Download PDF
Thromb Haemost 1996; 76(06): 0893-0896
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1650682
Original Article
Schattauer GmbH Stuttgart

Percentage of Inadequate Phlebograms and Observer Agreement in Thromboprophylactic Multicenter Trials Using Standardized Methodology and Central Assessment

P Kälebo
1   The Department of Radiology, University of Göteborg, Sweden
,
S Ekman
2   Ciba-Geigy Ltd, Basel, Switzerland
,
S Lindbratt
3   The Department of Ciba-Geigy AB, V. Frölunda, Sweden
,
B I Eriksson
4   The Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Göteborg, Sweden
,
U Pauli
3   The Department of Ciba-Geigy AB, V. Frölunda, Sweden
,
B E Zachrisson
1   The Department of Radiology, University of Göteborg, Sweden
,
P Close
2   Ciba-Geigy Ltd, Basel, Switzerland
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received 16 November 1995

Accepted after resubmission 20 August 1996

Publication Date:
11 July 2018 (online)

  PDF Download  Permissions and Reprints

Summary

This study examines inadequacy rates for phlebography in two multicenter trials for the prevention of post-operative DVT and determines inter- and intra-observer variability in evaluating phlebograms. A total of 991 (I) and 385 (II) patients underwent bilateral phlebography in two studies of thromboprophylaxis. Phlebography was performed using a standard method designed to visualize and assess all deep veins. Each vein was scored as normal, DVT or inadequate by both local and central assessment. The study showed low inadequacy rates for phlebograms of 12.2% (121/991) and 6.5% (25/385). Inter-observer agreement (local vs. central assessment) was moderate in both studies (1:74.8%, Kappa-value 0.41; II: 82.6%, Kappa-value 0.51). Good intraobserver agreement (within the central assessment group) was observed (I: 88.8%, Kappa-value 0.75). This study demonstrates low inadequacy rates for phlebograms using a standardized methodology and superior intra-observer agreement compared to inter-observer agreement and supports the importance of central assessment of phlebograms in thromboprophylactic multicenter trials to reduce observer variability.

 

  • References

  • 1 Borris LC, Christiansen HM, Lassen MR, Olsen AD, Schøtt S. Comparison of real-time B-mode ultrasonography and bilateral ascending phlebography for detection of postoperative deep vein thrombosis following elective hip surgery. Thromb Haemost 1989; 61: 363-365
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Agnelli G, Volpato R, Radicchia S, Veschi F, Di Filippo P, Lupattelli L, Nenci GG. Detection of asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis by real-time B-mode ultrasonography in hip surgery patients. Thromb Haemost 1992; 68: 257-260
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Mattos MA, Londrey GL, Leutz DW, Hodgson KJ, Ramsey DE, Bark-meier LD, Stauffer ES, Spadone DP, Sumner DS. Color-flow duplex scanning for the surveillance and diagnosis of acute deep venous thrombosis. J Vase Surg 1992; 15: 366-376
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Davidson BL, Elliott CG, Lensing AWA. Low accuracy of color doppler ultrasound in the detection of proximal leg vein thrombosis in asymptomatic high-risk patients. Ann Intern Med 1992; 117: 735-738
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Jongbloets LMM, Lensing AWA, Koopman MMW, Büller HR, ten Cate JW. Limitations of compression ultrasound for the detection of symptom-less postoperative deep vein thrombosis. Lancet 1994; 343: 1142-1144
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Magnusson M, Eriksson BI, Kälebo P, Sivertsson R. Is colour doppler ultrasound a sensitive screening method in diagnosing deep vein thrombosis after hip surgery?. Thromb Haemost 1996; 75: 242-245
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Lensing AWA, Hirsch J. 125I-Fibrogen leg scanning: Reassessment of its role for the diagnosis of venous thrombosis in post-operative patients. Thromb Haemost 1993; 69: 2-7
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Paiement G, Wessinger SJ, Waltman AC, Harris WH. Surveillance of deep vein thrombosis in asymptomatic total hip replacement patients. Am J Surg 1988; 155: 400-404
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Bergqvist D. Endpoints for diagnosis of postoperative thromboembolism in hip fracture surgery. Semin Thromb Hemostas 1993; 19: 175-177
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Agnelli G, Radicchia S, Nenci GG. Diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis in asymptomatic high-risk patients. Haemostasis 1995; 25: 40-48
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 McLachlan MSF, Thomson JG, Taylor DW, Kelly ME, Sackett DI. Observer variation in the interpretation of lower limb venograms. AJR 1979; 132: 227-229
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Sauerbrei E, Thomson JG, McLachlan MSF, Musial J. Observer variation in lower limb venography. J Can Assoc Radiol 1981; 32: 28-29
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Picolet H, Leizorovicz A, Revel D, Chirossel P, Amiel M, Boissel JP. Reliability of phlebography in the assessment of venous thrombosis in a clinical trial. Haemostasis 1990; 20: 362-367
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Lea Thomas M, Chan TYK, Wong WL. The phlebographic diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis - a study in observer variation. Phlebology 1991; 6: 99-102
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Illescas FF, Lerclerc J, Rosenthall L, Wolfson C, Rush C, Herb MJ, Arzoumanian A. Interobserver variability in the interpretation of contrast venography, technetium-99m red blood cell venography and impedance plethysmography for deep vein thrombosis. J Can Assoc Rad 1990; 41: 264-269
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Lensing AWA, Büller HR, Prandoni P, Batchelor D, Molenaar AHM, Cogo A, Vigo M, Huisman PM, ten Cate JW. Contrast venography, the gold standard for the diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis: Improvement in observer agreement. Thromb Haemost 1992; 67: 8-12
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Wille-Jørgensen P, Borris L, Jørgensen LN, Hauch O, Lassen MR, Nehen AM, Kjcer L, Jensen R. Phlebography as the gold standard in thrombo-prophylactic studies? A multicenter interobserver variation study. Acta Radiol 1992; 33: 24-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Couson F, Bounameaux C, Didier D, Geiser D, Meyerovitz MF, Schmitt HE, Schneider PA, Bounameaux H. Influence of variability of interpretation of contrast venography for screening of postoperative deep venous thrombosis on the results of a thromboprophylactic study. Thromb Haemost 1993; 70: 573-575
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Eriksson BI, Ekman S, Kälebo P, Zachrisson B, Bach D, Close P. Prevention of deep-vein thrombosis after total hip replacement: direct thrombin inhibition with recombinant hirudin, CGP 39393. Lancet 1996; 347: 635-639
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Eriksson BI, Ekman S, Lindbratt S, Baur M, Bach D, Tørholm C, Kalebo P, Close P. Prevention of thromboembolism with recombinant hirudin. A double-blind multicenter trial comparing the efficacy of desirudin (Revasc) with unfractionated heparin in patients undergoing total hip replacement. J Bone Jt Surg-Am 1996 in press
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Rabinov K, Paulin S. Roentgen diagnosis of venous thrombosis in the leg. Arch Surg 1972; 104: 134-144
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Rabinov K, Paulin S. Venography of the lower extremities. In Abrams angiography. Vascular and interventional radiology Abrams H. ed. Little, Brown and Company; Boston: Vol 3 1983: 1877-1921
  • 23 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurements of observer agreement for cate-gorial data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159-174
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Hull R, Raskob G, Pineo G, Rosenbloom D, Evans W, Mallory T, Anquist K, Smith F, Hughes G, Green D, Elliott G, Panju A, Brant R. A comparison of subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin with warfarin sodium for prophylaxis against deep-vein thrombosis after hip or knee implantation. N Eng J Med 1993; 329: 1370-1376
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar