This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
Is this the same as DVT? (Deep vein thrombosis) that killed some long-haul plane passengers some months ago? Tenbaset 23:36 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)
A deep venous thrombosis is one kind of venous thrombosis, distinguished by location from another kind, superficial venous thrombosis. Usually, DVT refers to a venous thrombosis occurring in the pelvic veins or deep veins of the leg. And yes, DVTs predispose to pulmonary embolism, which kills people after long trips (on planes, busses, etc). Superficial venous thromboses don't. -- Someone else 23:42 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)
That's a great question. Any time a needle goes into a vein, there's a small risk of a clot forming. So it's not just IVDU; it's also getting your cholesterol checked, or getting fluids by IV, or anything else that involves poking a hole in your vein. If you can find a way to phrase it, I'd put drug abuse in the same half-sentence with "medically necessary" injections, and file it under "Medical".
With this revert,[1] I think factual errors were reintroduced. For example, the study found harm, not benefit from mechanical measures. And the study only said heparain may reduce PE, not that "it does decrease the risk of pulmonary embolism". I am not sure why these deviations from the source are an improvement. Biosthmors (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes good points. The harm with mechanical measure where only in those with stroke though, have changed to "may" from "dose"Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The results do state that "When trials of medical patients and those with stroke were considered together (18 studies; 36,122 patients), heparin prophylaxis reduced the incidence of PE (OR, 0.70 [CI, 0.56 to 0.87]; absolute reduction, 3 events per 1000 patients treated [CI, 1 to 5 events]) ". Thus I think the term dose is appropriate as they did find that it does reduce PEs.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first sentence in the data synthesis section notes statistical significance, but cautions of publication bias. Maybe that is why they chose the more cautious language when drawing their conclusions. Biosthmors (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I currently think sticking with the authors' conclusions is best. Biosthmors (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Present the two conclusions side by side? Biosthmors (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They come to basically the same conclusions. Heparin reduces DVTs/PEs but increases bleeding and thus does not result in a mortality benefit. Cochrane say does reduce PEs the 2011 says may. And of course Cochrane recommends and 2011 does not based on about the same evidence.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I removed the reduction in DVT statement as it wasn't in line with the 2011 source and here's the source that offered support: Alikhan, R (2009 Jul 8). "Heparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in general medical patients (excluding stroke and myocardial infarction)". Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (3): CD003747. PMID19588346. ((cite journal)): Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)Biosthmors (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Cochrane paper states "A significant risk reduction in deep vein thrombosis (DVT) by 60%" and Cochrane is one of the most respected sources. There is not one "main source". Thus returned. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But that contradicts the 2011 ACP review. Biosthmors (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The 2011 paper is only for symptomatic DVTs while Cochrane implies DVTs in general.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Qaseem, A (2011 Nov 1). "Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in hospitalized patients: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians". Annals of internal medicine. 155 (9): 625–32. PMID22041951. ((cite journal)): Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, it is cited once just for a minor purpose though. I'll try to expand the article with it. Biosthmors (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is some literature on superficial venous thromboses. For example: Décousus H, Bertoletti L, Frappé P, Becker F, Jaouhari AE, Mismetti P; et al. (2011). "Recent findings in the epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment of superficial-vein thrombosis". Thromb Res. 127 Suppl 3: S81-5. doi:10.1016/S0049-3848(11)70022-6. PMID21262449. ((cite journal)): Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) I guess the topic could warrant its own article. Biosthmors (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From working on DVT, I have noticed that the medical literature can use venous thrombosis as a short way of saying venous thromboembolism. I'm thinking this article should move to venous thromboembolism to narrow its focus. I think superficial vein thrombosis as a stub makes the transition make more sense. Maybe venous thrombosis can then become a disambiguation page that says it is a term for a blood clot in a vein and then gives three options: one for DVT, one for VTE, and one for superficial VT. Biosthmors (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
doi:10.1111/jth.12914 - PEs recur as PEs (of which 27% fatal) while DVTs recur as DVTs, on the whole. Systematic review and meta-analysis. JFW | T@lk 08:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We should be featuring a list of other forms of venous thrombosis. Every vein can thrombose, but there is a veritable list that probably belongs here. JFW | T@lk 21:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At some point we need to discuss the need for cancer screening in those with unprovoked VTE. NICE NG158 has updated guidance that this should not be done in the absence of symptoms or suggestive physical findings. Risk scores perform poorly and should not be used doi:10.1111/jth.15001JFW | T@lk 21:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I missed this in November. This is the edit that was reverted. "For people undergoing chemotherapy for cancer and who walk, direct oral anticoagulants (preferably LMWH) decrease the risk of VTE, but increases the risk of major bleeding" from 2021 version of the review. @Jfdwolff and Glafoululle des Alpes: how do you feel about the following edit: "For people undergoing chemotherapy for cancer that do not require a hospital stay (those undergoing ambulatory care), there is low certainty evidence to suggest that treatment with direct factor Xa inhibitors may help prevent symptomatic VTEs, however this treatment approach may also lead to an increase in the risk of a major bleed compared to a placebo medication. There is stronger evidence to suggest that LMWH helps prevent symptomatic VTE, however this treatment approach also comes with a higher risk of a major bleed compared to a placebo medication or no treatments to prevent VTE." JenOttawa (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
JenOttawa Seems reasonable, but it would be helpful if we also presented current clinical guidelines. Primary prophylaxis is only routinely used in very specific situations (e.g. thalidomide therapy in myeloma), and the published tools for predicting risk perform very poorly. JFW | T@lk 22:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. I added a sentence from The American Society of Hematology earlier today in this edit. I will make my above edit and try to merge both into something more readable. If you know of any other clinical practice guidelines please do share. I think that I will share the clinical practice guideline first and then share evidence about effectiveness/risks. Thanks for reviewing @Jfdwolff:! JenOttawa (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tried to re-work the entire prevention section. It would be great if we could include a section on what you mentioned- that published tools for determining risk of an event are not reliable. If someone sees this and posts the source here I can try to integrate. I have to step away now (dinner time :) ) but if anyone has suggestions to further improve this section please do jump in and keep the momentum! I just realized that this post was actually from 2020! Thanks again for flagging this on the talk page. JenOttawa (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
^Noyes, AM; Dickey, J (1 May 2017). "The Arm is Not the Leg: Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Management of Upper Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis". Rhode Island Medical Journal (2013). 100 (5): 33–36. PMID28459919.
^Grant, JD; Stevens, SM; Woller, SC (December 2012). "Diagnosis and management of upper extremity deep-vein thrombosis in adults". Thrombosis and Haemostasis. 108 (6): 1097–108. doi:10.1160/TH12-05-0352. PMID23093319.