scholarly journals Sonographic and Clinical Features of Upper Extremity Deep Venous Thrombosis in Critical Care Patients

2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Blaivas ◽  
Konstantinos Stefanidis ◽  
Serafim Nanas ◽  
John Poularas ◽  
Mitchell Wachtel ◽  
...  

Background-Aim. Upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) is an increasingly recognized problem in the critically ill. We sought to identify the prevalence of and risk factors for UEDVT, and to characterize sonographically detected thrombi in the critical care setting.Patients and Methods. Three hundred and twenty patients receiving a subclavian or internal jugular central venous catheter (CVC) were included. When an UEDVT was detected, therapeutic anticoagulation was started. Additionally, a standardized ultrasound scan was performed to detect the extent of the thrombus. Images were interpreted offline by two independent readers.Results. Thirty-six (11.25%) patients had UEDVT and a complete scan was performed. One (2.7%) of these patients died, and 2 had pulmonary embolism (5.5%). Risk factors associated with UEDVT were presence of CVC [(odds ratio (OR) 2.716,P=0.007)], malignancy (OR 1.483,P=0.036), total parenteral nutrition (OR 1.399,P=0.035), hypercoagulable state (OR 1.284,P=0.045), and obesity (OR 1.191,P=0.049). Eight thrombi were chronic, and 28 were acute. We describe a new sonographic sign which characterized acute thrombosis: a double hyperechoic line at the interface between the thrombus and the venous wall; but its clinical significance remains to be defined.Conclusion. Presence of CVC was a strong predictor for the development of UEDVT in a cohort of critical care patients; however, the rate of subsequent PE and related mortality was low.

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


2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Farah Al-Saffar ◽  
Ena Gupta ◽  
Furqan Siddiqi ◽  
Muhammad Faisal ◽  
Lisa M. Jones ◽  
...  

Background. We hypothesized that positive end-exploratory pressure (PEEP) may promote venous stasis in the upper extremities and predispose to upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT).Methods. We performed a retrospective case control study of medical intensive care unit patients who required mechanical ventilation (MV) for >72 hours and underwent duplex ultrasound of their upper veins for suspected DVT between January 2011 and December 2013.Results. UEDVT was found in 32 (28.5%) of 112 patients. Nineteen (67.8%) had a central venous catheter on the same side. The mean ± SD duration of MV was13.2±9.5days. Average PEEP was7.13±2.97 cm H2O. Average PEEP was ≥10 cm H2O in 23 (20.5%) patients. Congestive heart failure (CHF) significantly increased the odds of UEDVT (OR 4.53, 95% CI 1.13–18.11;P=0.03) whereas longer duration of MV (≥13 vs. <13 days) significantly reduced it (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11–0.8;P=0.02). Morbid obesity showed a trend towards significance (OR 3.82, 95% CI 0.95–15.4;P=0.06). Neither PEEP nor any of the other analyzed predictors was associated with UEDVT.Conclusions. There is no association between PEEP and UEDVT. CHF may predispose to UEDVT whereas the risk of UEDVT declines with longer duration of MV.


Blood ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 101 (8) ◽  
pp. 3049-3051 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron P. Hong ◽  
Deborah J. Cook ◽  
Christopher S. Sigouin ◽  
Theodore E. Warkentin

Abstract Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a transient antibody-mediated hypercoagulability state strongly associated with lower-limb deep-vein thrombosis (DVT). Whether HIT is additionally associated with upper-limb DVT—either with or without central venous catheter (CVC) use—is unknown. We therefore studied 260 patients with antibody-positive HIT to determine the influence of CVC use on frequency and localization of upper-extremity DVT in comparison with 2 non-HIT control populations (postoperative orthopedic surgery and intensive-care unit patients). Compared with the control populations, both upper- and lower-extremity DVTs were found to be associated with HIT. Upper-extremity DVTs occurred more frequently in HIT patients with a CVC (14 of 145 [9.7%]) versus none of 115 (0%) patients without a CVC (P = .000 35). All upper-extremity DVTs occurred at the CVC site (right, 12; left, 2; kappa = 1.0; P = .011). We conclude that a localizing vascular injury (CVC use) and a systemic hypercoagulability disorder (HIT) interact to explain upper-extremity DVT complicating HIT.


2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 28-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marijn ML van den Houten ◽  
Regine van Grinsven ◽  
Sjaak Pouwels ◽  
Lonneke SF Yo ◽  
Marc RHM van Sambeek ◽  
...  

Approximately 10% of all cases of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) occur in the upper extremities. The most common secondary cause of upper-extremity DVT (UEDVT) is the presence of a venous catheter. Primary UEDVT is far less common and usually occurs in patients with anatomic abnormalities of the costoclavicular space causing compression of the subclavian vein, called venous thoracic outlet syndrome (VTOS). Subsequently, movement of the arm results in repetitive microtrauma to the vein and its surrounding structures causing apparent ‘spontaneous’ thrombosis, or Paget-Schrötter syndrome. Treatment of UEDVT aims at elimination of the thrombus, thereby relieving acute symptoms, and preventing recurrence. Initial management for all UEDVT patients consists of anticoagulant therapy. In patients with Paget-Schrötter syndrome the underlying VTOS necessitates a more aggressive management strategy. Several therapeutic options exist, including catheter-directed thrombolysis, surgical decompression through first rib resection, and percutaneous transluminal angioplasty of the vein. However, several controversies exist regarding their indication and timing.


1970 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 84-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
RJ Tamanna

Venous thromoboembolism (VTE) represents a spectrum of disease which includes deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), a common complication in critically ill patients. VTE is difficult to diagnose, expensive to treat and occasionally lethal despite therapy. Therefore preventive measures are paramount. DVT and PE contribute significantly to morbidity and mortality associated with critical illness. But VTE remains an underestimated problem in ICU patients, despite the findings of many randomized controlled trials performed in the fields of DVT prophylaxis during the past few decades This article reviews the risk of VTE in critical care patients, thromboprophylaxis and suggests strategies to reduce the burden of thrombo-embloic disease in critical care unit. Key words: Venous thromoboembolism; Intensive Care Unit. DOI: 10.3329/uhj.v5i2.4562 University Heart Journal Vol.5(2) July 2009 pp.84-88


2004 ◽  
Vol 15 (8) ◽  
pp. 503-507 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henk J. Baarslag ◽  
Maria M.W. Koopman ◽  
Barbara A. Hutten ◽  
May W. Linthorst Homan ◽  
Harry R. Büller ◽  
...  

Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 2251-2251
Author(s):  
John P. Winters ◽  
Mary Cushman ◽  
Peter W Callas ◽  
Allen B Repp ◽  
Neil A Zakai

Abstract Abstract 2251 Introduction: Upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) is an increasingly recognized complication in medical inpatients, contributing to morbidity and increased cost of hospitalizations. Despite the rising use of central venous catheters (CVCS), there is little data available on incidence and risk factors for UEDVT in medical inpatients. Methods: All cases of hospital-acquired VTE (Venous Thromboembolism) were identified using ICD-9 codes and confirmed by medical record review at a 500-bed teaching hospital in the United States between January 2002 and June 2009. Hospital-acquired VTE was defined as imaging confirmed deep venous thrombosis (DVT) of the limbs or pulmonary emboli (PE) occurring during the hospitalization and not present on admission. Controls without VTE ICD-9 codes were matched 2:1 to cases by admission year and service. A standard form was used to collect information on both cases and controls including use of CVCs. CVC use in the controls was used to estimate CVC use in medical inpatients based on the sampling frequency. Weighted logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (OR) for VTE for CVCs after adjusting for VTE risk factors from a previously developed VTE risk assessment model. Results: 299 cases of VTE complicated 64,034 admissions (4.6 per 1000 admissions). A total of 51% (91/180) of DVTs were UEDVT, for an overall incidence of 1.4 (95% CI 0.8–1.4) per 1000 admissions. There were 247 (95% CI 203, 292) CVCs placed per 1000 admissions. PICC lines were placed in 87 (95% CI 62, 113) per 1000 admission, non-PICC upper extremity CVCs in 127 (95% CI 99, 156) per 1000 admissions and lower extremity CVCs in 17 (95% CI 9, 25) per 1000 admissions. VTE incidence was 10.0 (95% CI 7.4, 12.5) per 1000 admissions in patients with a CVCs vs. 3.0 (95% CI 2.4, 3.6) per 1000 in patients without a CVC. The incidence of UEDVT was 4.9 (95% CI 3.3 – 6.2) per 1000 admissions in patients with CVCs versus 0.3 (95% CI 0.2 – 0.5) per 1000 admissions in patients without CVCs. The adjusted ORs for VTE are presented in the table. Risk of upper extremity DVTs was strongly associated with use of CVCs (OR 14.0; CI 5.9–33.2), with the highest risk associated with PICCs (13.0 (6.1–27.6), followed by lower extremity CVCs, and non-PICC upper extremity CVCs. Placement of lower extremity CVCs was associated with the highest odds of PE and lower extremity DVT. Most (72%) patients with lower extremity CVCs also had an upper extremity line placed prior to their VTE. The odds of PE were increased in non-PICC upper extremity CVC and lower extremity CVCs but not PICCs (Table). CVCs placed prior to the hospitalization were not associated with an increased risk of VTE. Conclusion: For the first time we demonstrate the impact CVCs have on hospital-acquired VTE in medical inpatients. Quality organizations and clinical trials of VTE prevention have not addressed UEDVTs, however they are frequent in medical inpatients and contribute to morbidity and medical costs. Increased awareness of UEDVTs associated with CVCs and inclusion of these events in clinical trials of VTE prophylaxis are needed to develop appropriate preventive strategies. Disclosures: Cushman: Beckman: Honoraria.


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