Evaluation of the new simple and objective clinical decision rule “I-DVT” in patients with clinically suspected acute deep vein thrombosis

Role of Physical Therapists in the Management of Individuals at Risk for or Diagnosed With Venous Thromboembolism: Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline 2022

No matter the practice setting, physical therapists work with patients who are at risk for or who have a history of venous thromboembolism (VTE). In 2016, the first clinical practice guideline (CPG) addressing the physical therapist management of VTE was published with support by the American Physical Therapy Association's Academy of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Physical Therapy and Academy of Acute Care, with a primary focus on lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT). This CPG is an update of the 2016 CPG and contains the most current evidence available for the management of patients with lower extremity DVT and new key action statements (KAS), including guidance on upper extremity DVT, pulmonary embolism, and special populations. This document will guide physical therapist practice in the prevention of and screening for VTE and in the management of patients who are at risk for or who have been diagnosed with VTE. Through a systematic review of published studies and a structured appraisal process, KAS were written to guide the physical therapist. The evidence supporting each action was rated, and the strength of statement was determined. Clinical practice algorithms based on the KAS were developed that can assist with clinical decision-making. Physical therapists, along with other members of the health care team, should implement these KAS to decrease the incidence of VTE, improve the diagnosis and acute management of VTE, and reduce the long-term complications of VTE.

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

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.

D-dimer as a stand-alone test to rule out deep vein thrombosis

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend the use of clinical decision rules, such as Wells score, in combination with D-dimer to assess the need for objective imaging to rule out deep vein thrombosis (DVT). However, the clinical decision rule has limitations, and use of D-dimer as a stand-alone test has been suggested.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the safety and efficiency of D-dimer as a stand-alone test to rule out DVT in outpatients referred with suspected DVT.

METHODS

We collected data from consecutive outpatients referred to our hospital with suspected DVT in 2008-2018. D-dimer levels were analyzed using STA® Liatest® D-Di assay. D-dimer as a stand-alone test was theoretically applied in retrospect, and the number of misdiagnosed events were estimated as if such an approach had been initially used. All patients were followed for three months.

RESULTS

Of 1765 included patients, 293 (16.6%) were diagnosed with DVT. A total of 491 patients (27.8%) had a negative D-dimer (<500 ng/mL). Of these, nine were diagnosed with DVT, yielding a failure rate for D-dimer as a stand-alone test of 1.8% (95% CI 0.8%-3.5%). The majority of the misdiagnosed patients had distal DVT. In analyses restricted to proximal DVTs, the failure rate was 0.6% (95% CI 0.1%-1.8%). D-dimer as a stand-alone approach reduced the proportion of required ultrasounds from 81.8% to 72.2%.

CONCLUSION

D-dimer as a stand-alone test may be safe for excluding proximal DVT and reduce the proportion of required ultrasounds. Prospective management studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Safety of D-dimer testing as a stand-alone test for the exclusion of deep vein thrombosis as compared with other strategies

Essentials The aim of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) diagnostic work-up is to maximize both safety and efficiency. We explored whether D-dimer is safe and efficient as a stand-alone test to exclude DVT. Our findings suggest it is a safe, efficient and simplified diagnostic strategy. The safety of age-adjusted D-dimer as a stand-alone test requires further investigation. SUMMARY: Background Several strategies for safely excluding deep vein thrombosis (DVT) while limiting the number of imaging tests have been explored. Objectives To determine whether D-dimer testing could safely and efficiently exclude DVT as a stand-alone test, and evaluate its performance as compared with strategies that incorporate the Wells score and age-adjusted D-dimer. Patients/Methods We included consecutive outpatients referred with suspected DVT to the Emergency Department at Østfold Hospital, Norway. STA-Liatest D-Di PLUS D-dimer was analyzed for all patients. Patients with a D-dimer level of ≥ 0.5 μg mL-1 were referred for compression ultrasonography (CUS). In patients with a D-dimer level of < 0.5 μg mL-1 , no further testing was performed and anticoagulation was withheld. Patients were followed for 3 months for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Results Of the 913 included patients, 298 (33%) had a negative D-dimer result. One hundred and seventy-three patients (18.9%) were diagnosed with DVT at baseline. One of 298 patients had DVT despite having a negative D-dimer result, resulting in a failure rate of 0.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.1-1.9%). Adding the modified Wells score would have yielded a failure rate of 0.0% (95% CI 0.0-1.8%) while necessitating 87 more CUS examinations. Age-adjusted D-dimer as a stand-alone test would have necessitated 80 fewer CUS examinations than fixed D-dimer as a stand-alone test, at the cost of a failure rate of 1.6% (95% CI 0.7-3.4%). Conclusions This outcome study shows that a negative high-sensitivity D-dimer result safely excludes DVT in an outpatient population, and necessitates fewer CUS than if used in combination with Wells score. The safety of stand-alone age-adjusted D-dimer needs further assessment in prospective outcome studies.

New biomarkers and imaging approaches for the diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Symptoms suggestive of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) are extremely common in clinical practice, but unfortunately nonspecific. In both ambulatory and inpatient settings, clinicians are often tasked with evaluating these concerns. Here, we review the most recent advances in biomarkers and imaging to diagnose lower extremity DVT.

RECENT FINDINGS

The modified Wells score remains the most supported clinical decision rule for risk stratifying patients. In uncomplicated patients, the D-dimer can be utilized with risk stratification to reasonably exclude lower extremity DVT in some patients. Although numerous biomarkers have been explored, soluble P-selectin has the most promise as a novel marker for DVT. Imaging will be required for many patients and ultrasound is the primary modality. Nuclear medicine techniques are under development, and computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance venography are reasonable alternatives in select patients.

SUMMARY

D-dimer is the only clinically applied biomarker for DVT diagnosis, with soluble P-selectin a promising novel biomarker. Recent studies have identified several other potential biomarkers. Ultrasound remains the imaging modality of choice, but CT, MRI, or nuclear medicine tests can be considered in select scenarios.