AC Search
Document Navigator

Suspected Upper-Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis

Variant: 1   Suspected upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis. Initial imaging.
Procedure Appropriateness Category Relative Radiation Level
US duplex Doppler upper extremity Usually Appropriate O
MRV upper extremity without and with IV contrast May Be Appropriate O
MRV upper extremity without IV contrast May Be Appropriate O
CTV upper extremity with IV contrast May Be Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
Radiography chest Usually Not Appropriate ☢
Catheter venography upper extremity Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢
Nuclear medicine venography upper extremity Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢

Panel Members
Benoit Desjardins, MD, PhDa; Michael Hanley, MDb; Michael L. Steigner, MDc; Ayaz Aghayev, MDd; Ezana M. Azene, MD, PhDe; Shelby J. Bennett, MDf; Ankur Chandra, MDg; Sandeep S. Hedgire, MDh; Bruce M. Lo, MD, RDMS, MBAi; David M. Mauro, MDj; Thomas Ptak, MD, PhD, MPHk; Nimarta Singh, MD, MPHl; Pal S. Suranyi, MD, PhDm; Nupur Verma, MDn; Karin E. Dill, MDo.
Summary of Literature Review
Introduction/Background
Diagnosis of UEDVT
Discussion of Procedures by Variant
Variant 1: Suspected upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis. Initial imaging.
Variant 1: Suspected upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis. Initial imaging.
A. US Duplex Doppler Upper Extremity
Variant 1: Suspected upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis. Initial imaging.
B. MRV Upper Extremity
Variant 1: Suspected upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis. Initial imaging.
C. CTV Upper Extremity
Variant 1: Suspected upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis. Initial imaging.
D. Catheter Venography Upper Extremity
Variant 1: Suspected upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis. Initial imaging.
E. Nuclear Medicine Venography Upper Extremity
Variant 1: Suspected upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis. Initial imaging.
F. Radiography Chest
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. Joffe HV, Kucher N, Tapson VF, Goldhaber SZ. Upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis: a prospective registry of 592 patients. Circulation. 2004;110(12):1605-1611.
2. Kucher N. Clinical practice. Deep-vein thrombosis of the upper extremities. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(9):861-869.
3. Ersoy H, Steigner ML, Coyner KB, et al. Vascular thoracic outlet syndrome: protocol design and diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced 3D MR angiography and equilibrium phase imaging on 1.5- and 3-T MRI scanners. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012; 198(5):1180-1187.
4. Abdullah BJ, Mohammad N, Sangkar JV, et al. Incidence of upper limb venous thrombosis associated with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC). Br J Radiol. 2005;78(931):596-600.
5. Knudson GJ, Wiedmeyer DA, Erickson SJ, et al. Color Doppler sonographic imaging in the assessment of upper-extremity deep venous thrombosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1990;154(2):399-403.
6. Lee AY, Levine MN, Butler G, et al. Incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of catheter-related thrombosis in adult patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(9):1404-1408.
7. Mustafa S, Stein PD, Patel KC, Otten TR, Holmes R, Silbergleit A. Upper extremity deep venous thrombosis. Chest. 2003;123(6):1953-1956.
8. Patel MC, Berman LH, Moss HA, McPherson SJ. Subclavian and internal jugular veins at Doppler US: abnormal cardiac pulsatility and respiratory phasicity as a predictor of complete central occlusion. Radiology. 1999 May;211(2):579-83.
9. Schmittling ZC, McLafferty RB, Bohannon WT, Ramsey DE, Hodgson KJ. Characterization and probability of upper extremity deep venous thrombosis. Ann Vasc Surg. 2004;18(5):552-557.
10. Spencer FA, Emery C, Lessard D, Goldberg RJ. Upper extremity deep vein thrombosis: a community-based perspective. Am J Med. 2007;120(8):678-684.
11. Baarslag HJ, Koopman MM, Reekers JA, van Beek EJ. Diagnosis and management of deep vein thrombosis of the upper extremity: a review. Eur Radiol. 2004;14(7):1263-1274.
12. Baarslag HJ, van Beek EJ, Koopman MM, Reekers JA. Prospective study of color duplex ultrasonography compared with contrast venography in patients suspected of having deep venous thrombosis of the upper extremities. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136(12):865-872.
13. Ong B, Gibbs H, Catchpole I, Hetherington R, Harper J. Peripherally inserted central catheters and upper extremity deep vein thrombosis. Australas Radiol. 2006;50(5):451-454.
14. Prandoni P, Polistena P, Bernardi E, et al. Upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis. Risk factors, diagnosis, and complications. Arch Intern Med. 1997;157(1):57-62.
15. Flinterman LE, van Hylckama Vlieg A, Rosendaal FR, Doggen CJ. Venous thrombosis of the upper extremity: effect of blood group and coagulation factor levels on risk. Br J Haematol. 2010;149(1):118-123.
16. Mai C, Hunt D. Upper-extremity deep venous thrombosis: a review. Am J Med. 2011;124(5):402-407.
17. Lam EY, Giswold ME, Moneta GL. Venous and Lymphatic Disease. In: Brunicardi FC, Andersen DK, Billiar TR, et al., eds. Schwartz's Principles of Surgery. 8th ed: McGraw-Hill; 2005.
18. Agarwal AK, Patel BM, Haddad NJ. Central vein stenosis: a nephrologist's perspective. Semin Dial. 2007;20(1):53-62.
19. Hingorani AP, Ascher E, Markevich N, et al. Prospective evaluation of combined upper and lower extremity DVT. Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2006;40(2):131-134.
20. Constans J, Salmi LR, Sevestre-Pietri MA, et al. A clinical prediction score for upper extremity deep venous thrombosis. Thromb Haemost. 2008;99(1):202-207.
21. Merminod T, Pellicciotta S, Bounameaux H. Limited usefulness of D-dimer in suspected deep vein thrombosis of the upper extremities. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis. 2006;17(3):225-226.
22. Kleinjan A, Di Nisio M, Beyer-Westendorf J, et al. Safety and feasibility of a diagnostic algorithm combining clinical probability, d-dimer testing, and ultrasonography for suspected upper extremity deep venous thrombosis: a prospective management study. Ann Intern Med. 160(7):451-7, 2014 Apr 01.
23. van Es N, Bleker SM, Di Nisio M, et al. Improving the diagnostic management of upper extremity deep vein thrombosis. J Thromb Haemost. 15(1):66-73, 2017 01.
24. van Es N, Bleker SM, Di Nisio M, et al. A clinical decision rule and D-dimer testing to rule out upper extremity deep vein thrombosis in high-risk patients. Thromb Res. 148:59-62, 2016 Dec.
25. Di Nisio M, Van Sluis GL, Bossuyt PM, Buller HR, Porreca E, Rutjes AW. Accuracy of diagnostic tests for clinically suspected upper extremity deep vein thrombosis: a systematic review. J Thromb Haemost. 2010;8(4):684-692.
26. Do B, Mari C, Biswal S, Kalinyak J, Quon A, Gambhir SS. Diagnosis of aseptic deep venous thrombosis of the upper extremity in a cancer patient using fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computerized tomography (FDG PET/CT). Ann Nucl Med. 2006;20(2):151-155.
27. Gloviczki P, Calcagno D, Schirger A, et al. Noninvasive evaluation of the swollen extremity: experiences with 190 lymphoscintigraphic examinations. J Vasc Surg. 1989;9(5):683-689; discussion 690.
28. Rondina MT, Lam UT, Pendleton RC, et al. (18)F-FDG PET in the evaluation of acuity of deep vein thrombosis. Clinical Nuclear Medicine. 37(12):1139-45, 2012 Dec.
29. Sharif-Kashani B, Behzadnia N, Shahabi P, Sadr M. Screening for deep vein thrombosis in asymptomatic high-risk patients: a comparison between digital photoplethysmography and venous ultrasonography. Angiology. 2009;60(3):301-307.
30. Wang YF, Cherng SC, Chiu JS, Su YC, Sheu YT. Application of upper extremity radionuclide venography as a diagnostic approach for Port-A catheter thrombosis. J Chin Med Assoc. 2006;69(8):358-363.
31. Weissleder R, Elizondo G, Stark DD. Sonographic diagnosis of subclavian and internal jugular vein thrombosis. J Ultrasound Med. 1987;6(10):577-587.
32. Chin EE, Zimmerman PT, Grant EG. Sonographic evaluation of upper extremity deep venous thrombosis. J Ultrasound Med. 2005;24(6):829-838; quiz 839-840.
33. Haire WD, Lynch TG, Lund GB, Lieberman RP, Edney JA. Limitations of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound-directed (duplex) scanning in the diagnosis of subclavian vein thrombosis. J Vasc Surg. 1991;13(3):391-397.
34. Koksoy C, Kuzu A, Kutlay J, Erden I, Ozcan H, Ergin K. The diagnostic value of colour Doppler ultrasound in central venous catheter related thrombosis. Clin Radiol. 1995;50(10):687-689.
35. Svensson WE, Mortimer PS, Tohno E, Cosgrove DO. Colour Doppler demonstrates venous flow abnormalities in breast cancer patients with chronic arm swelling. Eur J Cancer. 1994;30A(5):657-660.
