Villalta S, Prandoni P, Cogo A, Bagatella P, Piccioli A, Bernardi E, Simioni P, Scarano L, Girolami A
Institute of Medical Semeiotics, University Hospital of Padova, Italy.
Thromb Haemost. 1995 Apr;73(4):592-6.
Despite the availability of several diagnostic methods for the detection of deep-vein thrombosis (DVT), the identification of previous episodes of DVT remains a diagnostic challenge.
To assess the reliability of a combination of a standardized clinical score with three non-invasive tests: compression ultrasonography (CUS), Doppler ultrasound (DUS), and photoplethysmography (PPG), in determining the presence or the absence of previous proximal DVT.
One hundred consecutive unselected outpatients were identified, who had undergone contrast venography six to nine years previously because of the clinical suspicion of DVT (confirmed in 43). They were blindly reinvestigated by a panel of trained operators unaware of venography results. They underwent a clinical evaluation of the lower limb, by applying a standardized score to five symptoms and six signs (grading each item from 0 to 3); a PPG test to determine the venous refilling time; a DUS test to determine the venous reflux separately in the common femoral and the popliteal vein; and a CUS test to determine vein compressibility in the same regions.
An abnormal CUS test and/or the demonstration of venous reflux in the popliteal region and/or a high clinical score (> or = 8) identified twenty-four of the 43 (56%) DVT + patients with a specificity of 89%. The combination of normal CUS with the absence of venous reflux in both the common femoral and popliteal vein and a low clinical score excluded previous thrombosis in 45 (79%) of the 57 DVT-patients (negative predictive value, 78%). Abnormal venous reflux in the isolated common femoral vein did not reliably predict the presence or absence of previous DVT. However, this occurred in only 13 (13%) patients. The PPG determination of venous refilling time did not improve the results obtained with the other tests.
The combination of a standardized clinical evaluation with the results of CUS and DUS can reliably diagnose or exclude previous proximal-vein thrombosis in almost 90% of patients with previous episodes of suspected DVT.
尽管有多种诊断方法可用于检测深静脉血栓形成(DVT),但识别既往DVT发作仍然是一项诊断挑战。
评估标准化临床评分与三种非侵入性检查(压迫超声检查[CUS]、多普勒超声[DUS]和光电容积描记法[PPG])相结合在确定既往近端DVT是否存在时的可靠性。
确定了100例连续入选的门诊患者,他们在6至9年前因临床怀疑DVT接受了静脉造影(43例确诊)。由一组不知道静脉造影结果的训练有素的操作人员对他们进行盲法复查。他们接受了下肢的临床评估,对五种症状和六种体征应用标准化评分(每个项目从0到3分级);进行PPG检查以确定静脉充盈时间;进行DUS检查以分别确定股总静脉和腘静脉的静脉反流;进行CUS检查以确定相同区域的静脉可压缩性。
异常的CUS检查和/或腘窝区域静脉反流的显示和/或高临床评分(≥8分)在43例DVT阳性患者中识别出24例(56%),特异性为89%。CUS正常、股总静脉和腘静脉均无静脉反流以及低临床评分的组合在57例DVT阴性患者中的45例(79%)中排除了既往血栓形成(阴性预测值,78%)。孤立的股总静脉中异常静脉反流不能可靠地预测既往DVT的存在或不存在。然而,仅13例(13%)患者出现这种情况。PPG对静脉充盈时间的测定并未改善其他检查所获得的结果。
标准化临床评估与CUS和DUS结果相结合能够可靠地诊断或排除几乎90%既往有疑似DVT发作患者的既往近端静脉血栓形成。