Full Papers
Evaluation of common femoral vein thickness as a diagnostic tool for Behçet’s disease in a non-endemic area
S.A. Neaime1, M.F. De Aguiar2, D.O. Farias3, E. Nakajima4, F.H. Moon5, A.W.S. De Souza6
- Rheumatology Division, Department of Medicine, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Escola Paulista de Medicina, São Paulo, Brazil.
- Rheumatology Division, Department of Medicine, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Escola Paulista de Medicina, São Paulo, Brazil.
- Rheumatology Division, Department of Medicine, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Escola Paulista de Medicina, São Paulo, Brazil.
- Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Escola Paulista de Medicina, São Paulo, Brazil.
- Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Escola Paulista de Medicina, São Paulo, Brazil.
- Rheumatology Division, Department of Medicine, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Escola Paulista de Medicina, São Paulo, Brazil. alexandre_wagner@uol.com.br
CER17323
2024 Vol.42, N°10
PI 2032, PF 2039
Full Papers
Free to view
(click on article PDF icon to read the article)
PMID: 38573067 [PubMed]
Received: 23/11/2023
Accepted : 01/02/2024
In Press: 03/04/2024
Published: 15/10/2024
Abstract
OBJECTIVES:
To evaluate common femoral vein thickness (CFVT) as a diagnostic tool in Brazilian patients with Behçet’s disease (BD) and to analyse associations between increased CFVT and disease features.
METHODS:
A cross-sectional study was performed including 100 BD patients and 100 controls. The CFVT and the diameters of great saphenous vein (GSV), and small saphenous vein (SSV) were measured by Doppler ultrasound.
RESULTS:
BD patients had higher right CFVT [0.600mm (0.500-0.700) vs. 0.525mm (0.450-0.637); p=0.012] and left CFVT [0.550mm (0.450-0.650) vs. 0.500mm (0.450-0.550); p=0.004] compared to controls. Vascular involvement of BD and previous deep venous thrombosis were associated with increased CFVT (p<0.05). The number of vascular events correlated with right and left CFVT (Rho = 0.475 p=0.030 and Rho = 0.429 p=0.052, respectively). The 0.575mm cut-off point of right and left CFVT had area under the curve (AUC) of 0.602; 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.524-0.680 and AUC: 0.615; 95% CI: 0.537-0.693, respectively. The right and left CFVT had a sensitivity for BD diagnosis of 52% and 43%, and a specificity of 64% and 77%, respectively. No significant differences were found between BD patients and controls regarding the GSV and SSV diameters in both legs (p>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS:
In this study, CFVT measurement was not shown to be a reliable diagnostic test for BD. CFVT was increased in BD patients presenting vascular involvement and correlated with the number of previous events.
