Retrospective Study of Patients with Upper Extremity Clots Presenting to Emergency Departments in Tertiary Care Hospitals in a Major Canadian City in the Last Five Years
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective: 5 year retrospective study of patients presenting to emergency departments at the four tertiary care hospitals in Calgary, Alberta with upper extremity (UE) deep vein thrombosis (DVT) to define the patient population, determine practice patterns and management of upper extremity clots. Methods: All adult patients with suspected upper extremity DVT presenting to any of the four tertiary care centers in the Calgary health region and who had undergone diagnostic imaging were included in the study. Ultrasounds and CT scans were obtained from the Diagnostic Imaging department from January 2014 to December 2018. Inclusion criteria included patients above 18 years of age and evidence of deep, superficial or catheter-associated upper extremity venous thrombosis on imaging. Exclusion criteria were any known cancer or life expectancy under 6 months. Basic demographic data were collected, in addition to disposition from emergency, choice of anticoagulant, duration of anticoagulation, history of thrombophilia and thoracic outlet obstruction (TOO) work-up. Results: 1236 patient records were reviewed, of which 151 (12.2%) were positive for UE deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and 114 (9.2%) for superficial vein thrombosis (SVT). Mean age was 47 years and 50.2% were males. Duration of treatment for both DVT and SVT ranged anywhere from no therapy to lifelong treatment, with an average of 5.01 months for DVT and 1.15 months for SVT. 22.5% of all DVTs were recommended lifelong therapy. 21 (18.4%) patients were treated for more than 45 days for SVT, of which only 9 had another indication for anticoagulation. Common risk factors identified for DVT included line associated thrombosis (17.2%), of which 38.5% were specifically PICC associated, trauma (2.6%) and intravenous drug use (2.0%). Anticoagulant agents for DVT included low molecular weight heparin (7.9%), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) (39.1%) and warfarin (42.4%). 8.6% of the DVTs received no treatment. Follow-up was variable from the emergency department ranging from following up with the patient's own family physician to sending an urgent referral to General Internal Medicine, Hematology or Vascular surgery. 30.5% of the patients with DVT were referred to General Internal Medicine (GIM) outpatient, compared to 24.5% to Hematology and 33.7% to their family doctor. 29.8% of the patients with SVT were referred to GIM, 7.9% to Hematology and 66.7% to their family doctor. 39.7% of the people with DVT were tested for thrombophilia, of which 10% tested positive for any type of thrombophilia. 29.8% were tested for TOO, of which 48.9% were found to have TOO and 11.1% received surgery for same. Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that there is significant variability in the management of upper extremity clots, highlighting the lack of literature in this field. Developing a structured, standardized approach along with ongoing provider education could help reduce this variability and optimize management of this patient population. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».