RESUMO
BACKGROUND: In the setting of a known thrombotic event, computed tomography (CT) studies provide reasonable sensitivity for the diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis (DVT). However, the incidence and accuracy of a DVT diagnosis on CT studies not targeted for the detection of DVT are not well described. In addition, the clinical impact of DVTs incidentally identified on CT is unknown. METHODS: In this single-institution retrospective study, we queried all contrasted CT studies of the lower extremities performed over a 10-year period. Regular expressions applied to the radiology reports associated with the CT studies identified studies with positive findings associated with DVT. These selected reports were then manually reviewed to confirm the presence of a DVT. Patient demographics and relevant medical and surgical history were obtained through a chart review. Follow-up information was obtained for 1 year after the incident CT and included treatment course, additional imaging, and adverse events. An incidental DVT was one identified in a patient in whom the DVT was not noted in a prior study and for whom the study indication did not include concern for DVT or pulmonary embolism. RESULTS: Of 16,637 lower extremity contrasted CT studies queried, 37 study reports identified a DVT. However, only 13 patients had a finding of an incidental DVT (10-year incidence of 0.08%). Among these 13 patients, 11 underwent additional imaging, including 9 who had a subsequent venous duplex and 2 who had subsequent CT studies. Among those with a subsequent duplex, DVT was not identified in eight cases, whereas in one case, DVT was confirmed. Among those with subsequent CT studies, DVT was not identified in one case and was confirmed in one case. Of the 13 patients with incidental DVTs, 3 were initiated on anticoagulation based on their initial CT findings alone. Among these, two did not experience any complications from their DVT or anticoagulation regimen. One did experience major bleeding complications, requiring additional procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Incidental DVTs are a rare finding in lower extremity CT studies, noted to occur in only 0.08% of studies. Most patients with incidental DVTs receive additional imaging, with negative findings in 80% of cases. This study identified that 23% of patients were initiated on anticoagulation due to the CT findings, with a 33% rate of significant complications. Currently, a CT venogram is not recommended as a first-line modality for the diagnosis of DVT. However, there is no guidance regarding the need for repeat imaging in patients with incidentally diagnosed lower extremity DVTs identified on CT. Additional study is needed to provide evidence for guideline development.