Mandatory contrast-enhanced venography to detect deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) in studies of DVT prophylaxis: upsides and downsides

Jack Hirsh; Jeffrey S. Ginsberg; Noel Chan; Gordon Guyatt; John W. Eikelboom

doi:10.1160/TH13-07-0562

Thrombosis and Haemostasis, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Thromb Haemost 2014; 111(01): 10-13
DOI: 10.1160/TH13-07-0562

Clinical Focus

Schattauer GmbH

Mandatory contrast-enhanced venography to detect deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) in studies of DVT prophylaxis: upsides and downsides

Jack Hirsh

¹Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

,

Jeffrey S. Ginsberg

¹Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

,

Noel Chan

¹Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

,

Gordon Guyatt

¹Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

,

John W. Eikelboom

¹Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

› Institutsangaben

Abstract

Summary

The introduction of venography into patient care was a major advance because it was the first accurate method for the diagnosis of DVT. Compression ultrasound has since become the preferred test for patients with suspected DVT because, unlike venography, it is simple, non-invasive and widely available. Venography has facilitated the development and approval of new anticoagulants and remains widely used as an efficacy outcome in trials of venous thromboembolism prevention. Most thrombi detected by screening venography are, however, small and unimportant for patients. In order to calculate the trade-off between an asymptomatic thrombus and a bleed we require an estimate of the number of asymptomatic thrombi that must be prevented to avoid a patient-important thrombus. A credible estimate of this ratio is not available. Therefore when used as a measure of efficacy in trials of thromboprophylaxis, venography has limitations for comparing the relative effects of alternative antithrombotic agents on outcomes important to patients.

