[Translation into French and republication of: "Central venous catheter associated upper extremity deep vein thrombosis in cancer patients: Diagnosis and therapeutic management"]. / Traduction et republication de : « Thrombose veineuse profonde du membre supérieur associée à un cathéter veineux central chez les patients cancéreux : diagnostic et prise en charge thérapeutique ¼.

Catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) is a relatively frequent and potentially fatal complication arising in patients with cancer who require a central catheter placement for intravenous treatment. In everyday practice, CRT remains a challenge for management; despite its frequency and its negative clinical impact, few data are available concerning diagnosis and treatment of CRT. In particular, no diagnostic studies or clinical trials have been published that included exclusively patients with cancer and a central venous catheter (CVC). For this reason, many questions regarding optimal management of CRT remain unanswered. Due to the paucity of high-grade evidence regarding CRT in cancer patients, guidelines are derived from upper extremity DVT studies for diagnosis, and from those for lower limb DVT for treatment. This article addresses the issues of diagnosis and management of CRT through a review of the available literature and makes a number of proposals based on the available evidence. In symptomatic patients, venous ultrasound is the most appropriate choice for first-line diagnostic imaging of CRT because it is noninvasive, and its diagnostic performance is high (which is not the case in asymptomatic patients). In the absence of direct comparative clinical trials, we suggest treating patients with CRT with a therapeutic dose of either a LMWH or a direct oral factor Xa inhibitor, with or without a loading dose. These anticoagulants should be given for a total of at least 3 months, including at least 1 month after catheter removal following initiation of therapy.

Management of catheter-related upper extremity deep vein thrombosis in patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer commonly require a central venous catheter, which is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Despite the frequent occurrence, the optimal anticoagulation management and outcomes for patients with cancer and catheter-related upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) are unclear. OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the rates of recurrent VTE and bleeding in patients with cancer and catheter-related upper extremity DVT. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and CENTRAL from inception to June 2, 2023. The primary efficacy outcome was recurrent VTE, and the primary safety outcome was major bleeding. The incidence rates (with 95% CI) of outcomes were pooled using random effects model. RESULTS: We included 29 studies (N = 2,836), among which 5 were prospective. The duration of follow-up and anticoagulation varied considerably. The main long-term anticoagulant used was low molecular weight heparin, followed by direct oral anticoagulants. The pooled 3-month recurrent VTE rate from 14 studies (N = 1,128) was 0.56% (95% CI, 0.10%-3.01%; I2 = 0%). The pooled 3-month major bleeding rate from 10 studies (N = 834) was 2.34% (95% CI, 1.14%-4.76%; I2 = 0%). We were unable to pool event rates beyond 3 months, given high heterogeneity. All studies had serious risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated a relatively low rate of recurrent VTE and moderate rate of major bleeding events within the first 3 months in patients with cancer and catheter-related upper extremity DVT. However, there was significant heterogeneity in the management and reporting after 3 months.

Management of Paget-Schroetter Syndrome: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Currently, there is no consensus on the optimal management of Paget-Schroetter syndrome (PSS). The objective was to summarise the current evidence for management of PSS with explicit attention to the clinical outcomes of different management strategies. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane, PubMed, and Embase databases were searched for reports published between January 1990 and December 2021. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The primary endpoint was the proportion of symptom free patients at last follow up. Secondary outcomes were success of initial treatment, recurrence of thrombosis or persistent occlusion, and patency at last follow up. Meta-analyses of the primary endpoint were performed for non-comparative and comparative reports. The quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Sixty reports were included (2 653 patients), with overall moderate quality. The proportions of symptom free patients in non-comparative analysis were: anticoagulation (AC), 0.54; catheter directed thrombolysis (CDT) + AC, 0.71; AC + first rib resection (FRR), 0.80; and CDT + FRR, 0.96. Pooled analysis of comparative reports confirmed the superiority of CDT + FRR compared with AC (OR 13.89, 95% CI 1.08 - 179.04; p = .040, I2 87%, very low certainty of evidence), AC + FRR (OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.21 - 4.35; p = .010, I2 0%, very low certainty of evidence), and CDT + AC (OR 8.44, 95% CI 1.12 - 59.53; p = .030, I2 63%, very low certainty of evidence). Secondary endpoints were in favour of CDT + FRR. CONCLUSION: Non-operative management of PSS with AC alone results in persistent symptoms in 46% of patients, while 96% of patients managed with CDT + FFR were symptom free at end of follow up. Superiority of CDT + FRR compared with AC, CDT + AC, and AC + FRR was confirmed by meta-analysis. The overall quality of included reports was moderate, and the level of certainty was very low.

Acute Myocardial Infarction, Subclavian Vein Thrombosis, and Pulmonary Embolism Secondary to COVID-19-A Case Report.

Introduction: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The majority of infected patients develop the clinical picture of a respiratory disease, although some may develop various complications, such as arterial or venous thrombosis. The clinical case presented herein is a rare example of sequential development and combination of acute myocardial infarction, subclavian vein thrombosis (Paget Schroetter syndrome), and pulmonary embolism in the same patient after COVID-19. Case presentation: A 57-year-old man with a 10-day history of a SARS-CoV-2 infection was hospitalized with a clinical, electrocardiographic, and laboratory constellation of an acute inferior-lateral myocardial infarction. He was treated invasively and had one stent implanted. Three days after implantation, the patient developed shortness of breath and palpitation on the background of a swollen and painful right hand. The signs of acute right-sided heart strain observed on the electrocardiogram and the elevated D-dimer levels strongly suggested pulmonary embolism. A Doppler ultrasound and invasive evaluation demonstrated thrombosis of the right subclavian vein. The patient was administered pharmacomechanical and systemic thrombolysis and heparin infusion. Revascularization was achieved 24 h later via successful balloon dilatation of the occluded vessel. Conclusion: Thrombotic complications of COVID-19 can develop in a significant proportion of patients. Concomitant manifestation of these complications in the same patient is extremely rare, presenting at the same time, quite a therapeutic challenge to clinicians due to the need for invasive techniques and simultaneous administration of dual antiaggregant therapy combined with an anticoagulant treatment. Such a combined treatment increases the hemorrhagic risk and requires a serious accumulation of data for the purpose of a long-term antithrombotic prophylaxis in patients with such pathology.

Thoracic outlet syndrome (TROTS) registry: A study protocol for the primary upper extremity deep venous thrombosis section.

INTRODUCTION: There is a lack of comprehensive and uniform data on primary upper extremity deep venous thrombosis (pUEDVT). pUEDVT includes venous thoracic outlet syndrome related upper extremity deep venous thrombosis (UEDVT) and idiopathic UEDVT. Research on these conditions has been hampered by their rarity, lack of uniform diagnostic criteria, and heterogeneity in therapeutic strategies. To improve current research data collection using input of all various pUEDVT treating medical specialists, we initiated the ThoRacic OuTlet Syndrome (TROTS) registry. The aim of the TROTS registry is to a) collect extensive data on all pUEDVT patients through a predefined protocol, b) give insight in the long term outcome using patient reported outcome measures, c) create guidance in the diagnostic and clinical management of these conditions, and thereby d) help provide content for future research. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The TROTS registry was designed as an international prospective longitudinal observational registry for data collection on pUEDVT patients. All pUEDVT patients, regardless of treatment received, can be included in the registry after informed consent is obtained. All relevant data regarding the initial presentation, diagnostics, treatment, and follow-up will be collected prospectively in an electronic case report form. In addition, a survey containing general questions, a Health-related Quality of Life questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L), and Functional Disability questionnaire (Quick-DASH) will be sent periodically (at the time of inclusion, one and two years after inclusion, and every five years after inclusion) to the participant. The registry protocol was approved by the Medical Ethical Review Board and registered in the Netherlands Trial Register under Trial-ID NL9680. The data generated by the registry will be used for future research on pUEDVT and published in peer reviewed journals. CONCLUSION: TROTS registry data will be used to further establish the optimal management of pUEDVT and lay the foundation for future research and guidelines.

Idiopathic upper extremity deep vein thrombosis: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Idiopathic upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) management is controversial and ranges from anticoagulation alone to the addition of further interventions such as thrombolysis and decompressive surgery. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review was to assess the effects of anticoagulation alone compared to anticoagulation with additional interventions such as thrombolysis or decompressive surgery on the incidence of recurrent UEDVT and post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) in patients with idiopathic UEDVT (including those associated with the oral contraceptive pill). PATIENTS/METHODS: A systematic search was conducted for studies which focused on acute UEDVT treatment defined as therapies starting within 4 weeks of symptom onset. We limited studies to those that recruited 10 or more subjects and involved at least 6 weeks to 12 months anticoagulation alone or together with additional interventions with at least 6-month follow-up. Primary outcomes were symptomatic recurrent radiologically confirmed UEDVT and PTS. Secondary outcomes were symptomatic venous thromboembolism, bleeding and mortality. RESULTS: We found seven studies which reported recurrent UEDVT rates and five that reported PTS rates. All studies were retrospective or cross-sectional. None compared anticoagulation alone to anticoagulation with additional intervention. Study heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis and risk of bias was moderate to serious. Recurrent UEDVT occurred in 0% to 12% post-anticoagulation alone and 0% to 23% post-additional interventions. PTS rates varied from 4% to 32% without severe PTS. Only limited studies reported on our secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: There is limited evidence behind idiopathic UEDVT management. Prospective comparative studies in this area are essential.

Post-thrombotic syndrome after upper extremity deep vein thrombosis: An international Delphi consensus study.

OBJECTIVES: Primary deep vein thrombosis of the upper extremity (UEDVT) is a rare condition but up to 60% of patients may develop post-thrombotic syndrome in the upper extremity (UE-PTS) with significant morbidity and decreased quality of life. However, there is no universally accepted method to diagnose and classify UE-PTS, hampering scientific research on UEDVT treatment. Through this international Delphi consensus study we aimed to determine what a clinical score for diagnosing UE-PTS should entail. METHODS: An online focus group survey among 20 patients treated for UEDVT was performed to provide clinical parameters before the start of a four round electronic Delphi consensus study among 25 international experts. The CREDES recommendations on Conducting and Reporting Delphi Studies were applied. Open text questions, multiple selection questions, and 9-point Likert scales were used. Consensus was set at 70% agreement. RESULTS: After four rounds, agreement was reached on a composite score of five symptoms and three clinical signs, combined with a functional disability score. The signs and symptom will each be scored on a severity scale of 0-3 and the total score expressed as an ordinal variable; no/mild/moderate/or severe PTS. The functional disability portion measures the impact of the signs and symptoms on the functionality of the patient's arm. CONCLUSION: Consensus was reached on a composite score of signs and symptoms of UE-PTS combined with a functional disability score. Clinical validation of the UE-PTS score in a large patient cohort is mandatory to facilitate application in future research.

Isolated rhabdomyolysis of long head of triceps mimicking upper extremity deep vein thrombosis.

Rhabdomyolysis is characterised by skeletal muscle breakdown, with release of toxic intracellular contents into the circulation. A man in his 20s presented to the emergency department with acute-onset right arm swelling, with pitting oedema extending into his forearm without clear precipitant. Initial differential diagnosis was upper extremity deep vein thrombosis, however none was identified on CT venogram. Instead, rhabdomyolysis of long head of triceps was diagnosed after multidisciplinary review of the venogram by the treating vascular surgeon and radiologist. Retrospectively, added serum creatine kinase was found to be 11 587 U/L, and together with MRI of the right arm, the diagnosis was established. Given the patient's lack of comorbidities, normal renal function and reliability, he was managed conservatively as an outpatient without hospital admission for intravenous hydration. This is the only case to our knowledge of isolated long head of triceps' rhabdomyolysis reported in Australia and the second case worldwide.