36. Sartori M, Migliaccio L, Favaretto E, et al. Whole-Arm Ultrasound to Rule Out Suspected Upper-Extremity Deep Venous Thrombosis in Outpatients. JAMA Intern Med. 175(7):1226-7, 2015 Jul.
37. Weber TM, Lockhart ME, Robbin ML. Upper extremity venous Doppler ultrasound. Radiol Clin North Am. 2007;45(3):513-524, viii-ix.
38. Baxter GM, Kincaid W, Jeffrey RF, Millar GM, Porteous C, Morley P. Comparison of colour Doppler ultrasound with venography in the diagnosis of axillary and subclavian vein thrombosis. Br J Radiol. 1991;64(765):777-781.
39. Grassi CJ, Polak JF. Axillary and subclavian venous thrombosis: follow-up evaluation with color Doppler flow US and venography. Radiology. 1990;175(3):651-654.
40. Jemcov TK.. Morphologic and functional vessels characteristics assessed by ultrasonography for prediction of radiocephalic fistula maturation. J. vasc. access. 14(4):356-63, 2013 Oct-Dec.
41. Wo K, Morrison BJ, Harada RN. Developing Duplex Ultrasound Criteria for Diagnosis of Arteriovenous Fistula Stenosis. Ann Vasc Surg. 38:99-104, 2017 Jan.
42. Gaitini D, Beck-Razi N, Haim N, Brenner B. Prevalence of upper extremity deep venous thrombosis diagnosed by color Doppler duplex sonography in cancer patients with central venous catheters. J Ultrasound Med. 2006;25(10):1297-1303.
43. Haire WD, Lynch TG, Lieberman RP, Lund GB, Edney JA. Utility of duplex ultrasound in the diagnosis of asymptomatic catheter-induced subclavian vein thrombosis. J Ultrasound Med. 1991;10(9):493-496.
44. Ono A, Murase K, Taniguchi T, et al. Deep venous thrombosis: diagnostic value of non-contrast-enhanced MR venography using electrocardiography-triggered three-dimensional half-Fourier FSE. Magn Reson Med. 64(1):88-97, 2010 Jul.
45. Baarslag HJ, Van Beek EJ, Reekers JA. Magnetic resonance venography in consecutive patients with suspected deep vein thrombosis of the upper extremity: initial experience. Acta Radiol. 2004;45(1):38-43.
46. Finn JP, Zisk JH, Edelman RR, et al. Central venous occlusion: MR angiography. Radiology. 1993;187(1):245-251.
47. Ho VB, Corse WR, Hood MN, Rowedder AM. Magnetic resonance angiography of the thoracic vessels. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Clinics of North America. 2004;12(4):727-747.
48. Harigai M, Okada T, Umeoka S, et al. Non-contrast-enhanced MR venography of the upper limb: a comparative study of acquisitions with fresh blood imaging vs. time-of-flight methods. Clin Imaging. 2012; 36(5):496-501.
49. Lim RP, Hornsey E, Ranatunga D, et al. Upper extremity non-contrast magnetic resonance venography (MRV) compared to contrast enhanced MRV and ultrasound. Clin Imaging. 45:51-57, 2017 Sep - Oct.
50. Hansen ME, Spritzer CE, Sostman HD. Assessing the patency of mediastinal and thoracic inlet veins: value of MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1990;155(6):1177-1182.
51. See TC, Patterson AJ, Hilliard NJ, et al. Gadofosveset-enhanced thoracic MR venography: a comparative study evaluating steady state imaging versus conventional first-pass time-resolved dynamic imaging. Acta Radiol. 59(4):418-424, 2018 Apr.
52. Dronkers CEA, Klok FA, van Haren GR, et al. Diagnosing upper extremity deep vein thrombosis with non-contrast-enhanced Magnetic Resonance Direct Thrombus Imaging: A pilot study. Thromb Res. 163:47-50, 2018 03.
53. American College of Radiology. Manual on Contrast Media. Available at: https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Contrast-Manual.
54. Blume U, Orbell J, Waltham M, Smith A, Razavi R, Schaeffter T. 3D T(1)-mapping for the characterization of deep vein thrombosis. MAGMA. 2009;22(6):375-383.
55. Pedrosa I, Morrin M, Oleaga L, Baptista J, Rofsky NM. Is true FISP imaging reliable in the evaluation of venous thrombosis? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;185(6):1632-1640.
56. Lindquist CM, Karlicki F, Lawrence P, Strzelczyk J, Pawlyshyn N, Kirkpatrick ID. Utility of balanced steady-state free precession MR venography in the diagnosis of lower extremity deep venous thrombosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 194(5):1357-64, 2010 May.
