scholarly journals Systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes in patients with suspected deep vein thrombosis

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (12) ◽  
pp. 2779-2788 ◽  
Author(s):  
Payal Patel ◽  
Parth Patel ◽  
Meha Bhatt ◽  
Cody Braun ◽  
Housne Begum ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Deep Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Bleeding Events ◽  
Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Deep Vein

Abstract After deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is diagnosed, prompt evaluation and therapeutic intervention are of paramount importance for improvement in patient-important outcomes. We systematically reviewed patient-important outcomes in patients with suspected DVT, including mortality, incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE) and DVT, major bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, and postthrombotic sequelae. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Medline, Embase for eligible studies, references lists of relevant reviews, registered trials, and relevant conference proceedings. Two investigators screened and abstracted data. Nine studies with 5126 patients were included for lower extremity DVT. Three studies with 500 patients were included for upper extremity DVT. Among patients with lower extremity DVT, 0.85% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0% to 2.10%) and 0% developed recurrent DVT and PE, respectively, at 3 months. Among patients with upper extremity DVT, 0.49% (95% CI, 0% to 1.16%) and 1.98% (95% CI, 0.62% to 3.33%) developed recurrent DVT and PE, respectively, at 3 months. No major bleeding events were reported for those anticoagulated, which is lower than in other systematic reviews. For both upper and lower extremity DVT, low pretest probability patients with a negative D-dimer had a comparable incidence of VTE at 3 months (∼1%) as patients with a negative ultrasound (US). At higher pretest probabilities, negative US testing with or without serial US appears to be the safer option. In this review, we summarized the outcomes of patients evaluated by various diagnostic pathways. In most instances, there was significant limitation due to small population size or lack of direct evidence of effects of using a specific pathway. This systematic review was registered at PROSPERO as CRD42018100502.

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.

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 Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis Versus Standard Anticoagulation for Acute Lower Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (7) ◽  
pp. 1134-1143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yongming Lu ◽  
Linyi Chen ◽  
Jinhui Chen ◽  
Tao Tang
Keyword(s):  
Deep Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Anticoagulation Therapy ◽  
Postthrombotic Syndrome ◽  
Bleeding Events ◽  
Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Catheter Directed Thrombolysis ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Deep Vein

Standard anticoagulant treatment alone for acute lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is ineffective in eliminating thrombus from the deep venous system, with many patients developing postthrombotic syndrome (PTS). Because catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) can dissolve the clot, reducing the development of PTS in iliofemoral or femoropopliteal DVT. This meta-analysis compares CDT plus anticoagulation versus standard anticoagulation for acute iliofemoral or femoropopliteal DVT. Ten trials were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with anticoagulant alone, CDT was shown to significantly increase the percentage patency of the iliofemoral vein ( P < .00001; I2 = 44%) and reduce the risk of PTS ( P = .0002; I2 = 79%). In subgroup analysis of randomized controlled trials, CDT was not shown to prevent PTS ( P = .2; I2 = 59%). A reduced PTS risk was shown, however, in nonrandomized trials ( P < .00001; I2 = 47%). Meta-analysis showed that CDT can reduce severe PTS risk ( P = .002; I2 = 0%). However, CDT was not indicated to prevent mild PTS ( P = .91; I2 = 79%). A significant increase in bleeding events ( P < .00001; I2 = 33%) and pulmonary embolism (PE) ( P < .00001; I2 = 14%) were also demonstrated. However, for the CDT group, the duration of stay in the hospital was significantly prolonged compared to the anticoagulant group ( P < .00001; I2 = 0%). There was no significant difference in death ( P = .09; I2 = 0%) or recurrent venous thromboembolism events ( P = .52; I2 = 58%). This meta-analysis showed that CDT may improve patency of the iliofemoral vein or severe PTS compared with anticoagulation therapy alone, but measuring PTS risk remains controversial. However, CDT could increase the risk of bleeding events, PE events, and duration of hospital stay.

Anticoagulant treatment for Upper Extremity Deep Vein thrombosis: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emanuele Valeriani ◽  
Marcello Di Nisio ◽  
Enrica Porceddu ◽  
Fabiana Agostini ◽  
Roberto Pola ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Deep Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Anticoagulant Treatment ◽  
Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Deep Vein

Post-thrombotic syndrome and recurrent thromboembolism in patients with upper extremity deep vein thrombosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 174 ◽  
pp. 34-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kartiga Thiyagarajah ◽  
Leah Ellingwood ◽  
Kaitlin Endres ◽  
Aaron Hegazi ◽  
James Radford ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Deep Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Post Thrombotic Syndrome ◽  
Deep Vein

scholarly journals Diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis of the upper extremity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of test accuracy

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (11) ◽  
pp. 2516-2522 ◽  
Author(s):  
Payal Patel ◽  
Cody Braun ◽  
Parth Patel ◽  
Meha Bhatt ◽  
Housne Begum ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Deep Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Evaluation Framework ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Deep Vein ◽  
D Dimer

Abstract Upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) accounts for ≤10% of DVT and can be associated with morbidity and mortality. Accurate diagnosis and treatment are necessary for safe and effective patient management. We systematically reviewed the accuracy of D-dimer and duplex ultrasonography (US) for the evaluation of suspected first-episode UEDVT. We searched the Cochrane Central Register, OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed for eligible studies, reference lists of relevant reviews, registered trials, and relevant conference proceedings. We included prospective cross-sectional and cohort studies that evaluated test accuracy. Two investigators independently screened and collected data. The risk of bias was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. We pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity. The review included 9 studies. The pooled estimates for D-dimer sensitivity and specificity were 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-0.99) and 0.47 (95% CI, 0.43-0.52), respectively. The pooled estimates for duplex US sensitivity and specificity were 0.87 (95% CI, 0.73-0.94) and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.72-0.93), respectively. Certainty of evidence was moderate. In this review, we summarized the test accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of D-dimer and duplex US for this indication. The sensitivity and specificity of the tests found in the present review should be considered in the context of whether they are used alone or in combination, which is dependent on the prevalence of disease in the population, the clinical setting in which the patient is being evaluated, cost, potential harms, and patient outcomes. This study was registered at PROSPERO as Systematic Review Registration Number CRD42018098488.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Comparing Anticoagulation versus No Anticoagulation and Shorter versus Longer duration of Anticoagulation for Treatment of Isolated Distal Deep Vein Thrombosis

2017 ◽  
Vol 43 (08) ◽  
pp. 836-848 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anita Ariyarajah ◽  
Christopher Oldmeadow ◽  
Alix Hall ◽  
Anoop Enjeti ◽  
Ming Lim
Keyword(s):  
Deep Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Symptomatic Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Proximal Extension ◽  
Distal Deep Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Deep Vein

AbstractIsolated distal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) represents an important clinical problem but there is no consensus regarding its management. The aim of this review was to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and shorter versus longer duration of anticoagulation in patients with isolated distal DVT. A systematic search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews. Studies reporting rates of symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE), recurrent DVT, proximal extension, and/or major bleeding were included. Fourteen studies (six randomized controlled trials, eight cohorts) involving 2,918 patients met the eligibility criteria (with a total of 13 meeting criteria for the meta-analysis). Compared with no anticoagulation, anticoagulation was associated with a significant reduction in proximal extension (odds ratio [OR]: 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.13–0.67; p < 0.004), recurrent DVT (OR: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.04–0.65; p = 0.01), and the composite end-point of proximal extension/PE (OR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.16–0.72; p = 0.005); however, no significant differences in PE (OR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.17–1.34; p = 0.16) or major bleeding (OR: 1.49; 95% CI: 0.33–6.86; p = 0.60) were observed. Anticoagulation for a longer duration (≥8 vs. ≤6 weeks) was associated with a significant reduction in proximal extension (OR: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.11–0.48; p < 0.001) but not for other outcomes.

scholarly journals Recurrence of Upper Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis Secondary to COVID-19

Viruses ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 878
Author(s):  
Yesha H. Parekh ◽  
Nicole J. Altomare ◽  
Erin P. McDonnell ◽  
Martin J. Blaser ◽  
Payal D. Parikh
Keyword(s):  
Deep Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Thromboembolic Events ◽  
Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Venous Thromboembolic Events ◽  
Venous Thromboembolic ◽  
Deep Vein

Infection with SARS-CoV-2 leading to COVID-19 induces hyperinflammatory and hypercoagulable states, resulting in arterial and venous thromboembolic events. Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) has been well reported in COVID-19 patients. While most DVTs occur in a lower extremity, involvement of the upper extremity is uncommon. In this report, we describe the first reported patient with an upper extremity DVT recurrence secondary to COVID-19 infection.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document