Um ... no ... this sounds completely nuts to me! What country was this? Don't know who would have such a protocol. Sends shivers down my spine just thinking about it.

No, I've never heard something like this.
How they justified the necessity of the amputation?

That is ludicrous! I would investigate that hospital for sure if I were your aunt and uncle. I would be interested to know what city, state or country this is. I would want to get out of that hospital quickly!

The drs considered amputating my leg with my first dvt over 30 years ago but after consulting with other drs decided against it, thankfully. I recovered completely from that dvt.

Geez, no wonder people are scared to death to go to the ER.

Does he have other health problems?

Normally there should be an attempt to avoid amputation if at all possible, and I think in the past it was more common to do it, however I have read about recent cases in which the DVT was so severe and the leg so badly clotted that amputation would be necessary. Even in those cases, there was usually a lot of effort made to save the leg, including using clot busting medication directed by catheter to even very small veins in order to open up some blood flow. I would be looking for some additional opinions before taking such drastic action. My grandfather actually had both an arm and leg amputated due to blood clots, but that was many years ago, and he also had grangrene quickly spreading in his limbs due to venous insufficiency. I do not know how much his treatment would have differed had it not happened 20 years ago, because there are obviously many advances in medicine since that time. I think now that usually a limb can be saved, but it's not always possible, and there are a lot of factors which can contribute to that necessity, such as secondary infection, venous damage and just the extent and age of the clots (clot busters don't work well on old clots). When I had my DVT event, my leg was so badly clotted that I was told I was in danger of loss of my leg if I hadn't had catheter-directed thrombolytics (clot busters) administered.

I would be asking the doctors why they feel the amputation is necessary as opposed to other treatments which could save his leg. It may help your family to make a good decision, and if possible, seek the opinion of other doctors as well.

I wish the best for your family, and hope things turn out well.
Sarah

Sarah, as usual, you are the voice of balance and reason. Very imformative post!

YIKES... Was it a Juju that was performing this diagnose?

He has a clot, OFF with his leg!!!!
Oh, there are other alternatives??

Sorry Jan,I'm glad your aunt did what she did and that your uncle is doing better. BUT, I would certainly investigate the reasoning of this Dr., there was PROBABLY (I hope) a good reason for this judgment call.

Right, I've heard of people losing their limb because of gangrene associated with tissue death from skin ulcers in a DVT limb, but not right of the get-go like this. Wow.

Yeah, I just wanted to say that I agree, to have immediately jumped to amputation seems out of line, unless there are factors that we aren't aware of such as a severe infection or something else that would actually be endangering his life. Usually in cases where amputation was necessary, it was only done after a real effort had been made to save the leg. I'm glad that your aunt didn't just jump into that, of course that's such a huge decision!! And I'm happy too that your uncle seems to be improving. Remember that it still a very long road, though, so it'll still be important to get doctors as good as you can find to work with so that the best decisions for his individual case can be made.

They are in the US. He definitely has other health problems but there was no infection in the leg. It didn't even start swelling until the night before he went to the ER. I don't think clot buster meds would be a good option for him but there wasn't any sign of infection in the leg so amputation at that point seemed really drastic. He seems to be under competent care now and amputation is off the table.

Since many here have gone in with similar symptoms and no one has talked about having the leg amputated right away, I was really surprised. I know when there is infection you have to move fast but that didn't seem to be the case here. I wasn't there to ask questions though so I don't really know the drs reasoning.

17th century medicine, anyone?

I do not wnat to know what they recommend for a headache.

a good bleeding.

Oh my goodness! What a story.

I am glad to hear your uncle is now doing better & working with a doctor who was able to provide him an alternative.

I think the biggest lesson we can all be reminded of from this is that as patients we have to do our best to inform ourselves and ASK questions whenever our gut tells us something may not be right.

I'm getting more information and maybe I was quick to condemn. They were worried about internal bleeding from another issue and did not want to put him on anticoagulants. It is causing some bleeding so they put in a filter and are taking him off heparin. Not sure where they will go from there.

I guess my lesson is to question but also listen and get the facts.

I was told I face amputation in the fairly near future by one doctor, then the surgeon who tried the unsuccessful thrombolysis said that, to paraphrase, my leg comes off over his dead body.
In other words, they will do everything in their powers to save it, but it may yet be the only option at some point in the future.
It's not a happy prospect, but makes wearing compression tights in this hot weather a lot more bearable!