This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Salles-Cunha, S. X. Articles by Yorkovich, W. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Salles-Cunha, S. X. Articles by Yorkovich, W. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Deep Vein Thrombosis Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Lower Extremity Deep Venous Thrombosis: Vascular Laboratory Quality Assurance Without Correlation Between Ultrasound and Venography

Enrico Ascher, MD

Anil Hingorani, MD

Natalia Markevich, MD, RVT

William Yorkovich, RPA

Brooklyn, NY

Venography is rarely available for comparison with ultrasonography (US) as a means for quality assurance (QA) in the detection of lower extremity venous thrombosis. New QA methods must be implemented. We compared results of multiple serial studies performed in the same extremity as a QA indicator. From a 3-year sample of close to 9,000 venous tests, we obtained a subset of 44 patients who had 331 tests in 71 lower extremities throughout the years. A positive or negative study preceded or followed by another positive or negative study was considered as a confirmed study. A negative or positive study not preceded or followed by a negative or positive study was considered as unconfirmed. Explanations were then sought to explain unconfirmed results. There were 169 (51%) and 124 (37%) confirmed positive and negative studies, respectively, and 13 (4%) and 25 (8%) unconfirmed positive and negative studies, respectively. Of the 13 unconfirmed positive tests, 2 were preceded by negative tests, 3 were preceded and followed by negative tests, and 8 were followed by negative tests. Of these 13 tests, 4 documented extensive venous thrombosis. Of the 25 unconfirmed negative tests, 11 followed treatment for venous thrombosis, 6 had recurrent thrombosis with intermittent lysis, and 8 were followed by positive tests. Considering the low probability of extensive thrombosis being a false-positive test, positive predictive value was 95% (173/182). Excluding 11 negative tests following treatment for venous thrombosis, negative predictive value was 90% (124/138) and accuracy was 93% (297/320). US versus US and literature US versus venography comparisons of these statistics were similar.

Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Vol. 38, No. 5, 443-447 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/153857440403800508


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?