Upper-Extremity Venous Duplex Evaluation

2005 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 79-83
Author(s):  
Kari A. Olmsted

As many as 80% of upper-extremity venous thrombosis cases develop in response to an easily identified problem, such as central venous catheter. The remaining 20% of obstructions are caused by other central venous obstruction, trauma, or Paget-Schroetter syndrome. Appropriate clinical indications for upper-extremity venous duplex evaluation include (but are not limited to) unilateral upper-extremity swelling in the presence of indwelling central venous catheter, upper-extremity erythema and tenderness, superficial palpable cord, or facial swelling. Physical examination and thorough patient history compliment the duplex findings to arrive at an accurate diagnosis. The most effective way to determine the presence or absence of thrombosis is with vein wall compressions. However, most of the upper-extremity central vein segments are located beneath bony structures, which prevent extrinsic compression with transducer pressure. Therefore, the spectral Doppler waveform analysis component of the duplex exam becomes crucial in determining venous obstruction. Common technical components and pitfalls include appropriate color and spectral Doppler settings to reliably demonstrate presence/absence of flow or accurate accounting for innominate vein and supraclavicular/infraclavicular subclavian vein versus occluded native anatomy and large patent branches. When properly executed, the aforementioned components comprise a thorough duplex evaluation of the upper extremity venous system.

Blood ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 106 (11) ◽  
pp. 584-584
Author(s):  
Frederick A. Spencer3 ◽  
Robert J. Goldberg ◽  
Darleen Lessard ◽  
Cathy Emery ◽  
Apar Bains ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Recent observations suggest that upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) has become more common over the last few decades. However the prevalence of this disorder within the community has not been established. The purpose of this study was to compare the occurrence rate, risk factor profile, management strategies, and hospital outcomes in patients with upper versus lower extremity DVT in a cohort of all Worcester residents diagnosed with venous thromboembolism (VTE) in 1999. Methods: The medical records of all residents from the Worcester, MA statistical metropolitan area (2000 census=478,000) diagnosed with ICD-9 codes consistent with possible DVT and/or pulmonary embolism at all 11 Worcester hospitals during the years 1999, 2001, and 2003 are being reviewed by trained data abstractors. Validation of each case of VTE is performed using prespecified criteria. Results: A total of 483 cases have been validated as acute DVT events - this represents all cases of DVT occurring in residents of the Worcester SMSA in 1999. For purposes of this analysis we have excluded 4 patients with both upper and lower extremity DVT. Upper extremity DVT was diagnosed in 68 (14.2%) of patients versus 411 (85.8%) cases of lower extremity DVT. Patients with upper extremity DVT were younger, more likely to be Hispanic, more likely to have renal disease and more likely to have had a recent central venous catheter, infection, surgery, ICU stay, or chemotherapy than patients with lower extremity DVT. They were less likely to have had a prior DVT or to have developed their current DVT as an outpatient. Although less likely to be treated with heparin, LMWH, or warfarin they were more likely to suffer major bleeding complications. Recurrence rates of VTE during hospitalization were very low in both groups. Conclusions: Patients with upper extremity DVT comprise a small but clinically important proportion of all patients with DVT in the community setting. Their risk profiles differs from patients with lower extremity DVT suggesting strategies for DVT prophylaxis and treatment for this group may need to be tailored. Characteristics of Patients with Upper versus Lower Extremity DVT Upper extremity (n=68) Lower extremity (n=417) P value *Recent = < 3 months Demographics Mean Age, yrs 59.3 66.5 <0.001 Male (%) 51.5 45 NS Race (%) <0.05 White 86.6 91.6 Black 1.5 3.2 Hispanic 9.0 2.0 VTE Setting (%) <0.001 Community 53.8 76.2 Hospital Acquired 46.2 23.8 Risk Factors (%) Recent Central Venous Catheter 61.8 11.9 <0.001 Recent Infection 48.5 32.4 <0.01 Recent Surgery 47.8 28.1 <0.001 Cancer 44.1 32.6 0.06 Recent Immobility 38.2 47.0 NS Recent chemotherapy 25 9.5 <0.001 Renal disease 23.5 1.7 <0.0001 Recent ICU discharge 23.5 15.1 0.07 Recent CHF 19.1 16.6 NS Previous DVT 3.0 18.7 <0.01 Anticoagulant prophylaxis (%) During hospital admission (n=125) 76.7 71.6 NS During recent prior hospital admission (n=188) 73.7 54.7 <0.05 During recent surgery (n=146) 62.5 55.3 NS Hospital therapy - treatment doses (%) Any heparin/LMWH 66.2 82 <0.01 Warfarin at discharge 53.1 71.2 <0.01 Hospital Outcomes (%) Length of stay (mean, d) 11.2 6.8 <0.01 Major bleeding 11.8 4.9 <0.05 Recurrent DVT 1.5 1.0 NS Recurrent PE 0 0.2 NS Hospital Mortality 4.5 4.1 NS


2013 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 41
Author(s):  
Ragesh Panikkath ◽  
Sian Yik Lim ◽  
Deepa Panikkath

Inadvertent cannulation of the azygos vein can occur during central vein cannulations,especially from the left side. This can cause several complications, including rupture ofthe azygos vein. This complication is unlikely from the more commonly used right internaljugular vein access, although that approach is not free of complications. An abruptcurve at the tip of the central venous catheter showing venous wave forms and highoxygen saturations suggest azygos vein cannulation. Azygos vein cannulations may bemore common in patients with heart failure in which the vein is dilated.


CJEM ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 7 (04) ◽  
pp. 273-277 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandeep K. Aggarwal ◽  
William McCauley

ABSTRACTThrombotic venous obstruction in patients with a tunnelled central venous catheter is a cause of superior vena cava syndrome that is not routinely encountered by emergency physicians. Diagnosis requires identifying patients at risk (e.g., those under treatment for cancer and those who have a tunnelled central venous catheter), recognizing the signs and symptoms of superior vena cava syndrome, usually dyspnea and dilated neck or thoracic veins, and imaging the venous obstruction using computer tomography or sonography. Management involves anticoagulation and local thrombolytic administration. We report the case of a 28-year-old woman who presented with a 2-day history of face, chest and bilateral arm swelling who had been receiving maintenance chemotherapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia through a Hickman® catheter. This case demonstrates the need to be vigilant for thrombus formation in patients with long-term, indwelling central venous catheters.


2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 540-543 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theodoros Eleftheriadis ◽  
Vassilios Liakopoulos ◽  
Georgia Antoniadi ◽  
Georgios Pissas ◽  
Konstantinos Leivaditis ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 495-500 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Allon ◽  
Deborah J. Brouwer-Maier ◽  
Kenneth Abreo ◽  
Kevin M. Baskin ◽  
Kay Bregel ◽  
...  

Central venous catheters are used frequently in patients on hemodialysis as a bridge to a permanent vascular access. They are prone to frequent complications, including catheter-related bloodstream infection, catheter dysfunction, and central vein obstruction. There is a compelling need to develop new drugs or devices to prevent central venous catheter complications. We convened a multidisciplinary panel of experts to propose standardized definitions of catheter end points to guide the design of future clinical trials seeking approval from the Food and Drug Administration. Our workgroup suggests diagnosing catheter-related bloodstream infection in catheter-dependent patients on hemodialysis with a clinical suspicion of infection (fever, rigors, altered mental status, or unexplained hypotension), blood cultures growing the same organism from the catheter hub and a peripheral vein (or the dialysis bloodline), and absence of evidence for an alternative source of infection. Catheter dysfunction is defined as the inability of a central venous catheter to (1) complete a single dialysis session without triggering recurrent pressure alarms or (2) reproducibly deliver a mean dialysis blood flow of >300 ml/min (with arterial and venous pressures being within the hemodialysis unit parameters) on two consecutive dialysis sessions or provide a Kt/V≥1.2 in 4 hours or less. Catheter dysfunction is defined only if it persists, despite attempts to reposition the patient, reverse the arterial and venous lines, or forcefully flush the catheter. Central vein obstruction is suspected in patients with >70% stenosis of a central vein by contrast venography or the equivalent, ipsilateral upper extremity edema, and an existing or prior history of a central venous catheter. There is some uncertainty about the specific criteria for these diagnoses, and the workgroup has also proposed future high-priority studies to resolve these questions.


2007 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 625-626 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hemant Digambar Waikar ◽  
Yoosoof Kamil Mohamed Lahie ◽  
Sinnathurai Narenthiran ◽  
Roshan Rabel

2015 ◽  
Vol 135 (2) ◽  
pp. 298-302 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aurélien Delluc ◽  
Grégoire Le Gal ◽  
Dimitrios Scarvelis ◽  
Marc Carrier

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document