1989PubMedRequires access

Doppler ultrasound evaluation for lower extremity deep venous thrombosis in a community hospital.

Archie Jp, McDaniel Dn, Dean Vh, Jester Je, Hall Dc

Open publisher page 4 citations

Abstract

The accuracy of Doppler examination for lower extremity deep venous thrombosis in a community hospital vascular laboratory was determined by comparing the Doppler results with venograms of 97 limbs in 90 patients. There were 47 limbs with a normal Doppler study, 46 abnormal (consistent with deep venous thrombosis) and 4 with an equivocal study. The overall accuracy was 95%. Both the sensitivity and specificity were 94% when equivocal studies were considered abnormal. Based on these results, we recommend venography or repeat Doppler examination for patients with a normal Doppler study only if the clinical findings are strongly suggestive of deep venous thrombosis. Patients with an abnormal Doppler examination and clinical findings consistent with deep venous thrombosis can be treated for deep venous thrombosis, with a high degree of confidence in the diagnosis, without venography. Patients with equivocal Doppler examinations are advised to have a venogram. While our results are equal to the best reports from research-oriented university vascular laboratories it should not be assumed that they can be readily reproduced in other settings. The technologists performing these studies should be highly skilled, experienced and preferably board certified. Internal quality control of any testing facility is necessary to assure accurate and reliable Doppler ultrasonic results prior to recommending treatment of deep venous thrombosis based on Doppler ultrasound without venography.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The accuracy of Doppler examination for lower extremity deep venous thrombosis in a community hospital vascular laboratory was determined by comparing the Doppler results with venograms of 97 limbs in 90 patients. There were 47 limbs with a normal Doppler study, 46 abnormal (consistent with deep venous thrombosis) and 4 with an equivocal study. The overall accuracy was 95%. Both the sensitivity and specificity were 94% when equivocal studies were considered abnormal. Based on these results, we recommend venography or repeat Doppler examination for patients with a normal Doppler study only if the clinical findings are strongly suggestive of deep venous thrombosis. Patients with an abnormal Doppler examination and clinical findings consistent with deep venous thrombosis can be treated for deep venous thrombosis, with a high degree of confidence in the diagnosis, without venography. Patients with equivocal Doppler examinations are advised to have a venogram. While our results are equal to the best reports from research-oriented university vascular laboratories it should not be assumed that they can be readily reproduced in other settings. The technologists performing these studies should be highly skilled, experienced and preferably board certified. Internal quality control of any testing facility is necessary to assure accurate and reliable Doppler ultrasonic results prior to recommending treatment of deep venous thrombosis based on Doppler ultrasound without venography.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 4 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The accuracy of Doppler examination for lower extremity deep venous thrombosis in a community hospital vascular laboratory was determined by comparing the Doppler results with venograms of 97 limbs in 90 patients. There were 47 limbs with a normal Doppler study, 46 abnormal (consistent with deep venous thrombosis) and 4 with an equivocal study. The overall accuracy was 95%. Both the sensitivity and specificity were 94% when equivocal studies were considered abnormal. Based on these results, we recommend venography or repeat Doppler examination for patients with a normal Doppler study only if the clinical findings are strongly suggestive of deep venous thrombosis. Patients with an abnormal Doppler examination and clinical findings consistent with deep venous thrombosis can be treated for deep venous thrombosis, with a high degree of confidence in the diagnosis, without venography. Patients with equivocal Doppler examinations are advised to have a venogram. While our results are equal to the best reports from research-oriented university vascular laboratories it should not be assumed that they can be readily reproduced in other settings. The technologists performing these studies should be highly skilled, experienced and preferably board certified. Internal quality control of any testing facility is necessary to assure accurate and reliable Doppler ultrasonic results prior to recommending treatment of deep venous thrombosis based on Doppler ultrasound without venography.

Key concepts: Medicine, Venography, Venous thrombosis, Radiology, Thrombosis, Doppler ultrasound, Doppler effect, Ultrasound

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Doppler ultrasound evaluation for lower extremity deep venous thrombosis in a community hospital. — Research Paper | ScholarLens