Why the study?
Does Indium-111 antifibrin monoclonal antibody imaging accurately detect deep vein thrombosis compared to contrast phlebography in high-risk surgical patients?
Does Indium-111 antifibrin monoclonal antibody imaging accurately detect deep vein thrombosis compared to contrast phlebography in high-risk surgical patients?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Indium-111 labelled monoclonal antibodies to fibrin show high concordance with contrast phlebography for detecting deep vein thrombosis, offering a potential non-invasive diagnostic alternative.
Objective: To evaluate Indium-111 antifibrin monoclonal antibody in the diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis. Design: Prospective study in twelve patients undergoing major surgical treatment, including hip surgery, who would be considered at high risk of developing subsequent deep vein thrombosis. Setting: Departments of Angiology and Vascular Surgery, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain. Patients: Twelve patients receiving surgical treatment. Interventions: Bilateral contrast phlebography was performed in all patients, combined with an ***immunoscintigraphic test of an Indium-111 labelled monoclonal ***antibody to fibrin. Patients with deep vein thrombosis were treated with full anticoagulation using heparin. Main outcome measures: The presence of thrombosis on phlebography and the presence of isotopic labelling of suspected deep vein thrombosis on immunoscintigraphic scanning. Results: Phlebography demonstrated venous thrombosis at 23 sites in veins, of which 22 were also detected by immunoscintigraphic scanning. Conclusions: Indium-111 labelled monoclonal antibodies to fibrin may provide an alternative method of investigation for suspected deep vein thrombosis as an alternative to other non-invasive diagnosis methodologies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Riambau et al. (1992) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: