Risk acceptance for deep venous interventions of the lower limb.

George Hudson, Desmond Chan, Robert Hinchliffe, Baris Ozdemir
{"title":"Risk acceptance for deep venous interventions of the lower limb.","authors":"George Hudson, Desmond Chan, Robert Hinchliffe, Baris Ozdemir","doi":"10.1177/02683555251326711","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objectives:</b> To discover the maximum risk acceptable to patients and clinicians for complications typical to endovascular interventions in the setting of proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS).<b>Design:</b> This was an observational study comparing patient/clinician risk acceptances in interviews using validated Standard Gamble methodology.<b>Methods:</b> 30 patients with previous DVT and 30 vascular clinicians were given a scenario describing a hypothetical case of a patient being managed with acute iliofemoral DVT and another with PTS. Subjects were asked to provide the maximum risk they would accept for individual complications to cure the condition. To interpret variability, the Venous Clinical Severity Score, SF-36 domains and VEINES-QoL for each patient were plotted against their risk acceptance for major bleeding in the DVT scenario.<b>Results:</b> For the DVT scenario, patients accepted high median risks compared to clinicians for major bleeding (40% vs 5%, <i>p</i> < .001), bleeding at other sites (50% vs 5%, <i>p</i> < .001), damage to blood vessels (60% vs 5%, <i>p</i> < .001), further procedures (80% vs 20%, <i>p</i> < .001), and treatment failure (75-80% vs 10-20%, <i>p</i> < .001). However, the gap was lower for intracranial bleeding (5% vs 1%, <i>p</i> = .004), pulmonary embolism (5 vs 5%, <i>p</i> = .39) or death (1% vs 0.75%, <i>p</i> = .77). For the PTS scenario, there were similar results again with a lower difference for pulmonary embolism (10% vs 5%, <i>p</i> = .02) and death (0.5% vs 1%, <i>p</i> = .72). Importantly, patient risk acceptance for major bleeding was negatively correlated to the emotional wellbeing (Rho = -0.43, <i>p</i> = .018) and social functioning (Rho = -0.38, <i>p</i> = .042) SF-36 domains.<b>Conclusion:</b> Overall, patients accepted a greater chance of most adverse events compared with clinicians. Patients prepared to accept greater risk were those with poorer emotional wellbeing and social functioning. It is important to take these issues into account when making shared decisions with patients about the management of their DVT/PTS.</p>","PeriodicalId":94350,"journal":{"name":"Phlebology","volume":" ","pages":"2683555251326711"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Phlebology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02683555251326711","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To discover the maximum risk acceptable to patients and clinicians for complications typical to endovascular interventions in the setting of proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS).Design: This was an observational study comparing patient/clinician risk acceptances in interviews using validated Standard Gamble methodology.Methods: 30 patients with previous DVT and 30 vascular clinicians were given a scenario describing a hypothetical case of a patient being managed with acute iliofemoral DVT and another with PTS. Subjects were asked to provide the maximum risk they would accept for individual complications to cure the condition. To interpret variability, the Venous Clinical Severity Score, SF-36 domains and VEINES-QoL for each patient were plotted against their risk acceptance for major bleeding in the DVT scenario.Results: For the DVT scenario, patients accepted high median risks compared to clinicians for major bleeding (40% vs 5%, p < .001), bleeding at other sites (50% vs 5%, p < .001), damage to blood vessels (60% vs 5%, p < .001), further procedures (80% vs 20%, p < .001), and treatment failure (75-80% vs 10-20%, p < .001). However, the gap was lower for intracranial bleeding (5% vs 1%, p = .004), pulmonary embolism (5 vs 5%, p = .39) or death (1% vs 0.75%, p = .77). For the PTS scenario, there were similar results again with a lower difference for pulmonary embolism (10% vs 5%, p = .02) and death (0.5% vs 1%, p = .72). Importantly, patient risk acceptance for major bleeding was negatively correlated to the emotional wellbeing (Rho = -0.43, p = .018) and social functioning (Rho = -0.38, p = .042) SF-36 domains.Conclusion: Overall, patients accepted a greater chance of most adverse events compared with clinicians. Patients prepared to accept greater risk were those with poorer emotional wellbeing and social functioning. It is important to take these issues into account when making shared decisions with patients about the management of their DVT/PTS.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
下肢深静脉介入治疗的风险接受度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Retrospective evaluation of the results of ultrasound-accelerated catheter-directed tombolysis in acute-subacute pulmonary embolism patients. Impact of static foot disorder and ankle range of motion in chronic venous insufficiency patients. Evaluation of clinical and ultrasonographic prognostic factors for detection of iliac venous obstructions in patients with advanced chronic venous insufficiency. Risk acceptance for deep venous interventions of the lower limb. Application of preoperative ultrasound combined with indocyanine green lymphography in lymphaticovenular anastomosis of the lower limb-A retrospective study research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1