The Saudi clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis of the first deep venous thrombosis of the lower extremity

The diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) may be challenging due to the inaccuracy of clinical assessment and diversity of diagnostic tests. On one hand, missed diagnosis may result in life-threatening conditions. On the other hand, unnecessary treatment may lead to serious complications. As a result of an initiative of the Ministry of Health of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), an expert panel led by the Saudi Association for Venous Thrombo-Embolism (SAVTE; a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society) with the methodological support of the McMaster University Working Group, produced this clinical practice guideline to assist healthcare providers in evidence-based clinical decision-making for the diagnosis of a suspected first DVT of the lower extremity. Twenty-four questions were identified and corresponding recommendations were made following the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. These recommendations included assessing the clinical probability of DVT using Wells criteria before requesting any test and undergoing a sequential diagnostic evaluation, mainly using highly sensitive D-dimer by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and compression ultrasound. Although venography is the reference standard test for the diagnosis of DVT, its use was not recommended

Thromboprophylaxis and mortality among patients who developed venous thromboembolism in seven major hospitals in Saudi Arabia

Introduction: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) during hospitalization is a serious and potentially fatal condition. Despite its effectiveness, evidence-based thromboprophylaxis is still underutilized in many countries including Saudi Arabia. Objective of the Study: Our objectives were to determine how often hospital-acquired VTE patients received appropriate thromboprophylaxis, VTE-associated mortality, and the percentage of patients given anticoagulant therapy and adherence to it after discharged. Methods: This study was conducted in seven major hospitals in Saudi Arabia. From July 1, 2009, till June 30, 2010, all recorded deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) cases were noted. Only patients with confirmed VTE diagnosis were included in the analysis. Results: A total of 1241 confirmed VTE cases occurred during the 12-month period. Most (58.3%) of them were DVT only, 21.7% were PE, and 20% were both DVT and PE. 21.4% and 78.6% of confirmed VTE occurred in surgical and medical patients, respectively. Only 40.9% of VTE cases received appropriate prophylaxis (63.2% for surgical patients and 34.8% for medical patients; P 0.05). Appropriate thromboprophylaxis was associated with 4.11% absolute risk reduction in mortality (95% confidence interval: 0.24%–7.97%). Most (89.4%) of the survived patients received anticoagulation therapy at discharge and 71.7% of them were adherent to it on follow-up. Conclusion: Thromboprophylaxis was underutilized in major Saudi hospitals denoting a gap between guideline and practice. This gap was more marked in medical than surgical patients. Hospital-acquired VTE was associated with significant mortality. Efforts to improve thromboprophylaxis utilization are warranted