Fecha de la publicación: 19/04/2018
Autor: Tana L Repella (1), Olga Lopez (2), Cherrie Z Abraham (2), Amir F Azarbal (2), Timothy K Liem (2), Erica L Mitchell (2), Gregory J Landry (2), Gregory L Moneta (2), Enjae Jung (2)
1Division of Vascular Surgery, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Ore. Electronic address: email@example.com.
2Division of Vascular Surgery, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Ore.
Objective: The incidence of and risk factors for profunda femoris vein (PFV) thrombosis are poorly characterized. We prospectively identified patients with PFV deep venous thrombosis (DVT) to characterize the demographics and anatomic distribution of proximal DVT in patients with PFV DVT.
Methods: A prospective study was conducted of patients at a tertiary care university hospital with DVT diagnosed by venous duplex ultrasound scanning between June 2014 and June 2015. DVT patients were categorized as having PFV involvement (yes or no), and the anatomic distribution of other sites of ipsilateral venous thrombi was further stratified to determine whether there was external iliac vein (EIV), common femoral vein (CFV), or femoropopliteal vein (FPV) DVT. Demographic characteristics of the patients were compared between groups, PFV DVT vs proximal DVT without PFV DVT.
Results: Of 4584 lower extremity venous duplex ultrasound studies performed, 398 (8.7%) scans were positive for proximal DVT from 260 patients; 23.1% of patients with DVT (60/260) had DVT involving the PFV. Of 112 patients who had CFV DVT, 55 (49.1%) also had ipsilateral involvement of the PFV. Of 60 patients with PFV DVT, 55 (91.7%) had involvement of the ipsilateral CFV. Patients in the PFV DVT group were more likely to have a history of a hypercoagulable disorder (26.7% vs 14.5%; P = .029) and a history of immobility (58.3% vs 42%; P = .026) compared with those with proximal DVT without PFV DVT. There were no differences in smoking, recent surgery, personal or family history of DVT, other medical comorbidities, inpatient status, or survival. There was no difference in laterality of DVT between the PFV DVT and proximal DVT without PFV DVT groups (35% vs 41.5% left, 35% vs 33.5% right, 30% vs 25% bilateral; P = .619). There was a higher proportion of PFV DVT with EIV involvement (21.7% vs 2.5%; P < .00001) and a higher proportion of PFV DVT with CFV + FPV involvement (65.0% vs 19%; P < .00001) compared with proximal DVT without PFV DVT. There was no difference in survival between the PFV DVT and proximal DVT without PFV DVT groups.
Conclusions: Patients with PFV thrombosis tend to have more thrombus burden with more frequent concurrent DVT in the EIV and FPV. Patients with PFV DVT are also more likely to have a history of hypercoagulable disorder and immobility. Ultrasound protocols for assessment of DVT should include routine examination of the PFV as a potential marker of a more virulent prothrombotic state.
Copyright © 2018 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.