English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Background  Compression ultrasonography (CUS) is the first‐line imaging test for diagnosing upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT), but often yields inconclusive test results. Contrast venography is still considered the diagnostic standard but is an invasive technique.    Objectives  We aimed to determine the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance noncontrast thrombus imaging (MR‐NCTI) for the diagnosis of UEDVT.    Methods  In this international multicenter diagnostic study, we prospectively included patients with clinically suspected UEDVT who were managed according to a diagnostic algorithm that included a clinical decision rule (CDR), D‐dimer test, and diagnostic imaging. UEDVT was confirmed by CUS or (computed tomography [CT]) venography. UEDVT was excluded by (1) an unlikely CDR and normal D‐dimer, (2) a normal serial CUS or (3) a normal (CT) venography. Within 48 h after the final diagnosis was established, patients underwent MR‐NCTI. MR‐NCTI images were assessed post hoc by two independent radiologists unaware of the presence or absence of UEDVT. The sensitivity, specificity, and interobserver agreement of MR‐NCTI for UEDVT were determined.    Results  Magnetic resonance noncontrast thrombus imaging demonstrated UEDVT in 28 of 30 patients with UEDVT and was normal in all 30 patients where UEDVT was ruled out, yielding a sensitivity of 93% (95% CI 78–99) and specificity of 100% (95% CI 88–100). The interobserver agreement of MR‐NCTI had a kappa value of 0.83 (95% CI 0.69–0.97).    Conclusions  Magnetic resonance noncontrast thrombus imaging is an accurate and reproducible method for diagnosing UEDVT. Clinical outcome studies should determine whether MR‐NCTI can replace venography as the second‐line imaging test in case of inconclusive CUS.

Detection of upper extremity deep vein thrombosis by magnetic resonance non‐contrast thrombus imaging