Outpatient treatment of non-complicated deep venous thrombosis : is it still questionable

Abstract EN

Purpose: At our medical community, we persist on treating all cases of acute deep , venous thrombosis (DVT) in the hospital for fear ofpulmonary embolism (PE) and to be able to give unfractionated heparin (UFH) infusion, misguided by the apparent high cost of the low molecular weight heparin (LMWH).

The purpose of this study was to prove that out patient treatment (OPT) is not only safe and effective, but also more reasonable and economic in treating non complicated DVT.

Patients and Methods: Out patient treatment (OPT) was given for patients with proven non-complicated DVT in the period between January 2004 and January 2005.

Data regarding complications, vein clearance and recurrence were collected at: one week, 4 weeks, 3 and 6 months.

The cost of this regimen was compared to the cost of receiving UFH infusion at a general and private hospitals.

Patient compliance was also assessed.

Results: Fifty-three patients received OPT for DVT between January 2004 and 2005.

Only one patient (1.8%) had minor PE.

Two patients (3.7%) had remnant of the clot at the end of follow up period.

Three patients (5.6 %) had deep venous reflux and no one had recurrence during the follow up period.

This type of treatment costs the same price when compared to the in-patient treatment using the UFH at a general hospital and less than half the price for treatment at a private one.

All patients were compliant to the injections and 37 of them (70 %) were compliant to the elastic stockings (ES).

Conclusion: This study confirmed that OPT of non-complicated DVT is safe, effective and not expensive than the in-patient one.

Patient compliance is high and the treatment is presumably satisfying.

Admitting patients with non-complicated DVT is no more justified or accepted.