While the debate as to whether or not the induced pressure from an ABI or
PVR being sufficient to embolize a venous thrombus may be debatable amongst
ourselves and Physicians, I think that the opinion of an attorney would
carry the most weight.
If a patient in a hospital, or a private practice setting, were to develop a
pulmonary embolus during (of after,for that matter) the performance of an
ABI or PVR in a limb with known venous thrombus were to go to an attorney
seeking a case, I would bet that 9 out of 10 attorneys would be glad to take
that case on against the performing sonographer, the Medical Director of
that sonographer, the hospital and the owning corporation of that hospital.
Why would you put yourself (and your employer) at risk like that?
On Fri, 7 May 2010 09:52:10 -0400, Ruhland, Greg F.
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I always read the flow but I don't always participate, I feel the
>interested in what we might have to say about this subject.
> My lab has co-medical directors, interventionalist and vascular
>surgeon. The question was brought up... do you perform an ABI on a
>patient positive for DVT. A fairly heated discussion followed from 3
>surgeons and 1 interventionalist very firmly divided on the subject. For
>all the obvious reasons. Possible to cause P.E., the need to know of
>arterial complications. Would an ankle pressure really be enough to
>cause P.E., Blah blah, blah. We all know there are good arguments for
>both schools of thought.
> What do you think, and does your lab have a set protocol? ( I think it
>should be different depending on each particular case, extent of DVT,
> Just wondering if it will spark the same intensity of debate for one
>side or the other.
> Greg Ruhland RVT
>To unsubscribe or search other topics on UVM Flownet link to:
To unsubscribe or search other topics on UVM Flownet link to: