Antenatal venous thromboembolism

Crosby, David; McHugh, Ann; Ryan, Kevin M.; Byrne, Bridgette

doi:10.1111/tog.12744

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thank you very much for publishing our manuscript on antenatal venous thromboembolism 1 in The Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (TOG) in Volume 23 Issue 3. We would to thank your reader for drawing our attention to a discrepancy between the article and the Green-top Guideline No.…”

Section: Authors' Replymentioning

confidence: 99%

Re: Antenatal venous thromboembolism

Ahuja

2022

The Obstetric & Gynaecologis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Please note that letters and emails to the editor should be no more than 500 words with a maximum of five references.Re: Antenatal venous thromboembolism Dear Editor, I was very interested in the article on antenatal venous thromboembolism 1 published in The Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (TOG) in Volume 23 Issue 3 and would like to complement the authors on the well-written article.While reading the same, I stumbled upon a discrepancy between the article and the Green-top Guideline No. 37b on Thromboembolic Disease in Pregnancy and the Puerperium: Acute Management, 2 regarding the management of suspected deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in pregnant patients. This aforementioned TOG article, on page 207, under the paragraph with the sub-heading 'Deep vein thrombosis' in the sixth sentence (eighth line) mentions, "However, if there is a persistent clinical suspicion, RCOG guidance recommends that treatment should be continued and ultrasound repeated 3 and 7 days later." Upon reviewing the Green-top Guideline, the recommendation on page 2 of 32 under the question, "What investigations are needed for the diagnosis of an acute DVT?" states in the second paragraph under the above question "If ultrasound is negative and there is a low level of clinical suspicion, anticoagulant treatment can be discontinued." It continues to recommend further action on an ultrasound that is negative as follows: "If ultrasound is negative and a high level of clinical suspicion exists, anticoagulant treatment should be discontinued but the ultrasound should be repeated on days 3 and 7. [New 2015]".I would like to draw the attention of the authors to this discrepancy and would appreciate clarification on this, enabling the readers to take home a clear message. Along the journey of continued learning and reflecting, I would also like to learn if I have possibly made an error in reading or understanding the intended guidance or the article. Though I agree with the authors that if there exists a strong clinical suspicion, continuing the anticoagulant treatment makes a lot more sense; but I then question what the repeat tests on day 3 and 7 may show, as they may cause possible resolution of any thrombosis that may have been there.

show abstract

Section: Authors' Replymentioning

confidence: 99%

Re: Antenatal venous thromboembolism

Ahuja

2022

The Obstetric & Gynaecologis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this Review article by Crosby et al., 1 on page 207, under the paragraph titled ‘Deep vein thrombosis’, the sixth sentence below contains an error:…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Corrigendum

2022

The Obstetric & Gynaecologis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this Review article by Crosby et al., 1 on page 207, under the paragraph titled 'Deep vein thrombosis', the sixth sentence below contains an error: However, if there is a persistent clinical suspicion, RCOG guidance recommends that treatment should be continued and ultrasound repeated 3 and 7 days later.The sentence should have read: However, if there is a persistent clinical suspicion, RCOG guidance recommends that treatment should be discontinued and ultrasound repeated 3 and 7 days later.

show abstract

“…Last year, we published an excellent review by Crosby et al on management of thromboembolism in pregnancy. 1 Despite peer review and careful editing there was an inconsistency between the article and the relevant RCOG Green-top Guideline 2 regarding management of a suspected but unproven deep vein thrombosis (with a negative lower limb Doppler). This was noticed by a reader and has been corrected, with an accompanying corrigendum published in this issue.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Editorial

Harding¹

2022

The Obstetric & Gynaecologis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Antenatal venous thromboembolism

Cited by 5 publications

References 63 publications

Re: Antenatal venous thromboembolism

Re: Antenatal venous thromboembolism

Corrigendum

Editorial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About