A RIETE registry analysis of patients with upper extremity deep vein thrombosis and thoracic outlet syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) related to thoracic outlet syndrome (TOS) is rare, and the literature is limited to institutional case series. METHODS: We used data from the RIETE Registry to compare outcomes (recurrences, major bleeding and signs and symptoms of post-thrombotic [PTS] syndrome) in patients with UEDVT and TOS undergoing first rib resection vs. those not undergoing surgery. RESULTS: From March 2001 to March 2021, there were 4214 patients with UEDVT, of whom 209 (4.96%) had TOS. Of these, 55 (26%) underwent first rib resection. Patients with TOS were younger and less likely to have comorbidities than those without TOS. There were no differences between patients with TOS undergoing surgery and those who did not. During anticoagulation, patients with TOS had a non-statistically significant lower rate of VTE recurrences than those without TOS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.46; 95%CI: 0.14-1.12) and a lower bleeding rate (HR: 0.16; 95%CI: 0.01-0.83). No patient with TOS developed pulmonary embolism or died. Patients with TOS undergoing surgery had fewer PTS symptoms (odds ratio [OR]: 0.21; 95%CI: 0.06-0.68) or signs (OR: 0.11; 95%CI: 0.02-0.42) after one year than patients who did not have surgery. At two years, the differences in symptoms (OR: 0.25; 95%CI: 0.06-0.94) and signs (OR: 0.04; 95%CI: 0.002-0.33) persisted. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with UEDVT and TOS were younger and had less comorbidities than those without. Surgical resection of the first rib was associated with a lower proportion of patients developing PTS one and two years later.

Upper extremity deep vein thrombosis in COVID-19: Incidence and correlated risk factors in a cohort of non-ICU patients.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism is a frequent complication of COVID-19 infection. Less than 50% of pulmonary embolism (PE) is associated with the evidence of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) of the lower extremities. DVT may also occur in the venous system of the upper limbs especially if provoking conditions are present such as continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of UEDVT in patients affected by moderate-severe COVID-19 infection and to identify potential associated risk factors for its occurrence. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients affected by moderate-severe COVID-19 infection admitted to our unit. In accordance with the local protocol, all patients had undergone a systematic screening for the diagnosis of UEDVT, by vein compression ultrasonography (CUS). All the patients were receiving pharmacological thromboprophylaxis according to international guidelines recommendations. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify risk factors associated with UEDVT. RESULTS: 257 patients were included in the study, 28 patients were affected by UEDVT with an incidence of 10.9% (95% CI, 7.1-14.7). At univariate analysis UEDVT appeared to be significantly associated (p< 0.05) with pneumonia, ARDS, PaO2/FiO2, D-dimer value higher than the age adjusted cut off value and need for CPAP ventilation. Multivariate analysis showed a significant association between UEDVT and the need for CPAP ventilation (OR 5.95; 95% IC 1.33-26.58). Increased mortality was found in patients affected by UEDVT compared to those who were not (OR 3.71; 95% CI, 1.41-9.78). CONCLUSIONS: UEDVT can occur in COVID-19 patients despite adequate prophylaxis especially in patients undergoing helmet CPAP ventilation. Further studies are needed to identify the correct strategy to prevent DVT in these patients.

Validation of Michigan risk score and D-dimer to predict peripherally inserted central catheter-related thrombosis: A study of 206,132 catheter days.

BACKGROUND: The Michigan Risk Score (MRS) was the only predicted score for peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) associated upper extremity venous thrombosis (UEVT). Age-adjusted D-dimer increased the efficiency for UEVT. There were no external validations in an independent cohort. METHOD: A retrospective study of adult patients with PICC insertion was performed. The primary objective was to evaluate the performance of the MRS and age-adjusted D-dimer in estimating risk of PICC-related symptomatic UEVT. The sensitivity, specificity and areas under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) of MRS and age-adjusted D-dimer were calculated. RESULTS: Two thousand one hundred sixty-three patients were included for a total of 206,132 catheter days. Fifty-six (2.6%) developed PICC-UEVT. The incidences of PICC-UEVT were 4.9% for class I, 7.5% for class II, 2.2% for class III, 0% for class IV of MRS (p = 0.011). The incidences of PICC-UEVT were 4.5% for D-dimer above the age-adjusted threshold and 1.5% for below the threshold (p = 0.001). The areas under ROC of MRS and age-adjusted D-dimer were 0.405 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.303-0.508) and 0.639 (95% CI 0.547-0.731). The sensitivity and specificity of MRS were 0.82 (95% CI, 0.69-0.91), 0.09 (95% CI, 0.08-0.11), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of age-adjusted D-dimer were 0.64 (95% CI, 0.46-0.79) and 0.64 (95% CI, 0.61-0.66), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: MRS and age-adjusted D-dimer have low accuracy to predict PICC-UEVT. Further studies are needed.

D-dimer level for ruling out peripherally inserted central catheter-associated upper extremity deep vein thrombosis and superficial vein thrombosis.

AIMS: To examine the effectiveness of D-dimer values to be used as an independent diagnostic marker for excluding peripherally inserted central catheter-associated upper extremity deep vein thrombosis and superficial vein thrombosis. DESIGN: This was a retrospective case-cohort study. METHODS: Records were reviewed for 281 patients who underwent peripherally inserted central catheter insertion between 1 October 2017 and 1 October 2019. According to the modified Wells score after peripherally inserted central catheter insertion, the patients who had low vein thrombosis risk underwent a D-dimer test and colour Doppler ultrasound. RESULTS: Among 281 patients, 180 patients (64%, 95% CI: 58.2%-69.4%) had negative D-dimer results and 39 of 180 patients had vein thrombosis despite having a negative D-dimer result, resulting in a failure rate of 21.7% (95% CI: 16.3%-28.3%). The negative predictive value of peripherally inserted central catheter-associated vein thrombosis in the cancer group (80.0%, 95% CI: 73.2%-85.4%) was higher than that of the non-cancer group (60.0%, 95% CI: 35.7%-80.2%). The negative predictive value of peripherally inserted central catheter-associated deep venous thrombosis (84.9%, 95% CI: 78.7%-89.6%) was lower than that of the PICC-associated superficial venous thrombosis (91.0%, 95% CI: 85.4%-94.6%). CONCLUSION: The D-dimer levels maybe should not be used as a diagnostic index to rule out peripherally inserted central catheter-associated upper extremity vein thrombosis.

Upper extremity deep venous thrombosis prevalence in the NHS Grampian Medical Ambulatory clinic: diagnostic, therapeutic, and prognostic considerations in oncology patients.

INTRODUCTION: Whilst upper extremity deep vein thromboses (UEDVT) account for approximately 5 to 10% of all cases of DVT, rigorous guidelines regarding diagnosis and management of presenting patients remain to be developed. The association of UEDVT with concurrent asymptomatic pulmonary embolism as well as the first presentation of malignancy deems essential rigorous research and clinical guideline development to ensure optimal patient care. METHODS: This retrospective audit study is the first to provide estimates of UEDVT prevalence in the North-East Deanery main hospital centre, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary (ARI). RESULTS: Of the 605 patients attending the ARI Ambulatory Emergency Care (AEC) clinic with clinical suspicion of UEDVT, 38 (6.2%) had a confirmatory diagnosis. Underlying malignancy, presence of PICC line, and cardiovascular co-morbidities were identified as common confounding factors. Subclavian vein with concurrent extension to primarily the cephalic vein thrombosis was identified as the most commonly thrombosed venous territories. Importantly, oncology patients were found to have poorer survival outcomes following an UEDVT, in comparison to patients with other significant co-morbidities (cardiovascular, chronic renal disease, inflammatory bowel disease): HR 5.814 (95%CI 1.15, 29.25), p 0.012. Lastly, genetic associations were drawn between patient genetic status as tested for other co-morbidities and prothrombotic cellular cascades, suggesting rigorous VTE assessment in patients identified with congenital or acquired mutations, namely, in CALR, JAK, MSH 2/6, MYC, and FXN. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this study offers the first report of UEDVT presentations in the UK with no restrictions of patient performance status or underlying co-morbidities and provides a rounded clinical picture of patient characteristics, diagnosis, management, and prognostic associations in view of rigorous guideline development.

