The high prevalence of asymptomatic PAD in this patient population suggests that ABI should systematically be performed in high-risk hospitalized patients to ensure that appropriate secondary prevention programs are initiated.

It was the objective of this study to design a clinical prediction score for the diagnosis of upper extremity deep venous thrombosis (UEDVT). A score was built by multivariate logistic regression in a sample of patients hospitalized for suspicion of UEDVT (derivation sample). It was validated in a second sample in the same university hospital, then in a sample from the multicenter OPTIMEV study that included both outpatients and inpatients. In these three samples, UEDVT diagnosis was objectively confirmed by ultrasound. The derivation sample included 140 patients among whom 50 had confirmed UEDVT, the validation sample included 103 patients among whom 46 had UEDVT, and the OPTIMEV sample included 214 patients among whom 65 had UEDVT. The clinical score identified a combination of four items (venous material, localized pain, unilateral pitting edema and other diagnosis as plausible). One point was attributed to each item (positive for the first 3 and negative for the other diagnosis). A score of -1 or 0 characterized low probability patients, a score of 1 identified intermediate probability patients, and a score of 2 or 3 identified patients with high probability. Low probability score identified a prevalence of UEDVT of 12, 9 and 13%, respectively, in the derivation, validation and OPTIMEV samples. High probability score identified a prevalence of UEDVT of 70, 64 and 69% respectively. In conclusion we propose a simple score to calculate clinical probability of UEDVT. This score might be a useful test in clinical trials as well as in clinical practice.

There is a lack of consensus on the value of detecting and treating symptomatic isolated distal deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) of the lower limbs. In our study, we compared the risk factors and outcomes in patients with isolated symptomatic distal DVT with those with proximal symptomatic DVT. We analysed the data of patients with objectively confirmed symptomatic isolated DVT enrolled in the national (France), multicenter, prospective OPTIMEV study. This sub-study outcomes were recurrent venous thromboembolism, major bleeding and death at three months. Among the 6141 patients with suspicion of isolated DVT included between November 2004 and January 2006, DVT was confirmed in 1643 patients (26.8%). Isolated distal DVT was more frequent than proximal DVT (56.8% vs. 43.2%, respectively; p = 0.01). Isolated distal DVT was significantly more often associated with transient risk factors (recent surgery, recent plaster immobilisation, recent travel), whereas proximal DVT was significantly more associated with more chronic states (active cancer, congestive heart failure or respiratory insufficiency, age >75 years). Most patients (96.8%) with isolated distal DVT received anticoagulant therapies. There was no difference in the percentage of recurrent venous thromboembolism and major bleeding in patients with proximal DVT and isolated distal DVT. However, the mortality rate was significantly higher (p < 0.01) in patients with proximal DVT (8.0%) than in those with isolated distal DVT (4.4%). Symptomatic isolated distal DVT differs from symptomatic proximal DVT both in terms of risk factors and clinical outcome. Whether these differences should influence the clinical management of these two events remains to be determined.

Introduction: D-dimer measurement is a safe tool to exclude pulmonary embolism (PE) but its specificity decreases in COVID-19. Our aim was to derive a new algorithm with specific D-dimer threshold in COVID-19 patients. Methods: We conducted a French multicenter, retrospective cohort study among 774 COVID-19 patients with suspected PE. D-dimer threshold adjusted to computed tomography (CT) extent of lung damage was derived in a patient set (n=337), and its safety assessed in an independent validation set (n=337). Results: According to ROC curves, in the derivation set D-dimer safely excluded PE, with one false negative when using a 900 ng/mL threshold when lung damage extent was <50% and 1700 ng/mL when lung damage extent was ≥50%. In the derivation set, the algorithm sensitivity was 98.2% (95% CI: 94.7–100.0) and its specificity 28.4% (95% CI: 24.1–32.3). The negative likelihood ratio (NLR) was 0.06 (95% CI: 0.01–0.44) and the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.63 (95% CI: 0.60–0.67). In the validation set, sensitivity and specificity were 96.7% (95% CI: 88.7–99.6) and 39.2% (95% CI: 32.2–46.1), respectively. The NLR was 0.08 (95% CI; 0.02–0.33) and the AUC did not differed from that of the derivation set (0.68 ,95% CI: 0.64–0.72, P = 0.097). Using the Co-LEAD algorithm, 76/250 (30.4%) COVID-19 patients with suspected PE could have been managed without CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA). Conclusion: The Co-LEAD algorithm safely excludes PE, and allows reducing the use of CTPA among COVID-19 patients. Further prospective studies are necessary to validate this strategy.