Comparative study on risk factors and early outcome of symptomatic distal versus proximal deep vein thrombosis: results from the OPTIMEV study.

There is a lack of consensus on the value of detecting and treating symptomatic isolated distal deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) of the lower limbs. In our study, we compared the risk factors and outcomes in patients with isolated symptomatic distal DVT with those with proximal symptomatic DVT. We analysed the data of patients with objectively confirmed symptomatic isolated DVT enrolled in the national (France), multicenter, prospective OPTIMEV study. This sub-study outcomes were recurrent venous thromboembolism, major bleeding and death at three months. Among the 6141 patients with suspicion of isolated DVT included between November 2004 and January 2006, DVT was confirmed in 1643 patients (26.8%). Isolated distal DVT was more frequent than proximal DVT (56.8% vs. 43.2%, respectively; p = 0.01). Isolated distal DVT was significantly more often associated with transient risk factors (recent surgery, recent plaster immobilisation, recent travel), whereas proximal DVT was significantly more associated with more chronic states (active cancer, congestive heart failure or respiratory insufficiency, age >75 years). Most patients (96.8%) with isolated distal DVT received anticoagulant therapies. There was no difference in the percentage of recurrent venous thromboembolism and major bleeding in patients with proximal DVT and isolated distal DVT. However, the mortality rate was significantly higher (p < 0.01) in patients with proximal DVT (8.0%) than in those with isolated distal DVT (4.4%). Symptomatic isolated distal DVT differs from symptomatic proximal DVT both in terms of risk factors and clinical outcome. Whether these differences should influence the clinical management of these two events remains to be determined.

Ascribing leg symptoms to chronic venous disorders: the construction of a diagnostic score.

OBJECTIVES: The goal was to create a simple diagnostic scoring system able to differentiate leg symptoms related to chronic venous disorders (CVD) from those produced by other causes. METHODS: A prospective observational study was done of ambulatory or hospitalized patients from 13 private and five institutional vascular centers. Two groups of patients with leg symptoms were investigated. The CVD-positive (CVD+) patients had clinically documented CVD and significant venous reflux at duplex ultrasound examination, but no arterial, rheumatologic, or neurologic disorders. The CVD-negative (CVD-) patients had disorders of an arterial, rheumatic, or neurologic origin but no clinical or duplex ultrasound signs of CVD. Patients completed a 54-item questionnaire characterizing their symptoms. Items of the diagnostic score were selected as those associated with the highest likelihood ratio (LR) for CVD in a first series of patients. They were combined into a few criteria, the number of which, when validated in a patient, would produce the value of the score for this patient. Selection of the most relevant score was performed through the comparison of the surface area under receiver operating characteristic curves. The construct validity of this score was evaluated through a factor analysis. The diagnostic performance of the scoring system was evaluated in a second series of patients similar to the first series. RESULTS: In the construction phase, 123 CVD+ patients and 94 CVD- patients were enrolled. The validation series consisted of 92 patients (67 venous and 25 nonvenous). The most efficient scoring system was composed of four combined criteria: sensation of heavy or swollen legs (sensitivity, 0.82; specificity, 0.55; LR, 1.84); associated with itching, impatient legs, or phlebalgia (sensitivity, 0.55; specificity, 0.92; LR, 6.41); worsened by a hot environment or improved by a cold environment (sensitivity, 0.78; specificity, 0.71; LR, 2.72); not worsened by walking (sensitivity, 0.89; specificity, 0.62; LR, 2.33). The score was calculated as the number (0 to 4) of the above criteria validated by the patient, with a threshold level of >3, it was shown to have a high specificity (0.95) and a fair sensitivity (0.75) for CVD. Factor analysis showed the construct validity of the score, and consistent results were found in the validation series. CONCLUSION: The clinical relevance of this scoring system remains to be evaluated prospectively in standard clinical conditions. However, these results already document that venous symptoms can be differentiated from leg symptoms of other origins.