Venous thoracic outlet syndrome and Paget-Schroetter syndrome.

Venous thoracic outlet syndrome represents a relatively rare but important diagnosis in the adolescent population with increasing recognition. Compression of the subclavian vein within the costoclavicular space can lead to episodic venous outlet obstruction in the upper extremity, with edema, rubor and functional symptoms. Over time, cumulative injury and compression can lead to thrombosis of the vein, referred to as "effort thrombosis" or the Paget-Schroetter syndrome. This progression can lead to the need for acute management of the venous thromboembolism, requirement for thoracic outlet decompression surgery and the potential for long-term sequelae such as post-thrombotic syndrome. Management is focused on clot minimization, anticoagulation during the period of endothelial injury and inflammation and surgical decompression via first rib resection, anterior scalenectomy and venolysis to remove external compression of the vein. This manuscript reviews the diagnosis, evaluation and treatment of venous thoracic outlet syndrome and Paget-Schroetter syndrome.

Upper Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis: Current Knowledge and Future Directions.

Upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) has been increasing in incidence due to the escalating use of central venous catheters such as peripherally inserted central catheters. UEDVT can be primary idiopathic or secondary to pacemaker leads, intravascular catheters or cancer. In comparison to conventional venous thromboembolism such as lower limb deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism the risk factors, investigations, and management are not well defined. We review current evidence in primary and secondary UEDVT, highlighting areas in need of further research. We also explore the entity of venous thoracic outlet syndrome, which is said to be a risk factor for recurrent primary UEDVT and is the rationale behind surgical interventions.

Management of upper extremity deep vein thrombosis: an updated review of the literature.

Upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) represents about 5-10% of all cases of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) with a steadily increasing incidence mostly due to the high prevalence of cancer and frequent use of intravascular devices such as central venous catheters and pacemaker. In primary UEDVT, the venous outflow obstruction and subsequent thrombosis are related to congenital or acquired anatomical abnormalities, whereas secondary UEDVT is often associated with malignancy or indwelling lines. A considerable proportion of patients with UEDVT develops serious complications such as recurrent thrombosis, post-thrombotic syndrome, and pulmonary embolism, therefore timely diagnosis and adequate treatment are of crucial importance. Despite sharing many similarities with lower extremity DVT, UEDVT has distinctive features requiring specific diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. The present review discusses the latest evidence on the epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment of UEDVT, and provides management indications which may help guide clinical decision making.

Paget-Schroetter Syndrome in a Young Female.

Paget-Schroetter syndrome or effort thrombosis is a relatively rare primary spontaneous thrombosis of upper extremity deep veins secondary to entrapment of axillary subclavian veins from an abnormality of the thoracic outlet. It is commonly seen in young adults who lift heavy weights or strenuous use of the upper extremities during athletic activities. Repetitive microtrauma to the subclavian vein secondary to narrow costoclavicular space and strenuous activities leads to intimal layer inflammation, hypertrophy, fibrosis, and coagulation cascade activation. Management of Paget-Schroetter syndrome differs from the venous thrombosis of the lower extremity as treatment includes anticoagulation, thrombolysis, and surgical decompression. Early recognition and timely management are required to prevent significant disability from post-thrombotic syndrome and long-term morbidity from recurrent thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism. Internists and emergency physicians should be aware of the disease's presentation, treatment options, and early referral to vascular surgeons since prompt initiation of appropriate treatment will have better outcomes than delayed treatment. We discussed a case of a 31-year-old female who lifts heavyweight at work, presented with right arm swelling and pain for 2 weeks, and diagnosed with axillary subclavian vein thrombosis secondary to thoracic outlet obstruction. She received a high-dose heparin drip followed by catheter-directed thrombolysis and underwent surgical decompression of axillary subclavian vein via resection of the first rib, subclavius muscle resection, partial anterior scalenectomy, and venolysis. In our review of the literature, randomized controlled studies lack the efficacy and safety of surgical decompression. However, the results are promising based on accumulated experience from vascular surgery experts and small case series. Extensive studies are needed further to delineate the protocol for the management of Paget-Schroetter syndrome.

Evaluation and Management of Venous Thoracic Outlet Syndrome.

Venous thoracic outlet syndrome (TOS) is uncommon but occurs in young, healthy patients, typically presenting as subclavian vein (SCV) effort thrombosis. Venous TOS arises through chronic repetitive compression injury of the SCV in the costoclavicular space with progressive venous scarring, focal stenosis, and eventual thrombosis. Diagnosis is evident on clinical presentation with sudden spontaneous upper extremity swelling and cyanotic discoloration. Initial treatment includes anticoagulation, venography, and pharmacomechanical thrombolysis. Surgical management using paraclavicular decompression can result in relief from arm swelling, freedom from long-term anticoagulation, and a return to unrestricted upper extremity activity in more than 90% of patients.

Utilidad diagnóstica del dímero D cuantitativo / Diagnostic usefulness of quantitative D-dimer

Introducción: El dímero D es un marcador de la generación de trombina y plasmina. Constituye el producto final de la degradación de un trombo rico en fibrina mediada por la acción secuencial de 3 enzimas: trombina, factor FXIIIa y plasmina. Las pruebas disponibles en la actualidad para el diagnóstico del dímero D son variadas y no son uniformes. Objetivo: Analizar las evidencias disponibles sobre la utilidad de diferentes pruebas rápidas de dímero D. Métodos: Se realizó una revisión de la literatura de los últimos diez años, en inglés y español, utilizando motores de búsqueda como Google Académico y Pubmed que permitió el acceso a artículos relacionados en revistas arbitradas. Se agrupó y organizó información sobre las posibles utilidades del dímero D. Desarrollo: La determinación en el laboratorio del dímero D, se usa como prueba rápida y sencilla, posee un lugar definido en los algoritmos de exclusión de la enfermedad tromboembólica venosa, en el diagnóstico de coagulación intravascular diseminada y con aplicación en la predicción de la recidiva de trombosis venosa profunda, en los últimos años. Existen diversos ensayos para la determinación de la concentración plasmática de dímero D que utilizan distintas metodologías, diferentes anticuerpos y sensibilidades. Conclusiones: La determinación de dímero D por los métodos cuantitativos en pacientes con trastornos trombóticos es muy importante para determinar su sensibilidad, y fundamentar el desarrollo del algoritmo diagnóstico de las mencionadas entidades(AU)

Introduction: D-dimer is a marker of thrombin and plasmin generation. It is the final product of the degradation of a fibrin-rich thrombus mediated by the sequential action of three enzymes: thrombin, factor XIIIa and plasmin. The tests currently available for D-dimer diagnosis are varied and not uniform. Objective: Analyze the evidence available about the usefulness of a number of D-dimer rapid tests. Methods: A review was conducted of the literature published in English and Spanish in the last ten years, using search engines such as Google Scholar and PubMed, which allowed access to papers about the topic in peer-reviewed journals. Data about the possible uses of D-dimer were grouped and organized. Discussion: Laboratory D-dimer determination is a rapid and simple test that has occupied a definite place in the exclusion algorithms for venous thromboembolic disease, the diagnosis of disseminated intravascular coagulation, and the prediction of deep venous thrombosis recurrence in recent years. A number of assays are available to determine D-dimer plasma concentration. These are based on different methodologies, antibodies and sensitivity values. Conclusions: D-dimer determination by quantitative methods is very important in patients with thrombotic disorders to determine their sensitivity and substantiate the development of the diagnostic algorithm for the aforementioned conditions(AU)