actively using intravenous drugs presented with worsening right upper extremity pain, fever, and chills. Workup revealed methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia and multiple right-sided septic pulmonary emboli. Echocardiogram was negative for vegetation. Vancomycin was initiated for bacteremia management suspected secondary to right upper extremity abscesses. However, despite resolution of abscesses, fevers persisted, raising suspicion for endocarditis not detected by echocardiogram. On hospital day 25, the patient began showing signs of DRESS syndrome, ultimately manifesting as transaminitis, eosinophilia, and a diffuse, maculopapular rash. Vancomycin was switched to Linezolid and she improved on high dose steroids. The persistent fevers throughout this hospital course were thought to be an elusive endocarditis before DRESS syndrome fully manifested. Although Vancomycin-induced DRESS is uncommon, this case highlights the importance of identifying early signs of significant adverse effects.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Joshua Twito ◽  
Syeda Sahra ◽  
Abdullah Jahangir ◽  
Neville Mobarakai

Background. Central venous catheters (CVCs) have been frequently associated with septic thrombophlebitis, bacteremia, and septic emboli. Right-sided infective endocarditis is seen concurrently in patients with septic pulmonary emboli. A case of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia and septic pulmonary emboli secondary to infected peripheral venous catheter (PVC) is reported. Transesophageal echocardiogram (TEE) showed no evidence of infective endocarditis. Case Presentation. A 44-year-old female presented to E.R. with left upper extremity pain and swelling at the previously inserted peripheral 18-gauge intravenous catheter site. She also had chest pain, which worsened with inspiration. The patient was found to be in septic shock. Her clinical condition deteriorated acutely. Right upper extremity deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary emboli were seen on imaging. Blood cultures grew MRSA. Transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiograms showed no vegetations. The patient responded well to appropriate antibiotics and anticoagulation. Conclusion. Peripherally inserted catheters are an important portal for pathogen entry and need periodic site assessment and frequent evaluation of their need for insertion. Septic pulmonary emboli can also be seen without any evidence of right-sided infective endocarditis.


2002 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-4, 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham

Abstract To account for the effects of multiple impairments, evaluating physicians must provide a summary value that combines multiple impairments so the whole person impairment is equal to or less than the sum of all the individual impairment values. A common error is to add values that should be combined and typically results in an inflated rating. The Combined Values Chart in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fifth Edition, includes instructions that guide physicians about combining impairment ratings. For example, impairment values within a region generally are combined and converted to a whole person permanent impairment before combination with the results from other regions (exceptions include certain impairments of the spine and extremities). When they combine three or more values, physicians should select and combine the two lowest values; this value is combined with the third value to yield the total value. Upper extremity impairment ratings are combined based on the principle that a second and each succeeding impairment applies not to the whole unit (eg, whole finger) but only to the part that remains (eg, proximal phalanx). Physicians who combine lower extremity impairments usually use only one evaluation method, but, if more than one method is used, the physician should use the Combined Values Chart.


2003 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 4-12
Author(s):  
Lorne Direnfeld ◽  
James Talmage ◽  
Christopher Brigham

Abstract This article was prompted by the submission of two challenging cases that exemplify the decision processes involved in using the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides). In both cases, the physical examinations were normal with no evidence of illness behavior, but, based on their histories and clinical presentations, the patients reported credible symptoms attributable to specific significant injuries. The dilemma for evaluators was whether to adhere to the AMA Guides, as written, or to attempt to rate impairment in these rare cases. In the first case, the evaluating neurologist used alternative approaches to define impairment based on the presence of thoracic outlet syndrome and upper extremity pain, as if there were a nerve injury. An orthopedic surgeon who evaluated the case did not base impairment on pain and used the upper extremity chapters in the AMA Guides. The impairment ratings determined using either the nervous system or upper extremity chapters of the AMA Guides resulted in almost the same rating (9% vs 8% upper extremity impairment), and either value converted to 5% whole person permanent impairment. In the second case, the neurologist evaluated the individual for neuropathic pain (9% WPI), and the orthopedic surgeon rated the patient as Diagnosis-related estimates Cervical Category II for nonverifiable radicular pain (5% to 8% WPI).


2001 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Robert H. Haralson

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, was published in November 2000 and contains major changes from its predecessor. In the Fourth Edition, all musculoskeletal evaluation and rating was described in a single chapter. In the Fifth Edition, this information has been divided into three separate chapters: Upper Extremity (13), Lower Extremity (14), and Spine (15). This article discusses changes in the spine chapter. The Models for rating spinal impairment now are called Methods. The AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, has reverted to standard terminology for spinal regions in the Diagnosis-related estimates (DRE) Method, and both it and the Range of Motion (ROM) Method now reference cervical, thoracic, and lumbar. Also, the language requiring the use of the DRE, rather than the ROM Method has been strengthened. The biggest change in the DRE Method is that evaluation should include the treatment results. Unfortunately, the Fourth Edition's philosophy regarding when and how to rate impairment using the DRE Model led to a number of problems, including the same rating of all patients with radiculopathy despite some true differences in outcomes. The term differentiator was abandoned and replaced with clinical findings. Significant changes were made in evaluation of patients with spinal cord injuries, and evaluators should become familiar with these and other changes in the Fifth Edition.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document