Bosson JL, for the OPTIMEV-SFMV investigators. Incidence and predictors of venous thromboembolism recurrence after a first isolated distal deep vein thrombosis. J Thromb Haemost 2014; 12: 436-43.Summary. Background: Isolated distal deep vein thrombosis (iDDVT) (i.e. without proximal DVT or pulmonary embolism) represents half of all cases of lower limb DVT. Its clinical significance and management are controversial. Data on long-term follow-up are scarce, especially concerning risk and predictors of venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence. Methods: Using data from the OPTIMEV (OPTimisation de l'Interrogatoire dans l' evaluation du risque throMbo-Embolique Veineux) study, a prospective, observational, multicenter study, we compared, 3 years after an index VTE event and after discontinuation of anticoagulants, (i) the incidence and type of recurrence in patients without cancer with a first iDDVT vs. a first isolated proximal DVT (iP-DVT) and (ii) predictors of recurrence after iDDVT. Results: Compared with patients with iPDVT (n = 259), patients with an iDDVT (n = 490) had a lower annualized incidence of overall VTE recurrence (5.2% [95% confidence interval 3.6-7.6] vs. 2.7% [1.9-3.8], respectively; P = 0.02) but a similar incidence of pulmonary embolism recurrence (1.0% [0.5-2.3] vs. 0.9% [0.5-1.6], respectively; P = 0.83). An age of > 50 years, unprovoked character of index iDDVT, and involvement of more than one vein in one or both legs each independently tripled the risk of recurrence, with the latter then being ≥ 3% per patient-year. Neither muscular vein nor deepcalf vein location of iDDVT nor clot diameter with compression influenced the risk of recurrence. Conclusions: After stopping anticoagulants, patients with iDDVT have a significantly lower risk of overall VTE recurrence than did patients with iPDVT but a similar risk of serious recurrent VTE. Age > 50 years, unprovoked iDDVT, and number of thrombosed veins (more than one) influenced the risk of recurrence and may help to define patients at significant risk of recurrence.
Background
After a proximal lower limb deep vein thrombosis (DVT; involving popliteal veins or above), up to 40% of patients develop postthrombotic syndrome (PTS) as assessed by the Villalta scale (VS). Poor initial anticoagulant treatment is a known risk factor for PTS. The risk of developing PTS after isolated distal DVT (infra‐popliteal DVT without pulmonary embolism), and the impact of anticoagulant treatment on this risk, are uncertain.
Methods
Long‐term follow‐up of CACTUS double‐blind trial comparing 6 weeks of s.c. nadroparin (171 IU/kg/d) versus s.c. placebo for a first symptomatic isolated distal DVT. At least 1 year after randomization, patients had a PTS assessment in clinic or by phone using the VS.
Results
After a median follow‐up of 6 years, PTS was present in 30% (n = 54) of the 178 patients who had a PTS assessment. PTS was moderate or severe in 24% (n = 13) of cases. There was no statistically significant difference in prevalence of PTS in the nadroparin versus placebo groups (29% versus 32%, P = .6), except in patients without evidence of primary chronic venous insufficiency (9% versus 24%, P = .04). Rates of venous thromboembolism recurrence during follow‐up in the nadroparin and placebo groups were, respectively, 8% (n = 7) and 14% (n = 13; P = .2).
Conclusion
After a first isolated distal DVT, the risk of PTS is substantial but much lower than that reported after proximal DVT. Anticoagulation with nadroparin doesn't provide any clear benefit to prevent PTS, except in patients without preexisting chronic venous insufficiency. Anticoagulation might be associated with a lower risk of venous thromboembolism recurrence.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.