PregnancyNCT01708239
Left Rule, D-Dimer Measurement and Complete Ultrasonography to Rule Out Deep Vein Thrombosis During Pregnancy.
An observational study of Pregnancy and Deep Vein Thrombosis, run by Marc Righini at 1 site in Switzerland.
Trial summary
In pregnant women with suspected DVT, a sure diagnosis is mandatory. In non-pregnant patients, sequential diagnostic strategies based on 1) the assessment of clinical probability, 2) D-dimer measurement and 3) compression ultrasonography (CUS) have been well validated. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older, women only
- Conditions the study is for
- Pregnancy, Deep Vein Thrombosis
- What is being tested?
- Left rule, D-dimer measurement and complete ultrasonography in pregnant women.
- How many people
- 300 participants
- Where
- 1 siteSwitzerland
- Study dates
- Oct 2012to Dec 2019
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- Women only
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: Pregnant women with suspected DVT
Who may be able to join
- Pregnant women with clinically suspected DVT
Who cannot join
- Age less than 18
- No available informed consent
- Associated suspicion of pulmonary embolism
- Ongoing anticoagulant treatment
- Planned anticoagulant treatment at therapeutic dosage during pregnancy
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Switzerland1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
Geneva University Hospital
Geneva, 1205
Marc Righini, MD, +41 22 372 92 94, marc.righini@hcuge.ch
Helia Robert-Ebadi, MD, +41 22 372 92 92, helia.robert-ebadi@hcuge.ch
About this study
Official title: Sequential Use of the LEFt Rule, D-dimer Measurement and Complete Ultrasonography to Rule Out Deep Vein Thrombosis During Pregnancy: a Prospective Outcome Study.
In pregnant women with suspected DVT, a sure diagnosis is mandatory. In non-pregnant patients, sequential diagnostic strategies based on 1) the assessment of clinical probability, 2) D-dimer measurement and 3) compression ultrasonography (CUS) have been well validated.
Clinical probability assessment by clinical prediction rules (CPRs) is a crucial step in the management of suspected DVT. However, the most commonly used CPR for DVT, the Wells' score, has never been validated in pregnant women. Recently, the 'LEFt' clinical prediction rule was derived and internally validated. A prospective validation of this rule is now warranted, and we plan to use it in our prospective study.
Read more
The second step used in the diagnostic strategy including non-pregnant patients is D-dimer measurement. The test has been widely validated in non-pregnant patients and, in association with a non-high clinical probability, it allows to safely rule out DVT.
As D-dimer level raise steadily during pregnancy, the specificity of the test decreases and it is less useful in pregnant women. Data from the literature clearly suggest that the usual cut-off set a 500 ng/ml would safely rule out DVT in pregnant women [6]. As the usual cut-off has never been prospectively validated in pregnant women with suspected DVT, we would like to use it in our study.
Some studies suggested that complete CUS is safe to rule out DVT in pregnant women. However, this test is not always available. Therefore, a strategy in which the association of clinical probability assessment and D-dimer measurement would allow to safely rule out DVT in a significant proportion of patients without performing a complete CUS, would be of great help in everyday clinical practice and would probably be cost-effective.
Therefore, we plan a prospective study to assess the safety of a sequential diagnostic strategy based on the assessment of clinical probability with the LEFt rule, D-dimer measurement and complete CUS in pregnant women with suspected DVT.
Read the detailed description
In pregnant women with suspected DVT, a sure diagnosis is mandatory. Indeed, false positive tests lead to inappropriate anticoagulant treatment, which increases the risk of bleeding. Conversely, false negative tests might lead to a life-threatening thromboembolic event. Thus, accuracy of diagnostic methods used in pregnant women is crucial [1].
In non-pregnant patients, sequential diagnostic strategies based on 1) the assessment of clinical probability, 2) D-dimer measurement and 3) compression ultrasonography (CUS) have been widely validated [2, 3].
Clinical probability assessment by clinical prediction rules (CPRs) is a crucial step in the management of suspected DVT. However, the most commonly used CPR for DVT, the Wells' score, has never been validated in pregnant women [3]. Recently, the 'LEFt' clinical prediction rule was derived and internally validated by Chan et al. among 194 pregnant women investigated for suspected DVT[4]. This rule combines three variables: symptoms in the left leg ("L"), calf circumference difference equal or greater than 2 centimeters ("E" for edema) and first trimester presentation ("Ft") [4].
