Treatment of Superficial Vein Thrombosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 119 (03) ◽  
pp. 479-489 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Duffett ◽  
Clive Kearon ◽  
Marc Rodger ◽  
Marc Carrier
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Event Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Superficial Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Venous Thromboembolic ◽  
Event Rates ◽  
Deep Vein

Background The optimal first line treatment for patients with isolated superficial venous thrombosis (SVT) of the lower extremity is unknown. Objective This article reports estimates of the rate of venous thromboembolic complications among patients with SVT according to treatment. Materials and Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using unrestricted searches of electronic databases. Reported events were transformed to event per 100 patient-years of follow-up and a random effects model was used to calculate pooled rates according to pre-specified treatment categories. The primary outcome was the occurrence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE) during the study follow-up period. Results Seventeen articles, including 6,862 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. Fondaparinux had the lowest event rate with 1.4 events per 100 patient-years of follow-up (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5–2.8, I 2 = 18%). Pooled event rates for DVT or PE ranged from 9.3 to 16.6 events per 100 patient-years across other treatment categories, and the pooled event rate for no treatment/placebo was 10.5 events per 100 patient-years (95% CI, 3.0–22.0). Major bleeding was low and similar across all treatment categories. Heterogeneity was moderate to high for most pooled estimates. Conclusion While pooled event rates suggest that fondaparinux achieves the lowest rate of DVT or PE, low-quality evidence for other treatments prevents firm conclusions about the optimal treatment for SVT.

The risk of subsequent cancer and arterial cardiovascular events in patients with superficial vein thrombosis in the legs

Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (17) ◽  
pp. 4719-4722 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paolo Prandoni ◽  
Edoardo Casiglia ◽  
Valerie Tikhonoff ◽  
Alain Leizorovicz ◽  
Hervé Decousus ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Cardiovascular Events ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
Superficial Vein ◽  
Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Superficial Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Event Rates ◽  
Deep Vein

Abstract Although it has been clearly demonstrated that venous thromboembolism is associated with an increased risk of subsequent overt cancer and arterial cardiovascular events in comparison with control populations, whether this association also applies to patients with isolated (ie, without concomitant involvement of the deep vein system) superficial vein thrombosis (SVT) in the legs is unknown. In 737 consecutive patients with isolated SVT not involving the sapheno-femoral junction, we conducted a retrospective investigation to assess the rate of cancer and that of arterial cardiovascular events occurring during follow-up. The event rates were compared with those occurring in 1438 controls having comparable characteristics. Both cases and controls were followed-up for an average period of 26 ± 8 months (range, 3-45). Malignancy was diagnosed in 26 cases (3.5%) and 56 controls (3.9%), leading to a hazard ratio of 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.55%-1.35%). Arterial cardiovascular events occurred in 32 cases (4.3%) and 63 controls (4.4%), leading to a hazard ratio of 0.97 (95% confidence interval, 0.63%-1.50%). We conclude that the occurrence of isolated SVT in the legs does not place patients at an increased risk of malignancies or arterial cardiovascular events. Whether this conclusion also applies to patients whose thrombosis involves the sapheno-femoral junction remains to be demonstrated.

scholarly journals Safety of a strategy combining D-dimer testing and whole-leg ultrasonography to rule out deep vein thrombosis

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (20) ◽  
pp. 5002-5010
Author(s):  
Synne G. Fronas ◽  
Camilla T. Jørgensen ◽  
Anders E. A. Dahm ◽  
Hilde S. Wik ◽  
Jostein Gleditsch ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Deep Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Pretest Probability ◽  
Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Venous Thromboembolic ◽  
Deep Vein ◽  
D Dimer ◽  
Rule Out ◽  
Compression Ultrasonography ◽  
High Pretest Probability

Abstract Guidelines for the diagnostic workup of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) recommend assessing the clinical pretest probability before proceeding to D-dimer testing and/or compression ultrasonography (CUS) if the patient has high pretest probability or positive D-dimer. Referring only patients with positive D-dimer for whole-leg CUS irrespective of pretest probability may simplify the workup of DVT. In this prospective management outcome study, we assessed the safety of such a strategy. We included consecutive outpatients referred to the Emergency Department at Østfold Hospital, Norway, with suspected DVT between February 2015 and November 2018. STA-Liatest D-Di Plus D-dimer was analyzed for all patients, and only patients with levels ≥0.5 µg/mL were referred for CUS. All patients with negative D-dimer or negative CUS were followed for 3 months to assess the venous thromboembolic rate. One thousand three hundred ninety-seven patients were included. Median age was 64 years (interquartile range, 52-73 years), and 770 patients (55%) were female. D-dimer was negative in 415 patients (29.7%) and positive in 982 patients (70.3%). DVT was diagnosed in 277 patients (19.8%). Six patients in whom DVT was ruled out at baseline were diagnosed with DVT within 3 months of follow-up for a thromboembolic rate of 0.5% (95% confidence interval, 0.2-1.2). A simple diagnostic approach with initial stand-alone D-dimer followed by a single whole-leg CUS in patients with positive D-dimer safely ruled out DVT. We consider this strategy to be a valuable alternative to the conventional workup of DVT in outpatients. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02486445.

