Search

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a collective term for two conditions: deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). A proportion of people with VTE have no underlying or immediately predisposing risk factors and the VTE is referred to as unprovoked. Unprovoked VTE can often be the first clinical manifestation of an underlying malignancy. This has raised the question of whether people with an unprovoked VTE should be investigated for an underlying cancer. Treatment for VTE is different in cancer and non-cancer patients and a correct diagnosis would ensure that people received the optimal treatment for VTE to prevent recurrence and further morbidity. Furthermore, an appropriate cancer diagnosis at an earlier stage could avoid the risk of cancer progression and lead to improvements in cancer-related mortality and morbidity. This is an update of a review first published in 2015., Objectives: To determine whether testing for undiagnosed cancer in people with a first episode of unprovoked VTE (DVT of the lower limb or PE) is effective in reducing cancer or VTE-related mortality and morbidity and to determine which tests for cancer are best at identifying treatable cancers early., Search Methods: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 11 July 2018. We also undertook reference checking to identify additional studies., Selection Criteria: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials in which people with an unprovoked VTE were allocated to receive specific tests for identifying cancer or clinically indicated tests only were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, cancer-related mortality and VTE-related mortality., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We resolved any disagreements by discussion., Main Results: No new studies were identified for this 2018 update. In total, four studies with 1644 participants are included. Two studies assessed the effect of extensive tests including computed tomography (CT) scanning versus tests at the physician's discretion, while the other two studies assessed the effect of standard testing plus positron emission tomography (PET)/CT scanning versus standard testing alone. For extensive tests including CT versus tests at the physician's discretion, the quality of the evidence, as assessed according to GRADE, was low due to risk of bias (early termination of the studies). When comparing standard testing plus PET/CT scanning versus standard testing alone, the quality of evidence was moderate due to a risk of detection bias. The quality of the evidence was downgraded further as detection bias was present in one study with a low number of events.When comparing extensive tests including CT versus tests at the physician's discretion, pooled analysis on two studies showed that testing for cancer was consistent with either benefit or no benefit on cancer-related mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 1.67; 396 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.26; low-quality evidence). One study (201 participants) showed that, overall, malignancies were less advanced at diagnosis in extensively tested participants than in participants in the control group. In total, 9/13 participants diagnosed with cancer in the extensively tested group had a T1 or T2 stage malignancy compared to 2/10 participants diagnosed with cancer in the control group (OR 5.00, 95% CI 1.05 to 23.76; P = 0.04; low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference in detection of advanced stages between extensive tests versus tests at the physician's discretion: one participant in the extensively tested group had stage T3 compared with four participants in the control group (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.28; P = 0.22; low-quality evidence). In addition, extensively tested participants were diagnosed earlier than control group (mean: 1 month with extensive tests versus 11.6 months with tests at physician's discretion to cancer diagnosis from the time of diagnosis of VTE). Extensive testing did not increase the frequency of an underlying cancer diagnosis (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.93; 396 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.50; low-quality evidence). Neither study measured all-cause mortality, VTE-related morbidity and mortality, complications of anticoagulation, adverse effects of cancer tests, participant satisfaction or quality of life.When comparing standard testing plus PET/CT screening versus standard testing alone, standard testing plus PET/CT screening was consistent with either benefit or no benefit on all-cause mortality (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.49 to 3.04; 1248 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.66; moderate-quality evidence), cancer-related mortality (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.52; 1248 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.25; moderate-quality evidence) or VTE-related morbidity (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.17; 854 participants; 1 study; P = 0.96; moderate-quality evidence). Regarding stage of cancer, there was no clear difference for detection of early (OR 1.78, 95% 0.51 to 6.17; 394 participants; 1 study; P = 0.37; low-quality evidence) or advanced (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.14 to 7.17; 394 participants; 1 study; P = 1.00; low-quality evidence) stages of cancer. There was also no clear difference in the frequency of an underlying cancer diagnosis (OR 1.71, 95% CI 0.91 to 3.20; 1248 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.09; moderate-quality evidence). Time to cancer diagnosis was 4.2 months in the standard testing group and 4.0 months in the standard testing plus PET/CT group (P = 0.88). Neither study measured VTE-related mortality, complications of anticoagulation, adverse effects of cancer tests, participant satisfaction or quality of life., Authors' Conclusions: Specific testing for cancer in people with unprovoked VTE may lead to earlier diagnosis of cancer at an earlier stage of the disease. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to draw definitive conclusions concerning the effectiveness of testing for undiagnosed cancer in people with a first episode of unprovoked VTE (DVT or PE) in reducing cancer- or VTE-related morbidity and mortality. The results could be consistent with either benefit or no benefit. Further good-quality large-scale randomised controlled trials are required before firm conclusions can be made.