We performed an external validation of this rule on a recently published prospective cohort of pregnant patients with suspected DVT (submitted to JTH). This external validation showed that a negative "LEFt" rule accurately identified pregnant women in whom the proportion of confirmed DVT appears to be very low. A prospective validation of this rule is now warranted, and we plan to use it in our prospective study.
The second step used in the diagnostic strategy including non-pregnant patients is D-dimer measurement. The test has been widely validated in non-pregnant patients and, in association with a non-high clinical probability, it allows to safely rule out DVT [5].
As D-dimer level raise steadily during pregnancy, the specificity of the test decreases and it is less useful in pregnant women. A recent study suggested that the currently available sensitive D-dimer assays that are used for the exclusion in symptomatic non-pregnant women have the potential to exclude DVT in symptomatic pregnant women with the application of higher cut-points [6]. Even if this data arises from a small study, it clearly suggests that the usual cut-off set a 500 ng/ml would safely rule out DVT in pregnant women [6]. As the usual cut-off has never been prospectively validated in pregnant women with suspected DVT, we would like, as a first step, to use it in our study.
In pregnant patients, limited data is available on the use of complete compression ultrasonography to rule out DVT. In a recent prospective management study, we included 226 pregnant and post-partum women with suspected lower limb DVT. We observed a 1.1% (95% CI:0.3-4.0) three-month thromboembolic event rate in those left untreated on the basis of a negative single complete CUS [7]. This result is in line with what was reported after a normal phlebography, the gold standard test [8].
Even if complete CUS is safe to rule out DVT in pregnant women, current diagnostic strategies for suspected DVT in non-pregnant patients rely on the use of clinical probability and D-Dimer prior to leg veins imaging [5]. However, no management outcome study on the safety and usefulness of D-Dimer to rule out DVT in pregnant women is available to date. Another limitation of the strategies based on a single unique complete CUS, is that every woman has to undergo complete CUS. However, this test is not always available. Therefore, a strategy in which the association of clinical probability assessment and D-dimer measurement would allow to safely rule out DVT in a significant proportion of patients without performing a complete CUS, would be of great help in everyday clinical practice and would probably be cost-effective.
Therefore, we plan a prospective study to assess the safety of a sequential diagnostic strategy based on the assessment of clinical probability with the LEFt rule, D-dimer measurement and complete CUS in pregnant women with suspected DVT.
- Conditions
- Pregnancy, Deep Vein Thrombosis
- Being tested
- Left rule, D-dimer measurement and complete ultrasonography in pregnant women.
- Keywords
- Pregnancy, Deep vein thrombosis, Clinical probability, D-Dimer, Compression ultrasonography
- Medical subject headings
- Venous Thrombosis
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Left rule, D-dimer measurement and complete ultrasonography in pregnant women.Other
Diagnostic strategy based on the LEFt rule, D-dimer measurement and complete ultrasonography
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Pregnant women | Pregnant women with suspected DVT assessed by the LEFt rule, D-dimer measurement and complete ultrasonography. Receives: Other: Left rule, D-dimer measurement and complete ultrasonography in pregnant women. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
The main outcome will be the number of thromboembolic recurrent events (DVT, PE, death attributable to venous thromboembolic disease) documented during the three-month follow-up in the patients left untreated on the basis of a normal diagnostic strategy.
Rate of thromboembolic events after a normal diagnostic strategy.
Measured: 3 years
Secondary outcomes (2)
Prospective evaluation of the diagnostic performances of the LEFt rule.
Prospective validation of the LEFt rule.
Measured: 3 years
Prospective evaluation of D-dimer measurement to rule out DVT in pregnant women.
Prospective evaluation of the diagnostic performances of D-dimer measurement in pregnant women with suspected DVT.
Measured: 3 years
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted16 Oct 2012 (estimated)
- Study startOct 2012
- Primary completionDec 2019 (estimated)
- Study completionDec 2019 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for PregnancyStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 300 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Marc Righini
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University Hospital, Brest, The Ottawa Hospital
- Responsible party
- Sponsor-investigator, Marc Righini, University Hospital, Geneva
- Investigators
- Grégoire Le Gal, MD, Principal investigator, The Ottawa Hospital
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01708239
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- Geneva University Hospital
- Status last verified
- May 2018
- First submitted
- 10 Oct 2012
- Last updated
- 4 May 2018
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 4 May 2018. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Sequential Use of the LEFt Rule, D-dimer Measurement and Complete Ultrasonography to Rule Out Deep Vein Thrombosis During Pregnancy: a Prospective Outcome Study.
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01708239
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- Geneva University Hospital
- Conditions
- Pregnancy, Deep Vein Thrombosis
- Keywords
- Pregnancy, Deep vein thrombosis, Clinical probability, D-Dimer, Compression ultrasonography
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 300 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Marc RighiniUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University Hospital, Brest, The Ottawa Hospital
- Study start
- Oct 2012 (actual)
- Primary completion
- Dec 2019 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Dec 2019 (estimated)
- First posted
- 16 Oct 2012 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
In pregnant women with suspected DVT, a sure diagnosis is mandatory. In non-pregnant patients, sequential diagnostic strategies based on 1) the assessment of clinical probability, 2) D-dimer measurement and 3) compression ultrasonography (CUS) have been well validated.
Clinical probability assessment by clinical prediction rules (CPRs) is a crucial step in the management of suspected DVT. However, the most commonly used CPR for DVT, the Wells' score, has never been validated in pregnant women. Recently, the 'LEFt' clinical prediction rule was derived and internally validated. A prospective validation of this rule is now warranted, and we plan to use it in our prospective study.
The second step used in the diagnostic strategy including non-pregnant patients is D-dimer measurement. The test has been widely validated in non-pregnant patients and, in association with a non-high clinical probability, it allows to safely rule out DVT.
As D-dimer level raise steadily during pregnancy, the specificity of the test decreases and it is less useful in pregnant women. Data from the literature clearly suggest that the usual cut-off set a 500 ng/ml would safely rule out DVT in pregnant women [6]. As the usual cut-off has never been prospectively validated in pregnant women with suspected DVT, we would like to use it in our study.
Some studies suggested that complete CUS is safe to rule out DVT in pregnant women. However, this test is not always available. Therefore, a strategy in which the association of clinical probability assessment and D-dimer measurement would allow to safely rule out DVT in a significant proportion of patients without performing a complete CUS, would be of great help in everyday clinical practice and would probably be cost-effective.
Therefore, we plan a prospective study to assess the safety of a sequential diagnostic strategy based on the assessment of clinical probability with the LEFt rule, D-dimer measurement and complete CUS in pregnant women with suspected DVT.
Detailed description
In pregnant women with suspected DVT, a sure diagnosis is mandatory. Indeed, false positive tests lead to inappropriate anticoagulant treatment, which increases the risk of bleeding. Conversely, false negative tests might lead to a life-threatening thromboembolic event. Thus, accuracy of diagnostic methods used in pregnant women is crucial [1].
In non-pregnant patients, sequential diagnostic strategies based on 1) the assessment of clinical probability, 2) D-dimer measurement and 3) compression ultrasonography (CUS) have been widely validated [2, 3].
Clinical probability assessment by clinical prediction rules (CPRs) is a crucial step in the management of suspected DVT. However, the most commonly used CPR for DVT, the Wells' score, has never been validated in pregnant women [3]. Recently, the 'LEFt' clinical prediction rule was derived and internally validated by Chan et al. among 194 pregnant women investigated for suspected DVT[4]. This rule combines three variables: symptoms in the left leg ("L"), calf circumference difference equal or greater than 2 centimeters ("E" for edema) and first trimester presentation ("Ft") [4].
We performed an external validation of this rule on a recently published prospective cohort of pregnant patients with suspected DVT (submitted to JTH). This external validation showed that a negative "LEFt" rule accurately identified pregnant women in whom the proportion of confirmed DVT appears to be very low. A prospective validation of this rule is now warranted, and we plan to use it in our prospective study.
The second step used in the diagnostic strategy including non-pregnant patients is D-dimer measurement. The test has been widely validated in non-pregnant patients and, in association with a non-high clinical probability, it allows to safely rule out DVT [5].
As D-dimer level raise steadily during pregnancy, the specificity of the test decreases and it is less useful in pregnant women. A recent study suggested that the currently available sensitive D-dimer assays that are used for the exclusion in symptomatic non-pregnant women have the potential to exclude DVT in symptomatic pregnant women with the application of higher cut-points [6]. Even if this data arises from a small study, it clearly suggests that the usual cut-off set a 500 ng/ml would safely rule out DVT in pregnant women [6]. As the usual cut-off has never been prospectively validated in pregnant women with suspected DVT, we would like, as a first step, to use it in our study.
