Doppler ultrasonography versus venography in the detection of deep vein thrombosis in patients with pulmonary embolism

Author： Özbudak Ömer Eroğulları Ismail Öğüş Candan Çilli Aykut Türkay Mehtap Özdemir Tülay

ISSN： 0929-5305

Source： Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis, Vol.21, Iss.2, 2006-04, pp. : 159-162

Disclaimer: Any content in publications that violate the sovereignty, the constitution or regulations of the PRC is not accepted or approved by CNPIEC.

Previous Menu Next

Abstract

In patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) the frequency of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) varies between 13–93%. The aim of this study was to compare Doppler ultrasonography (DUSG) and venography in the detection of DVT in patients with PE. Fifty-one patients who were clinically diagnosed as having PE from January 1st 2001 to January 31st 2005 were entered into the study and comorbid conditions and risk factors were noted. The diagnosis of PE was confirmed by ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) scintigraphy, spiral tomography and angiotomography while the diagnosis of DVT was made by DUSG and venography. DVT was confirmed by both DUSG and venography in 19 (37,3%) patients. In the remaining 32 patients DUSG was negative. Venography confirmed DVT in 6 of these patients while in 26 no DVT was found. The sensitivity and specifity of DUSG in the diagnosis of DVT were 76% and 100% respectively and the negative and positive predictive values were 81% and 100% respectively. The mean d-dimer concentration was 1187 in patients with DVT and 641 in patients without DVT (p > 0.05). Aquired risk factors were found in 4 of 6 patients with DVT, CRP was elevated in 5 (83%) and ALT-AST were elevated in 2 (33%). Although DUSG alone is considered sufficient for the diagnosis of DVT, venography still remains the gold standard in the diagnosis of DVT. Especially in patients with PE, where the diagnosis of DVT may increase the success of treatment, venography or other diagnostic tools may be used instead of a second DUSG if the first DUSG is negative.