Kahn S R, Joseph L, Grover S A, Leclerc J R
Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Community Studies, Sir Mortimer B. Davis Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Thromb Res. 2001 Apr 1;102(1):15-24. doi: 10.1016/s0049-3848(01)00222-5.
In this randomized management study, we examined the safety of withholding anticoagulation on the basis of negative impedance plethysmography (IPG) compared to negative contrast venography (CV) in symptomatic patients with a first episode of clinically suspected deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and we determined the impact of the limitations of IPG or CV on their clinical utility.
Patients at a university teaching hospital presenting with a first episode of clinically suspected DVT were randomized to one of two management strategies at study entry: (1) IPG: if positive, confirmatory CV was performed. If CV was positive, anticoagulants were administered, if CV was negative, anticoagulants were held. If negative, IPG was repeated serially and if it remained negative, anticoagulants were held (n = 165). (2) CV: if positive, anticoagulants were administered, if negative, anticoagulants were held (n = 159). The negative predictive value (NPV) of IPG and CV, positive predictive value (PPV) of IPG, and the failure rate of each strategy were assessed.
Among IPG patients, 28 of 37 with positive IPG initially or during serial testing and evaluable CV had confirmed DVT (PPV 76%; 95% confidence interval, CI [62%, 90%]). DVT was diagnosed during serial testing in 2.1% of patients with initially negative IPG who completed testing. The NPV overall of negative IPG was 98.3%. During follow-up, two patients in the IPG group (1.2%) and two patients in the CV group (1.3%) developed venous thromboembolism (VTE). Death during follow-up occurred in 11% of IPG patients compared to 6% of CV patients (P =.13) The investigation strategy failed in 25% of IPG patients and in 14% of CV patients.
Our findings demonstrate that the two diagnostic strategies we studied are equivalent methods for ruling out DVT in patients with a first episode of suspected DVT. The PPV of IPG was too low to permit its use alone as a test to rule in DVT. Both strategies had surprisingly high failure rates.
在这项随机对照管理研究中,我们比较了在有临床疑似深静脉血栓形成(DVT)首发症状的患者中,基于阴性阻抗体积描记法(IPG)与阴性静脉造影(CV)停用抗凝治疗的安全性,并确定IPG或CV的局限性对其临床应用的影响。
一所大学教学医院中出现临床疑似DVT首发症状的患者在研究入组时被随机分为两种管理策略之一:(1)IPG组:若IPG为阳性,则进行确诊性CV检查。若CV为阳性,则给予抗凝治疗;若CV为阴性,则停用抗凝治疗。若IPG为阴性,则连续重复检查,若仍为阴性,则停用抗凝治疗(n = 165)。(2)CV组:若CV为阳性,则给予抗凝治疗;若为阴性,则停用抗凝治疗(n = 159)。评估IPG和CV的阴性预测值(NPV)、IPG的阳性预测值(PPV)以及每种策略的失败率。
在IPG组患者中,37例最初或在连续检查及可评估CV时IPG为阳性的患者中,28例确诊为DVT(PPV 76%;95%置信区间,CI [62%,90%])。在最初IPG为阴性且完成检查的患者中,2.1%在连续检查期间被诊断为DVT。阴性IPG的总体NPV为98.3%。随访期间,IPG组有2例患者(1.2%)和CV组有2例患者(1.3%)发生静脉血栓栓塞(VTE)。随访期间,IPG组11%的患者死亡,而CV组为6%(P = 0.13)。25%的IPG组患者和14%的CV组患者的检查策略失败。
我们的研究结果表明,我们研究的两种诊断策略是排除疑似DVT首发患者DVT的等效方法。IPG的PPV过低,不能单独用作确诊DVT的检查。两种策略的失败率都出奇地高。