In pregnant patients, limited data is available on the use of complete compression ultrasonography to rule out DVT. In a recent prospective management study, we included 226 pregnant and post-partum women with suspected lower limb DVT. We observed a 1.1% (95% CI:0.3-4.0) three-month thromboembolic event rate in those left untreated on the basis of a negative single complete CUS [7]. This result is in line with what was reported after a normal phlebography, the gold standard test [8].
Even if complete CUS is safe to rule out DVT in pregnant women, current diagnostic strategies for suspected DVT in non-pregnant patients rely on the use of clinical probability and D-Dimer prior to leg veins imaging [5]. However, no management outcome study on the safety and usefulness of D-Dimer to rule out DVT in pregnant women is available to date. Another limitation of the strategies based on a single unique complete CUS, is that every woman has to undergo complete CUS. However, this test is not always available. Therefore, a strategy in which the association of clinical probability assessment and D-dimer measurement would allow to safely rule out DVT in a significant proportion of patients without performing a complete CUS, would be of great help in everyday clinical practice and would probably be cost-effective.
Therefore, we plan a prospective study to assess the safety of a sequential diagnostic strategy based on the assessment of clinical probability with the LEFt rule, D-dimer measurement and complete CUS in pregnant women with suspected DVT.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Number of arms
- 1
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Pregnant women | – | Other: Left rule, D-dimer measurement and complete ultrasonography in pregnant women.Pregnant women with suspected DVT assessed by the LEFt rule, D-dimer measurement and complete ultrasonography. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- Female only
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Pregnant women with suspected DVT
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Pregnant women with clinically suspected DVT
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Age less than 18
- No available informed consent
- Associated suspicion of pulmonary embolism
- Ongoing anticoagulant treatment
- Planned anticoagulant treatment at therapeutic dosage during pregnancy
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Left rule, D-dimer measurement and complete ultrasonography in pregnant women.Diagnostic strategy based on the LEFt rule, D-dimer measurement and complete ultrasonography | Other | Pregnant women |
Primary outcome
The main outcome will be the number of thromboembolic recurrent events (DVT, PE, death attributable to venous thromboembolic disease) documented during the three-month follow-up in the patients left untreated on the basis of a normal diagnostic strategy.
Time frame: 3 years
Rate of thromboembolic events after a normal diagnostic strategy.
2 secondary outcomes
Prospective evaluation of the diagnostic performances of the LEFt rule.
Time frame: 3 years
Prospective evaluation of D-dimer measurement to rule out DVT in pregnant women.
Time frame: 3 years
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 4 May 2018.
Related trials for Pregnancy
Recruiting
Methylation Profiling in Self-Samples for Identification of (Epi)Genetic Biomarkers for Gynecological Cancers
Gynaecological Cancers, Ovarian Cancer
RecruitingPhase 1/2
Study of INBRX-106 and INBRX-106 in Combination With Pembrolizumab (Keytruda®) in Subjects With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Solid Tumors (Hexavalent OX40 Agonist)
Solid Tumor, Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
RecruitingObservational study
Population Pharmacokinetics of Temocillin in Acute Enterobacterial Pyelonephritis in Children
Pyelonephritis
Active, not recruitingPhase 3
A Study of Belzutifan (MK-6482) in Combination With Lenvatinib Versus Cabozantinib for Treatment of Renal Cell Carcinoma (MK-6482-011)
Carcinoma, Renal Cell
Recruiting
Safety and Performance of UCon Patch Electrode
Urinary Incontinence, Urinary Incontinence, Urge
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Grégoire Le Gal, MD principal investigator
The Ottawa Hospital
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Pregnancy and Deep Vein Thrombosis, run by Marc Righini at 1 site in Switzerland.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 5 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 4 May 2018. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Switzerland. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Results are not available in the source record.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Each site lists its own contact: choose the nearest one under Trial locations. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
The main outcome will be the number of thromboembolic recurrent events (DVT, PE, death attributable to venous thromboembolic disease) documented during the three-month follow-up in the patients left untreated on the basis of a normal diagnostic strategy. (time frame: 3 years). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 4 May 2018.