We have located links that may give you full text access.
Compression with a pocket-sized ultrasound device to diagnose proximal deep vein thrombosis.
American Journal of Emergency Medicine 2018 July
INTRODUCTION: Compression ultrasonography (CUS) is a validated technique for the diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis (DVT), but has never been studied with pocket-sized ultrasound device (PUD). The main objective of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of CUS made by emergency physicians (EPs) using a PUD.
MATERIALS: This was a prospective, diagnostic test assessment, single-center study. Patients underwent VCU performed by a trained EP with PUD (CUS-PUD) for searching proximal DVT (PDVT) and were then seen by an expert vascular physician who blindly performed a duplex venous ultrasound, which was the criterion standard. CUS-PUD's diagnostic performance was evaluated by sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), and positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV).
RESULTS: The sample included 57 patients of whom 56 were analyzed. Eleven (20%) PDVT were diagnosed with CUS-PUD: 7 (64%) femoral and 4 (36%) popliteal. The CUS-PUD's Se was 100% [72%; 100%], Sp 100% [92%; 100%]. The PPV was 100% [74%; 100%], and the NPV was 100% [90%; 100%].
CONCLUSION: CUS-PUD performed with a pocket-sized ultrasound appears to be feasible in emergency practice for the diagnosis of proximal DVT. A study with a larger sample size will have to describe the accuracy.
MATERIALS: This was a prospective, diagnostic test assessment, single-center study. Patients underwent VCU performed by a trained EP with PUD (CUS-PUD) for searching proximal DVT (PDVT) and were then seen by an expert vascular physician who blindly performed a duplex venous ultrasound, which was the criterion standard. CUS-PUD's diagnostic performance was evaluated by sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), and positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV).
RESULTS: The sample included 57 patients of whom 56 were analyzed. Eleven (20%) PDVT were diagnosed with CUS-PUD: 7 (64%) femoral and 4 (36%) popliteal. The CUS-PUD's Se was 100% [72%; 100%], Sp 100% [92%; 100%]. The PPV was 100% [74%; 100%], and the NPV was 100% [90%; 100%].
CONCLUSION: CUS-PUD performed with a pocket-sized ultrasound appears to be feasible in emergency practice for the diagnosis of proximal DVT. A study with a larger sample size will have to describe the accuracy.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
Perioperative echocardiographic strain analysis: what anesthesiologists should know.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 April 11
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app