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a collective term for two conditions: deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). A proportion of people with VTE have no underlying or immediately predisposing risk factors and the VTE is referred to as unprovoked. Unprovoked VTE can often be the first clinical manifestation of an underlying malignancy. This has raised the question of whether people with an unprovoked VTE should be investigated for an underlying cancer. Treatment for VTE is different in cancer and non-cancer patients and a correct diagnosis would ensure that people received the optimal treatment for VTE to prevent recurrence and further morbidity. Furthermore, an appropriate cancer diagnosis at an earlier, potentially curative stage could avoid the risk of cancer progression and thus lead to improvements in cancer-related mortality and morbidity. This is an update of a review first published in 2015., Objectives: To determine whether testing for undiagnosed cancer in people with a first episode of unprovoked VTE (DVT of the lower limb or PE) is effective in reducing cancer and VTE-related mortality and morbidity and to determine which tests for cancer are best at identifying treatable cancers early., Search Methods: For this update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (16 February 2017). In addition, the CIS searched the Cochrane Register of Studies CENTRAL (2017, Issue 1). We searched trials registries (February 2017) and checked the reference lists of relevant articles., Selection Criteria: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials in which people with an unprovoked VTE were allocated to receive specific tests for cancer or clinically indicated tests only were eligible for inclusion in this review. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, cancer-related mortality and VTE-related mortality., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed quality and extracted data. We resolved any disagreements by discussion., Main Results: Four studies with 1644 participants met the inclusion criteria (two studies in the original review and two in this update). Two studies assessed the effect of extensive tests versus tests at the physician's discretion) while the other two studies assessed the effect of standard testing plus positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) scanning versus standard testing alone. For extensive tests versus tests at the physician's discretion, the quality of the evidence was low due to risk of bias (early termination of the studies). When comparing standard testing plus PET/CT scanning versus standard testing alone, the quality of evidence was moderate due to a risk of detection bias. The quality of the evidence was downgraded further when detection bias was present in one study with a low number of events.When comparing extensive tests versus tests at the physician's discretion, pooled analysis on two studies showed that testing for cancer was consistent with either a benefit or no benefit on cancer-related mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 1.67; 396 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.26; low quality evidence). One study (201 participants) showed that, overall, malignancies were less advanced in extensively tested participants than in participants in the control group. In total, 9/13 participants diagnosed with cancer in the extensively tested group had a T1 or T2 stage malignancy compared to 2/10 participants diagnosed with cancer in the control group (OR 5.00, 95% CI 1.05 to 23.76; P = 0.04; low quality evidence). There was no clear difference in detection of advanced stages between extensive tests versus tests at the physician's discretion: one participant in the extensively tested group had stage T3 compared with four participants in the control group (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.28; P = 0.22; low quality evidence). In addition, extensively tested participants were diagnosed earlier than control group (mean: 1 month with extensive tests versus 11.6 months with tests at physician's discretion to cancer diagnosis from the time of diagnosis of VTE). Extensive testing did not increase the frequency of an underlying cancer diagnosis (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.93; 396 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.50; low quality evidence). Neither study measured all-cause mortality, VTE-related morbidity and mortality, complications of anticoagulation, adverse effects of cancer tests, participant satisfaction or quality of life.When comparing standard testing plus PET/CT screening versus standard testing alone, standard testing plus PET/CT screening was consistent with either a benefit or no benefit on all-cause mortality (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.49 to 3.04; 1248 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.66; moderate quality evidence), cancer-related mortality (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.52; 1248 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.25; moderate quality evidence) or VTE-related morbidity (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.17; 854 participants; 1 study; P = 0.96; moderate quality evidence). With regards to stage of cancer, there was no clear difference for detection of early (OR 1.78, 95% 0.51 to 6.17; 394 participants; 1 study; P = 0.37; low quality evidence) or advanced (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.14 to 7.17; 394 participants; 1 study; P = 1.00; low quality evidence) stages of cancer. There was also no clear difference in the frequency of an underlying cancer diagnosis (OR 1.71, 95% CI 0.91 to 3.20; 1248 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.09; moderate quality evidence). Time to cancer diagnosis was 4.2 months in the standard testing group and 4.0 months in the standard testing plus PET/CT group (P = 0.88). Neither study measured VTE-related mortality, complications of anticoagulation, adverse effects of cancer tests, participant satisfaction or quality of life., Authors' Conclusions: Testing for cancer in people with unprovoked VTE may lead to earlier diagnosis of cancer at an earlier stage of the disease. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to draw definitive conclusions concerning the effectiveness of testing for undiagnosed cancer in people with a first episode of unprovoked VTE (DVT or PE) in reducing cancer and VTE-related morbidity and mortality. The results could be consistent with either benefit or no benefit. Further good-quality large-scale randomised controlled trials are required before firm conclusions can be made.

Objectives: To assess the clinical effectiveness of thigh length versus knee length antiembolism stockings for the prevention of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in surgical patients., Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis using direct methods and network meta-analysis., Methods: Previous systematic reviews and electronic databases were searched to February 2014 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of thigh length or knee length antiembolism stockings in surgical patients. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. The primary outcome was incidence of DVT. Analysis of the DVT data was performed using ORs along with 95% CIs. The I(2) statistic was used to quantify statistical heterogeneity., Results: 23 RCTs were included; there was substantial variation between the trials and many were poorly reported with an unclear risk of bias. Five RCTs directly comparing thigh length versus knee length stockings were pooled and the summary estimate of effect favouring thigh length stockings was not statistically significant (OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.73). 13 RCTs were included in the network meta-analysis; thigh length stockings with pharmacological prophylaxis were more effective than knee length stockings with pharmacological prophylaxis, but again results were not statistically significant (OR 1.76, 95% credible intervals 0.82 to 3.53)., Conclusions: Thigh length stockings may be more effective than knee length stockings, but results did not reach statistical significance and the evidence base is weak. Further research to confirm this finding is unlikely to be worthwhile. While thigh length stockings appear to have superior efficacy, practical issues such as patient acceptability may prevent their wide use in clinical practice., Systematic Review Registration Number: CRD42014007202., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Aim: Litigation costs for clinical negligence in the management of venous thromboembolism have escalated in the last five years. The National Health Service Litigation Authority estimates these claims have cost in excess of £112 million. Our aim is to identify the areas of practice where these claims are most likely to arise to help improve patient outcome., Methods: The National Health Service Litigation Authority provided de-identified data on individual medical negligence claims against the NHS since 2007. We subcategorised the data into (a) the nature of the venous thromboembolism event, (b) the area of specialist practice and (c) the damages incurred. Inter-group differences were evaluated using ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U Test., Results: Failure to prevent and to diagnose pulmonary emboli and deep vein thrombosis occurs across the spectrum of clinical specialties. In the study period 189 claims were made. The majority of claims were in surgical specialties and the financial burden was significantly greater than in the medical specialities (£3,257,394 vs. £1,532,996). The amounts paid out by specialty was not significantly different but had significant variance (p < 0.0001)., Conclusions: The National Institute of Clinical Excellence provides comprehensive guidelines on venous thromboembolism risk assessment. Poor compliance has contributed to morbidity and mortality while the cost has continued to escalate. A multimodal approach to education is needed to improve patient outcome. Improved venous thromboembolism prevalence data are also needed., (© The Author(s) 2014.)