scholarly journals Incidence of thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kochawan Boonyawat ◽  
Pichika Chantrathammachart ◽  
Pawin Numthavaj ◽  
Nithita Nanthatanti ◽  
Sithakom Phusanti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Arterial Thromboembolism ◽  
Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Prophylactic Measures ◽  
Compression Ultrasound ◽  
Screening Protocol ◽  
Deep Vein

Abstract Background Since the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the incidence of thromboembolism has been increasingly reported. The aim of this systematic review was to explore the incidence of venous and arterial thromboembolism among COVID-19 patients requiring hospitalization. Methods Medline, Embase, Scopus, and grey literature were searched until June 2020. Observational studies reported on the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE), including pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or arterial thromboembolism (ATE) were included. The pool incidences and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the random-effects model. Results A total of 36 studies were included. In the intensive care unit (ICU) setting, the pooled incidence of VTE was 28% (95% CI, 22–34%). Subgroups based on compression ultrasound (CUS) screening revealed a higher incidence of DVT in the CUS screening group than in the no CUS screening group (32% [95% CI, 18–45%] vs. 6% [95% CI, 4–9%]). The pooled incidence of ATE in ICU was 3% (95% CI, 2–5%). In the non-ICU setting, the pooled incidence of VTE was 10% (95% CI, 6–14%,). Conclusions The incidence of VTE in COVID-19 patients was higher in the ICU setting than in the non-ICU setting, and also significantly higher in studies that incorporated the CUS screening protocol. The incidence of ATE in the ICU setting was low. VTE prophylactic measures should be given to all hospitalized patients diagnosed with COVID-19.

scholarly journals Diagnostic accuracy of three ultrasonography strategies for deep vein thrombosis of the lower extremity: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. e0228788 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noémie Kraaijpoel ◽  
Marc Carrier ◽  
Grégoire Le Gal ◽  
Matthew D. F. McInnes ◽  
Jean-Paul Salameh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Deep Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Deep Vein

scholarly journals Ability of a single negative ultrasound to rule out deep vein thrombosis in pregnant women: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 373-380 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kumait Al Lawati ◽  
Jafar Aljazeeri ◽  
Shannon M. Bates ◽  
Wee‐Shian Chan ◽  
Kerstin De Wit
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Deep Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Deep Vein ◽  
Rule Out

scholarly journals Prophylactic anticoagulant therapy decreases the incidence of deep vein thrombosis in patients with solid tumors: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 35
Author(s):  
Yunjiao Zhou ◽  
Gong Yang ◽  
Chenglei Huang
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Deep Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Solid Tumors ◽  
Risk Ratio ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Bleeding Events ◽  
Vein Thrombosis ◽  
And Control ◽  
Deep Vein

It is not well understood the efficacy and safety of primary deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis of anticoagulants in patients with solid tumors. This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) determines the relative ratio of primary DVT, survival rate and bleeding events among patients with solid tumors treated with anticoagulants or placebo. Comprehensive literature searches were conducted through the Pubmed, Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE databases published from January 1st, 1993 to December 31st, 2015. Statistical analysis was performed by RevMan 5.0 software. For DVT events, therisk ratio in 16 trials between the prophylactic and control patients was statistically significant at 0.45 [0.36-0.58]; for major bleeding events, the risk ratio in 18 trials between the prophylactic and control patients was not statistically significant at 1.33 [0.99-1.79], while that in 15 trials with clinically relevant non-major bleeding was statistically significant at 1.83 [1.46-2.30]; the risk ratio for the mortality rate of patients with solid tumors in 16 trials was not statistically significant at 0.97 [0.93-1.02]. Inconclusion, the risk ratio in this meta-analysis showed a significantly reduced incidence of DVT with anticoagulant use. Treatment to patients who had solid tumors with prophylactic anticoagulants enhanced the incidence rate of non-major bleeding but has no significant impact on the incidence rate of major bleeding. No significant differences were found in the mortality outcomes between anticoagulant and non-anticoagulant groups.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document