Sport and Venous Thromboembolism

Upper arm versus forearm transcutaneous oximetry during upper limb abduction in patients with suspected thoracic outlet syndrome

Context: Thoracic outlet syndrome (TOS) is common among athletes and should be considered as being of arterial origin only if patients have “clinical symptoms due to documented symptomatic ischemia.” We previously reported that upper limb ischemia can be documented with DROPm (minimal value of limb changes minus chest changes) from transcutaneous oximetry (TcpO2) in TOS.

Purpose: We aimed to test the hypothesised that forearm (F-) DROPm would better detect symptoms associated with arterial compression during abduction than upper arm (U-) DROPm, and that the thresholds would differ.

Methods: We studied 175 patients (retrospective analysis of a cross-sectional acquired database) with simultaneous F-TcpO2 and U-TcpO2 recordings on both upper limbs, and considered tests to be positive (CS+) when upper limb symptoms were associated with ipsilateral arterial compression on either ultrasound or angiography. We determined the threshold and diagnostic performance with a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and calculation of the area under the ROC curve (AUROC) for absolute resting TcpO2 and DROPm values to detect CS+. For all tests, a two-tailed p < 0.05 was considered indicative of statistical significance.

Results: In the 350 upper-limbs, while resting U-TcpO2 and resting F-TcpO2 were not predictive of CS + results, the AUROCs were 0.68 ± 0.03 vs. 0.69 ± 0.03 (both p < 0.01), with the thresholds being −7.5 vs. −14.5 mmHg for the detection of CS + results for U-DROPm vs. F-DROPm respectively.

Conclusion: In patients with suspected TOS, TcpO2 can be used for detecting upper limb arterial compression and/or symptoms during arm abduction, provided that different thresholds are used for U-DROPm and F-DROPm.

Clinical Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT04376177.

VTE Prophylaxis Therapy: Clinical Practice vs Clinical Guidelines

Introduction

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the most preventable complication in hospitalized patients. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the adherence of current clinical practice to the established guidelines at a Palestinian teaching hospital.

Methods

This cross-sectional, retrospective, observational study was conducted at a Palestinian Teaching Hospital. The medical records of patients admitted to the medical floor over 18 years of age and hospitalized for longer than 24 hours between January 1 and May 31, 2019, were included. Patients taking anticoagulants with incomplete or duplicated medical records were excluded from the study. A data collection sheet was developed, and clotting and bleeding risks were assessed using the Padua and IMPROVE risk assessment models (scores). The data were analyzed using IBM SPSS (version 25).

Results

In total, 408 patients were included in the study, 222 of whom received thromboprophylaxis (54.4%). Of the hospitalized patients, 112 (27.5%) had a high risk of developing VTE (Padua score ≥ 4), and 73 patients were eligible for VTE pharmacological prophylaxis; however, only 44 (60.3%) received the appropriate prophylaxis. In addition, 296 patients had low Padua scores, indicating that pharmacological prophylaxis was not indicated. However, 144 (48.6%) patients received prophylaxis. The mean Padua and IMPROVE risk scores were 2.25 ± 2.08 and 4.44 ± 2.72, respectively. Among the patients, 17.6% had a high risk of bleeding (IMPROVE score ≥ 7).

Conclusion

VTE prophylaxis among hospitalized medically ill patients was mostly inappropriate; 80.18% of the patients received inappropriate prophylaxis, and only 60.3% of eligible patients received appropriate prophylaxis. Adapting assessment models or checklists in clinical practice based on clinical guidelines for VTE risk stratification is a practical and effective method to improve VTE prophylaxis management and select the appropriate therapy to prevent toxicity or complication.