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a collective term for two conditions: deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). A proportion of patients with VTE have no underlying or immediately predisposing risk factors and the VTE is referred to as unprovoked. Unprovoked VTE can often be the first clinical manifestation of an underlying malignancy. This has raised the question of whether patients with an unprovoked VTE should be investigated for an underlying cancer. Treatment for VTE is different in cancer and non-cancer patients and a correct diagnosis would ensure that patients received the optimal treatment for VTE to prevent recurrence and further morbidity. Furthermore, an appropriate cancer diagnosis at an earlier, potentially curative stage could avoid the risk of cancer progression and thus lead to improvements in cancer-related mortality and morbidity., Objectives: To determine whether testing for undiagnosed cancer in patients with a first episode of unprovoked VTE (DVT or PE) is effective in reducing cancer and VTE-related mortality and morbidity and to establish which tests for cancer are most useful., Search Methods: The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched January 2015) and the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS) (2014, Issue 12). Clinical trials databases were searched. The reference lists of relevant articles were also checked., Selection Criteria: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials in which patients with an unprovoked VTE were allocated to receive specific tests for cancer or clinically indicated tests only were eligible for inclusion in this review. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, cancer-related mortality and VTE-related mortality., Data Collection and Analysis: Selection of the studies, quality assessment and data extraction were completed independently by two review authors. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion., Main Results: Two studies with a combined total of 396 patients met the inclusion criteria for this review. Both studies assessed the effect of testing for cancer versus clinically indicated tests only in patients with an unprovoked VTE. The quality of the evidence was moderate because although the studies were judged to be at low or unclear risk of bias, there was concern that the studies were small as reflected in the wide confidence intervals (CIs). Pooled analysis showed that testing for cancer was consistent with either a benefit or no benefit on cancer-related mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.49, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.67, P = 0.26). One study showed that, overall, malignancies were less advanced in patients belonging to the extensive screening group than in patients of the control group (64% versus 20%, P = 0.047) and that tested patients were diagnosed earlier than untested patients (mean 1 month versus 11.6 months to cancer diagnosis from the time of diagnosis of VTE). Standard deviations were not provided for time to diagnosis, so it was not possible to perform an independent statistical analysis on this association. Neither study measured all-cause mortality, VTE-related morbidity and mortality, side effects of anticoagulation, side effects of cancer tests or patient satisfaction., Authors' Conclusions: Testing for cancer in patients with idiopathic VTE leads to earlier diagnosis of cancer at an earlier stage of the disease. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to draw definitive conclusions concerning the effectiveness of testing for undiagnosed cancer in patients with a first episode of unprovoked VTE (DVT or PE) in reducing cancer and VTE-related morbidity and mortality. The results are imprecise and could be consistent with either harm or benefit. Further good-quality large-scale randomised controlled trials are required before firm conclusions can be made.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a term including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). Timely and accurate diagnosis of both is essential as delayed or missed diagnoses can result in death or longer term complications. Patients with suspected DVT should initially undergo a pretest probability Wells score. Depending on pretest probability Wells score they should then either proceed to two-point ultrasound scanning or D-dimer testing. Likewise, patients suspected of PE should undergo a two-level PE Wells score, and, if scored likely, a computed tomography pulmonary angiogram (CTPA), or, if there is a low pretest probability score, D-dimer testing. If positive, patients should undergo CTPA. Ventilation perfusion scanning (V/Q scan) or V/Q SPECT should be considered in place of CTPA if there is allergy to contrast media or renal impairment.

