This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Ole Martin Pedersen, MD; Aslak Aslaksen, MD; Harald Vik-Mo, MD, PhD; Anne Margrethe Bassoe, MD

Arch Intern Med. 1991;151(11):2217-2220.

Abstract
Compression ultrasonography was compared with contrast venography in 215 hospitalized patients (218 limbs) with suspected deep venous thrombosis. All scans were performed using a 5-MHz linear-array scanner. The calf veins were not assessed owing to their small caliber. Distribution of deep venous thrombosis was proximal in 113 of 215 patients (number of limbs with deep venous thrombosis being the same as the number of patients) and limited to the calf veins (distal) in 29 patients. Deep venous thrombosis was detected by compression ultrasonography in 101 of 113 patients (sensitivity, 89%) and falsely diagnosed in two of 76 limbs (73 patients) with negative venographic results (specificity, 97%). The method was less sensitive below the knee, where deep venous thrombosis of the distal popliteal vein was not detected in five of 10 patients as compared with seven of 103 patients with thrombus extension above the knee. Pelvic vein deep venous thrombosis (n = 34) was detected by compression ultrasonography in 71% of the patients. The results of this study indicate that venography may be omitted in patients where compression ultrasonography demonstrates proximal deep venous thrombosis. In patients with negative compression ultrasonographic results, however, venographic verification is needed since venography has a considerably higher sensitivity than compression ultrasonography in detecting isolated iliac and calf vein deep venous thrombosis.

(Arch Intern Med. 1991;151:2217-2220)

Author Affiliations
From the Departments of Clinical Physiology (Drs Pedersen and Vik-Mo) and Radiology (Drs Aslaksen and Basse), Haukeland Hospital, University of Bergen, Norway.

Footnotes
Accepted for publication May 31, 1991.

Reprint requests to Department of Clinical Physiology, Haukeland Hospital, University of Bergen, N-5021 Bergen, Norway (Dr Pedersen).

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

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Diagnosis of Lower-Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis in Outpatients
Riddle and Wells
ptjournal 2004;84:729-735.
FULL TEXT  

Tracking the Uptake of Evidence: Two Decades of Hospital Practice Trends for Diagnosing Deep Vein Thrombosis and Pulmonary Embolism
Stein et al.
Arch Intern Med 2003;163:1213-1219.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Detection of Pelvic Vein Thrombosis by Magnetic Resonance Angiography in Patients With Acute Pulmonary Embolism and Normal Lower Limb Compression Ultrasonography*
Stern et al.
Chest 2002;122:115-121.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

1999 Plenary Session: Friday Imaging Symposium : Role of Small-Peptide Radiopharmaceuticals in the Evaluation of Deep Venous Thrombosis
Blum and Handmaker
RadioGraphics 2000;20:1187-1193.
FULL TEXT  

The Diagnostic Approach to Acute Venous Thromboembolism . Clinical Practice Guideline
Tapson
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 1999;160:1043-1066.
FULL TEXT  

Evaluation of Suspected Deep Venous Thrombosis in Oncologic Patients
Keefe et al.
ANGIOLOGY 1994;45:771-775.
ABSTRACT  

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Various Strategies in the Diagnostic Management of Pulmonary Embolism
Oudkerk et al.
Arch Intern Med 1993;153:947-954.
ABSTRACT