Suspected Lower Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis

Variant: 1 Suspected lower extremity deep vein thrombosis. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US duplex Doppler lower extremity	Usually Appropriate	O
MRV lower extremity and pelvis without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRV lower extremity and pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
CTV lower extremity and pelvis with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
Catheter venography pelvis and lower extremity	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢

Panel Members

Michael Hanley, MD^a; Michael L. Steigner, MD^b; Osmanuddin Ahmed, MD^c; Ezana M. Azene, MD, PhD^d; Shelby J. Bennett, MD^e; Ankur Chandra, MD^f; Isabel O. Cortopassi, MD^g; Benoit Desjardins, MD, PhD^h; Kenneth L. Gage, MD, PhDⁱ; Michael Ginsburg, MD^j; David M. Mauro, MD^k; Thomas Ptak, MD, PhD, MPH^l; Richard Strax, MD^m; Nupur Verma, MDⁿ; Karin E. Dill, MD^o.

Summary of Literature Review

Introduction/Background

Discussion of Procedures by Variant

Variant 1: Suspected lower extremity deep vein thrombosis. Initial imaging.

Variant 1: Suspected lower extremity deep vein thrombosis. Initial imaging.
A. Catheter Venography Pelvis and Lower Extremity

Variant 1: Suspected lower extremity deep vein thrombosis. Initial imaging.
B. US Duplex Doppler Lower Extremity

Variant 1: Suspected lower extremity deep vein thrombosis. Initial imaging.
C. MR Venography Lower Extremity and Pelvis

Variant 1: Suspected lower extremity deep vein thrombosis. Initial imaging.
D. CT Venography Lower Extremity and Pelvis

Summary of Recommendations

Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name	Appropriateness Rating	Appropriateness Category Definition
Usually Appropriate	7, 8, or 9	The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.
May Be Appropriate	4, 5, or 6	The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.
May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	5	The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.
Usually Not Appropriate	1, 2, or 3	The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.

Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria^® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations
Relative Radiation Level*	Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range	Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range
O	0 mSv	0 mSv
☢	<0.1 mSv	<0.03 mSv
☢☢	0.1-1 mSv	0.03-0.3 mSv
☢☢☢	1-10 mSv	0.3-3 mSv
☢☢☢☢	10-30 mSv	3-10 mSv
☢☢☢☢☢	30-100 mSv	10-30 mSv
*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”

References

1.	Fowkes FJ, Price JF, Fowkes FG. Incidence of diagnosed deep vein thrombosis in the general population: systematic review. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2003; 25(1):1-5.
2.	Hamper UM, DeJong MR, Scoutt LM. Ultrasound evaluation of the lower extremity veins. Radiol Clin North Am. 2007; 45(3):525-547, ix.
3.	Kearon C. Natural history of venous thromboembolism. Circulation. 2003; 107(23 Suppl 1):I22-30.
4.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria®: Suspected Pulmonary Embolism. Available at: https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/69404/Narrative/.
5.	White RH. The epidemiology of venous thromboembolism. Circulation. 2003; 107(23 Suppl 1):I4-8.
6.	Goodacre S, Sampson F, Stevenson M, et al. Measurement of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of non-invasive diagnostic testing strategies for deep vein thrombosis. Health Technol Assess. 2006; 10(15):1-168, iii-iv.
7.	Gottlieb RH, Voci SL, Syed L, et al. Randomized prospective study comparing routine versus selective use of sonography of the complete calf in patients with suspected deep venous thrombosis. AJR. 2003; 180(1):241-245.
8.	Righini M, Le Gal G, Aujesky D, et al. Complete venous ultrasound in outpatients with suspected pulmonary embolism. J Thromb Haemost. 2009; 7(3):406-412.
9.	Nielsen HK, Husted SE, Krusell LR, et al. Anticoagulant therapy in deep venous thrombosis. A randomized controlled study. Thromb Res. 1994; 73(3-4):215-226.
10.	Beyer J, Schellong S. Deep vein thrombosis: Current diagnostic strategy. Eur J Intern Med. 2005; 16(4):238-246.
11.	Wells PS. Integrated strategies for the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism. J Thromb Haemost. 2007; 5 Suppl 1:41-50.
12.	Wells PS, Owen C, Doucette S, Fergusson D, Tran H. Does this patient have deep vein thrombosis? JAMA. 2006; 295(2):199-207.
13.	Bandle J, Shackford SR, Kahl JE, et al. The value of lower-extremity duplex surveillance to detect deep vein thrombosis in trauma patients. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 74(2):575-80, 2013 Feb.
14.	Patel AP, Koltz MT, Sansur CA, Gulati M, Hamilton DK. An analysis of deep vein thrombosis in 1277 consecutive neurosurgical patients undergoing routine weekly ultrasonography. Journal of Neurosurgery. 118(3):505-9, 2013 Mar.
15.	AbuRahma AF, Saiedy S, Robinson PA, Boland JP, Cottrell DJt, Stuart C. Role of venous duplex imaging of the lower extremities in patients with fever of unknown origin. Surgery. 1997; 121(4):366-371.
16.	Mourad O, Palda V, Detsky AS. A comprehensive evidence-based approach to fever of unknown origin. Arch Intern Med. 2003; 163(5):545-551.
17.	Lockhart ME, Sheldon HI, Robbin ML. Augmentation in lower extremity sonography for the detection of deep venous thrombosis. AJR. 2005; 184(2):419-422.
18.	Murphy TP, Cronan JJ. Evolution of deep venous thrombosis: a prospective evaluation with US. Radiology. 1990; 177(2):543-548.
19.	Carpenter JP, Holland GA, Baum RA, Owen RS, Carpenter JT, Cope C. Magnetic resonance venography for the detection of deep venous thrombosis: comparison with contrast venography and duplex Doppler ultrasonography. J Vasc Surg. 1993; 18(5):734-741.
20.	Evans AJ, Sostman HD, Knelson MH, et al. 1992 ARRS Executive Council Award. Detection of deep venous thrombosis: prospective comparison of MR imaging with contrast venography. AJR. 1993; 161(1):131-139.
21.	Evans AJ, Sostman HD, Witty LA, et al. Detection of deep venous thrombosis: prospective comparison of MR imaging and sonography. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1996; 6(1):44-51.
22.	Sampson FC, Goodacre SW, Thomas SM, van Beek EJ. The accuracy of MRI in diagnosis of suspected deep vein thrombosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2007; 17(1):175-181.
23.	Thomas SM, Goodacre SW, Sampson FC, van Beek EJ. Diagnostic value of CT for deep vein thrombosis: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Radiol. 2008; 63(3):299-304.
24.	Spritzer CE, Arata MA, Freed KS. Isolated pelvic deep venous thrombosis: relative frequency as detected with MR imaging. Radiology. 2001; 219(2):521-525.
25.	Cramer SC, Rordorf G, Maki JH, et al. Increased pelvic vein thrombi in cryptogenic stroke: results of the Paradoxical Emboli from Large Veins in Ischemic Stroke (PELVIS) study. Stroke. 2004; 35(1):46-50.
26.	Loud PA, Katz DS, Klippenstein DL, Shah RD, Grossman ZD. Combined CT venography and pulmonary angiography in suspected thromboembolic disease: diagnostic accuracy for deep venous evaluation. AJR. 2000; 174(1):61-65.
27.	Hunsaker AR, Zou KH, Poh AC, et al. Routine pelvic and lower extremity CT venography in patients undergoing pulmonary CT angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 190(2):322-6, 2008 Feb.
28.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.

Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked. Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.