Post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) can be debilitating to patients and have a major economic impact on health-care services. It arises after deep venous thrombosis (DVT) due to residual venous obstruction or valvular reflux, leading to increased venous pressure in the microcirculation. While the inflammatory process at the time of DVT may aid thrombus resolution, it may also promote destruction of venous valves. The diagnosis of PTS is principally clinical and patients typically complain of leg heaviness, swelling, pain, itching, cramps, ulcer and signs of lipodermatosclerosis. Several clinical scales or classifications have been used but it is recommended that Villalta scale is the most suitable. Risk factors for PTS include a proximal DVT and recurrent thrombosis as well as obesity and prior varicose veins. Poor quality of anticoagulation control may also be a factor. Established PTS is usually managed along the same lines as chronic venous hypertension with compression therapy and leg elevation. Surgery has only a limited role but may benefit some patients. Further trials are desperately needed to define the role of acute thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy, which seem to be promising treatments in the studies to date. For patients who have had a DVT more attention should be given to prescribing and using compression hosiery.

Background: It has been suggested that combined modalities (methods of treatment) are more effective than single modalities in preventing venous thrombo-embolism (defined as deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, or both) in high-risk patients., Objectives: To assess the efficacy of intermittent pneumatic leg compression combined with pharmacological prophylaxis versus single modalities in preventing venous thrombo-embolism in high-risk patients., Search Strategy: The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases (PVD) Group searched the reference lists of their Specialised Register (last searched 17 July 2007) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (last searched The Cochrane Library 2008, issue 3) for relevant articles to identify additional trials., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) of combined intermittent pneumatic leg compression and pharmacological interventions used to prevent venous thrombo-embolism in high-risk patients., Data Collection and Analysis: Data extraction was undertaken independently by two review authors using data extraction sheets.

Introduction: Untreated symptomatic patients with Paget-Schroetter syndrome (PSS) can sustain chronic disability from venous obstruction, with arm swelling, pain and early exercise fatigue. This may result in significant loss of occupational productivity and quality of life. For this reason, active management is recommended in the majority of the recent literature. The objective of the this study was to assess current trends of management of PSS in the UK., Methods: A 9-part questionnaire was sent to 90 ordinary members of the Vascular Surgical Society of Great Britain and Ireland (VSS-GBI). Names and addresses were selected by highlighting every fourth ordinary member from the UK, in the 2000 VSS-GBI handbook. Ordinary members of the VSS-GBI who were clearly radiologists were excluded., Results: Of the 90 questionnaires sent, 60 were returned (66.67%). The majority of respondents used both duplex and venography (61%) as the major investigative tools though some employed duplex only (17%). Multimodality treatment (radiological and operative) was the favoured approach. Only 17% still favoured conservative management alone. Thrombolysis was the most common intervention (86.7%) usually followed by elective thoracic outlet decompression. Most favoured a delayed approach for surgery of 6-12 weeks. First rib resection was the most commonly performed operation (58%), usually by the transaxillary approach (55%). Most of the respondents were doubtful of the role of stenting in this condition and did not use it., Conclusions: There is no definite consensus on treatment of this condition in the UK. A majority tend to favour a multimodal approach. Thrombolysis is the most common form of treatment employed and first rib resection via the transaxillary approach remains the most popular surgical procedure. The lack of consensus of this potentially disabling condition highlights the need for randomised clinical trials to guide management.

Extended treatment [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the etiology and treatment of Paget-Schroetter Syndrome or primary upper limb deep venous thrombosis. In most cases, the disease is caused by the compression and chronic damage to the subclavian vein within a narrow thoracic outlet. Thrombolytic therapy is considered as safe and efficacious method of establishing patency of the subclavian vein. Balloon angioplasty may be useful in cases of residual stenosis after surgical thoracic outlet decompression.