Keywords

Deep-vein thrombosis - venous thrombosis - prophylaxis

Volltext

Referenzen

References
1 McLachlin J, Richards T, Paterson JC. An evaluation of clinical signs in the diagnosis of venous thrombosis. Arch Surg 1962; 85: 738-744.
2 Nicolaides AN, Kakkar VV, Field ES. et al. The origin of deep vein thrombosis: a venographic study. Br J Radiol 1971; 44: 653-663.
3 Sandler DA, Martin JF, Duncan JS. et al. Diagnosis of deep-vein thrombosis: comparison of clinical evaluation, ultrasound, plethysmography, and venoscan with X-ray venogram. Lancet 1984; 2: 716-719.
4 Wells PS, Owen C, Doucette S. et al. Does this patient have deep vein thrombosis?. J Am Med Assoc 2006; 295: 199-207.
5 Hull R, Hirsh J, Sackett DL. et al. Clinical validity of a negative venogram in patients with clinically suspected venous thrombosis. Circulation 1981; 64: 622-625.
6 Bates SM, Jaeschke R, Stevens SM. et al. Diagnosis of DVT: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest 2012; 141: e351S-e418S.
7 Kearon C, Julian JA, Newman TE. et al. Noninvasive diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis. McMaster Diagnostic Imaging Practice Guidelines Initiative. Ann Intern Med 1998; 128: 663-677.
8 Cogo A, Lensing AW, Koopman MM. et al. Compression ultrasonography for diagnostic management of patients with clinically suspected deep vein thrombosis: prospective cohort study. Br Med J 1998; 316: 17-20.
9 Birdwell BG, Raskob GE, Whitsett TL, Durica SS, Comp PC, George JN. et al. The clinical validity of normal compression ultrasonography in outpatients suspected of having deep venous thrombosis. Ann Intern Med 1998; 128: 1-7.
10 Johnson SA, Stevens SM, Woller SC. et al. Risk of deep vein thrombosis following a single negative whole-leg compression ultrasound: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Med Assoc 2010; 303: 438-445.
11 Ginsberg JS, Turkstra F, Buller HR. et al. Postthrombotic syndrome after hip or knee arthroplasty: a cross-sectional study. Arch Intern Med 2000; 160: 669-672.
12 Guyatt GH, Eikelboom JW, Gould MK. et al. Approach to outcome measurement in the prevention of thrombosis in surgical and medical patients: Anti-thrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest 2012; 141: e185S-e194S.
13 Berger J, Eikelboom JW, Quinlan DJ. et al. Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis: do trial results enable clinicians and patients to evaluate whether the benefits justify the risk? Proceedings of an Ad Hoc Working Group Meeting. J Thromb Haemost 2013; 11: 778-782.
14 Turpie AG, Bauer KA, Eriksson BI. et al. Fondaparinux vs enoxaparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in major orthopedic surgery: a meta-analysis of 4 randomized double-blind studies. Arch Intern Med 2002; 162: 1833-1840.
15 Quinlan DJ, Eikelboom JW, Dahl OE. et al. Association between asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis detected by venography and symptomatic venous throm-boembolism in patients undergoing elective hip or knee surgery. J Thromb Hae- most 2007; 5: 1438-1443.
16 Bounameaux H, Agnelli G. Symptoms and clinical relevance: a dilemma for clinical trials on prevention of venous thromboembolism. Thromb Haemost 2013; 109: 585-588.
17 Collins R, Scrimgeour A, Yusuf S. et al. Reduction in fatal pulmonary embolism and venous thrombosis by perioperative administration of subcutaneous hepa-rin. Overview of results of randomized trials in general, orthopedic, and uro-logic surgery. N Engl J Med 1988; 318: 1162-1173.
18 Eriksson BI, Borris LC, Friedman RJ. et al. Rivaroxaban versus enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis after hip arthroplasty. N Engl J Med 2008; 358: 2765-2775.
19 Kakkar AK, Brenner B, Dahl OE. et al. Extended duration rivaroxaban versus short-term enoxaparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after total hip arthroplasty: a double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2008; 372: 31-39.
20 Lassen MR, Ageno W, Borris LC. et al. Rivaroxaban versus enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis after total knee arthroplasty. N Engl J Med 2008; 358: 2776-2786.
21 Turpie AG, Lassen MR, Davidson BL. et al. Rivaroxaban versus enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis after total knee arthroplasty (RECORD4): a randomised trial. Lancet 2009; 373: 1673-1680.
22 Eriksson BI, Dahl OE, Rosencher N. et al. Dabigatran etexilate versus enoxapa-rin for prevention of venous thromboembolism after total hip replacement: a randomised, double-blind, noninferiority trial. Lancet 2007; 370: 949-956.
23 Eriksson BI, Dahl OE, Huo MH. et al. Oral dabigatran versus enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis after primary total hip arthroplasty (RE-NOVATE II). A randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial. Thromb Haemost 2011; 105: 721-729.
24 Eriksson BI, Dahl OE, Rosencher N. et al. Oral dabigatran etexilate versus subcutaneous enoxaparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after total knee replacement: the RE-MODEL randomized trial. J Thromb Haemost 2007; 5: 2178-2185.
25 RE-MOBILIZE Writing Committee. Ginsberg JS, Davidson BL, Comp PC. et al. Oral thrombin inhibitor dabigatran etexilate versus North American enoxapa-rin regimen for prevention of venous thromboembolism after knee arthroplasty surgery. J. Arthroplasty 2009; 24: 1-9.
26 Lassen MR, Raskob GE, Gallus A. et al. Apixaban or enoxaparin for thrombo-prophylaxis after knee replacement. N Engl J Med 2009; 361: 594-604.
27 Lassen MR, Raskob GE, Gallus A. et al. Apixaban versus enoxaparin for throm-boprophylaxis after knee replacement (ADVANCE-2): a randomised doubleblind trial. Lancet 2010; 375: 807-815.
28 Lassen MR, Gallus A, Raskob GE. et al. Apixaban versus enoxaparin for throm-boprophylaxis after hip replacement. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 2487-2498.
29 Kwong LM, Kistler KD, Mills R. et al. Thromboprophylaxis, bleeding and postoperative prosthetic joint infection in total hip and knee arthroplasty: a comprehensive literature review. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2012; 13: 333-344.