Impact of screening versus symptomatic measurement of deep vein thrombosis in a national quality improvement registry
- PMID: 22832263
- PMCID: PMC3767393
- DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2012.02.066
Impact of screening versus symptomatic measurement of deep vein thrombosis in a national quality improvement registry
Abstract
Background: Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a quality measure recorded by initiatives such as the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP). However, because surveillance-detected DVT rates may be higher than symptomatic DVT rates, we examined how differences in the method of DVT detection may affect the use of this quality measure.
Methods: Using the NSQIP database (2007-2009), we compared DVT rates of vascular (amputation, open aortic procedures, and lower extremity bypass) and nonvascular (prostatectomy, gastric bypass [GBP], and hip arthroplasty) operations. Using a predefined literature search strategy, we compared the incidence of DVT in NSQIP to the incidence of DVT reported in published literature, diagnosed by symptomatic status or by surveillance studies.
Results: Within NSQIP, the overall incidence of postoperative DVT was 0.7%. This varied from 0.3% after GBP to 1.8% after open aortic surgery. Across all procedures except amputation, the incidence of DVT in NSQIP was similar to the incidence of DVT reported in our literature survey of "symptomatic" DVTs. The relative rate (RR) of literature-derived symptomatic DVTs to NSQIP ranged from 0.7 for aortic cases (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.3-1.7) to 1.4 (95% CI, .7-3.1) for GBP. Overall, surveillance studies had 11.6 higher RR of DVT compared to NSQIP (95% CI, 10.5-13), ranging from 2.6 for GBP (95% CI, 1.4-5) to 14 .5 for hip arthroplasty (95% CI, 10.5-20).
Conclusions: The incidence of DVT reported in NSQIP is similar to the reported incidence of symptomatic DVT for many high-risk procedures but is much lower than rates of DVT reported in surveillance studies. Clear delineation of symptomatic vs surveillance detection of DVT would improve the usefulness of this measurement in quality improvement registries.
Copyright © 2012 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Author conflict of interest: none.
Figures
Comment in
-
Regarding "Impact of screening versus symptomatic measurement of deep vein thrombosis in a national quality improvement registry".J Vasc Surg. 2013 Jan;57(1):301. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2012.11.055. J Vasc Surg. 2013. PMID: 23261279 No abstract available.
-
Reply. Regarding "Impact of screening versus symptomatic measurement of deep vein thrombosis in a national quality improvement registry".J Vasc Surg. 2013 Jan;57(1):301. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2012.11.056. J Vasc Surg. 2013. PMID: 23261280 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
References
-
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Quality indicators: guide to patient safety indicators. AHRQ quality indicators. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2006. [Accessed December 2011]. 2011 Available at: http://www.qualityindicators.ahrq.gov/Modules/psi_resources.aspx.
-
- Association APH. [Accessed March 2011];Coalition to prevent deep venous thrombosis. 2003 Available at: http://www.apha.org/programs/partnerships/dvt.htm.
-
- Office of the Surgeon General (US), National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (US) The Surgeon General’s call to action to prevent deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Rockville (MD): 2008. - PubMed
-
- Pierce CA, Haut ER, Kardooni S, Chang DC, Efron DT, Haider A, et al. Surveillance bias and deep vein thrombosis in the national trauma data bank: the more we look, the more we find. J Trauma. 2008;64:932–6. discussion 936–7. - PubMed
-
- McLachlin J, Richards T, Paterson JC. An evaluation of clinical signs in the diagnosis of venous thrombosis. Arch Surg. 1962;85:738–44. - PubMed
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Research Materials