57. Cantwell CP, Cradock A, Bruzzi J, Fitzpatrick P, Eustace S, Murray JG. MR venography with true fast imaging with steady-state precession for suspected lower-limb deep vein thrombosis. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2006;17(11 Pt 1):1763-1769.
58. Miyazaki M, Sugiura S, Tateishi F, Wada H, Kassai Y, Abe H. Non-contrast-enhanced MR angiography using 3D ECG-synchronized half-Fourier fast spin echo. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2000 Nov;12(5):776-83.
59. Vogt FM, Herborn CU, Goyen M. MR venography. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2005;13(1):113-129, vi.
60. Spritzer CE. Progress in MR imaging of the venous system. Perspect Vasc Surg Endovasc Ther. 2009;21(2):105-116.
61. Denson K, Morgan D, Cunningham R, et al. Incidence of venous thromboembolism in patients with traumatic brain injury. Am J Surg. 2007;193(3):380-383; discussion 383-384.
62. Tanju S, Sancak T, Dusunceli E, Yagmurlu B, Erden I, Sanlidilek U. Direct contrast-enhanced 3D MR venography evaluation of upper extremity deep venous system. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2006;12(2):74-79.
63. Vymazal J, Spuentrup E, Cardenas-Molina G, et al. Thrombus imaging with fibrin-specific gadolinium-based MR contrast agent EP-2104R: results of a phase II clinical study of feasibility. Invest Radiol. 2009;44(11):697-704.
64. Kim CY, Mirza RA, Bryant JA, et al. Central veins of the chest: evaluation with time-resolved MR angiography. Radiology. 2008;247(2):558-566.
65. Nael K, Moriarty JM, Finn JP. Low dose CE-MRA. Eur J Radiol. 2011;80(1):2-8.
66. Ruehm SG, Kroeger K, Bosk S, Massing S, Mteiescu S, Debatin JF. Thromboembolic disease: Assessment with whole body MR venography. Academic Radiology. 2005;12(5):S63.
67. Nael K, Krishnam M, Ruehm SG, Michaely HJ, Laub G, Finn JP. Time-resolved MR angiography in the evaluation of central thoracic venous occlusive disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192(6):1731-1738.
68. Pinto C, Hickey R, Carroll TJ, et al. Time-resolved MR angiography with generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisition and time-resolved echo-sharing angiographic technique for hemodialysis arteriovenous fistulas and grafts. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2006;17(6):1003-1009.
69. 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.
70. Panzironi G, Rainaldi R, Ricci F, Casale A, De Vargas Macciucca M. Gray-scale and color Doppler findings in bilateral internal jugular vein thrombosis caused by anaplastic carcinoma of the thyroid. J Clin Ultrasound. 2003;31(2):111-115.
71. Stam J. Thrombosis of the cerebral veins and sinuses. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(17):1791-1798.
72. Kim HC, Chung JW, Yoon CJ, et al. Collateral pathways in thoracic central venous obstruction: three-dimensional display using direct spiral computed tomography venography. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2004;28(1):24-33.
73. Sabharwal R, Boshell D, Vladica P. Multidetector spiral CT venography in the diagnosis of upper extremity deep venous thrombosis. Australas Radiol. 2007;51 Suppl:B253-256.
74. Arrive L, Crema MD, Lewin M, et al. Computed tomography features of acute thrombosis of central veins with perivenous inflammatory changes. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2007;31(6):931-935.
75. Kim H, Chung JW, Park JH, et al. Role of CT venography in the diagnosis and treatment of benign thoracic central venous obstruction. Korean J Radiol. 2003;4(3):146-152.
76. Pacheco H, Yesenko SL, Gornik HL, Abizer S, Bartholomew JR. Venous Thoracic Outlet Syndrome Diagnosed Using Duplex Ultrasound. Journal for Vascular Ultrasound. 2009;33(4):184-187.
77. Akita S, Mitsukawa N, Kazama T, et al. Comparison of lymphoscintigraphy and indocyanine green lymphography for the diagnosis of extremity lymphoedema. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2013;66(6):792-798.
78. Infante JR, Garcia L, Laguna P, et al. Lymphoscintigraphy for differential diagnosis of peripheral edema: diagnostic yield of different scintigraphic patterns. Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol. 2012;31(5):237-242.
79. Raju S, Furrh JBt, Neglen P. Diagnosis and treatment of venous lymphedema. J Vasc Surg. 2012;55(1):141-149.
80. Liu NF, Yan ZX, Wu XF. Classification of lymphatic-system malformations in primary lymphoedema based on MR lymphangiography. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 44(3):345-9, 2012 Sep.
81. Notohamiprodjo M, Weiss M, Baumeister RG, et al. MR lymphangiography at 3.0 T: correlation with lymphoscintigraphy. Radiology. 2012;264(1):78-87.
82. 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.