Point-of-care ultrasound stratified by the wells score for the diagnosis of proximal deep vein thrombosis: A prospective study

Nicolás Rojas Muñoz , Hans Clausdorff Fiedler , Felipe Riquelme Morales , Victor Vidal Zamorano , Francisca Seydewitz Osses , Sofía Rivera Gonzalez , Carlos Basaure Verdejo
{"title":"Point-of-care ultrasound stratified by the wells score for the diagnosis of proximal deep vein thrombosis: A prospective study","authors":"Nicolás Rojas Muñoz ,&nbsp;Hans Clausdorff Fiedler ,&nbsp;Felipe Riquelme Morales ,&nbsp;Victor Vidal Zamorano ,&nbsp;Francisca Seydewitz Osses ,&nbsp;Sofía Rivera Gonzalez ,&nbsp;Carlos Basaure Verdejo","doi":"10.1016/j.jemrpt.2025.100187","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) affects 1 in 1000 people, with complications associated both in under and over diagnosis. Duplex ultrasound is the gold standard but its use in emergency settings is limited. Two-point Point-of-Care ultrasound protocol performed by emergency physicians can foster its diagnosis. However, 6 % of cases can be missed and its performance stratified by clinical pre-test probability is unknown.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To evaluate the diagnostic performance of an extended compression ultrasound (ECUS) protocol performed by emergency physicians when stratified by Wells score.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted a prospective diagnostic accuracy study. Adult patients (≥18 years) with suspected DVT were stratified by Wells score (low, intermediate, high risk) and underwent ECUS by trained emergency physicians or residents. Results were compared to complete duplex ultrasound (CDUS) performed by radiologists within 24 h.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Among 194 patients analyzed (54 % female, mean age 61 ± 18 years), the overall prevalence of proximal DVT was 17 %. The ECUS protocol demonstrated a global sensitivity of 97 % (95 % CI: 84.2–99.9), specificity of 94.4 % (95 % CI: 89.7–97.4), positive predictive value of 78.6 % (95 % CI: 63.2–89.4), and negative predictive value of 99.3 % (95 % CI: 96.4–100). In the low-risk group, sensitivity was 100 % (95 % CI: 29.2–100) with a negative predictive value of 100 % (95 % CI: 90.7–100).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The combined use of Wells score stratification and ECUS can reliably exclude proximal DVT in low and intermediate-risk patients, potentially optimizing emergency department resources and facilitating timely clinical decisions. In low-risk patients, this strategy may yield results comparable to comprehensive Doppler ultrasound.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":73546,"journal":{"name":"JEM reports","volume":"4 3","pages":"Article 100187"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JEM reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2773232025000513","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) affects 1 in 1000 people, with complications associated both in under and over diagnosis. Duplex ultrasound is the gold standard but its use in emergency settings is limited. Two-point Point-of-Care ultrasound protocol performed by emergency physicians can foster its diagnosis. However, 6 % of cases can be missed and its performance stratified by clinical pre-test probability is unknown.

Objective

To evaluate the diagnostic performance of an extended compression ultrasound (ECUS) protocol performed by emergency physicians when stratified by Wells score.

Methods

We conducted a prospective diagnostic accuracy study. Adult patients (≥18 years) with suspected DVT were stratified by Wells score (low, intermediate, high risk) and underwent ECUS by trained emergency physicians or residents. Results were compared to complete duplex ultrasound (CDUS) performed by radiologists within 24 h.

Results

Among 194 patients analyzed (54 % female, mean age 61 ± 18 years), the overall prevalence of proximal DVT was 17 %. The ECUS protocol demonstrated a global sensitivity of 97 % (95 % CI: 84.2–99.9), specificity of 94.4 % (95 % CI: 89.7–97.4), positive predictive value of 78.6 % (95 % CI: 63.2–89.4), and negative predictive value of 99.3 % (95 % CI: 96.4–100). In the low-risk group, sensitivity was 100 % (95 % CI: 29.2–100) with a negative predictive value of 100 % (95 % CI: 90.7–100).

Conclusion

The combined use of Wells score stratification and ECUS can reliably exclude proximal DVT in low and intermediate-risk patients, potentially optimizing emergency department resources and facilitating timely clinical decisions. In low-risk patients, this strategy may yield results comparable to comprehensive Doppler ultrasound.
现场超声分层的井评分诊断近端深静脉血栓:一项前瞻性研究
深静脉血栓(DVT)每1000人中就有1人患病,其并发症与诊断不足和诊断过度有关。双工超声是黄金标准,但它在紧急情况下的应用是有限的。由急诊医生执行的两点护理超声协议可以促进其诊断。然而,6%的病例可能被遗漏,其表现分层的临床前测试概率是未知的。目的评价急诊医师采用扩展压缩超声(ECUS)方案对威尔斯评分分层的诊断价值。方法进行前瞻性诊断准确性研究。疑似DVT的成年患者(≥18岁)按Wells评分(低、中、高风险)分层,由训练有素的急诊医生或住院医师进行ECUS。结果分析194例患者(女性54%,平均年龄61±18岁),近端DVT总患病率为17%。ECUS方案的总体敏感性为97% (95% CI: 84.2-99.9),特异性为94.4% (95% CI: 89.7-97.4),阳性预测值为78.6% (95% CI: 63.2-89.4),阴性预测值为99.3% (95% CI: 96.4-100)。在低危组,敏感性为100% (95% CI: 29.2-100),阴性预测值为100% (95% CI: 90.7-100)。结论威尔斯评分分层与ECUS联合应用可可靠地排除中低危患者近端DVT,可优化急诊科资源,促进临床及时决策。在低风险患者中,这种策略可能产生与综合多普勒超声相当的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JEM reports
JEM reports Emergency Medicine
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
54 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信