There are divergent views as to whether everyone with an unprovoked episode of thrombosis should be investigated for thrombophilia. Even those with a form of thrombophilia may not necessarily be at risk of further thrombosis, while recurrent thrombosis is more likely in those who have had previous thrombosis even in those who have no detectable thrombophilic abnormalities. Recurrent thromboembolism, or thrombosis in unusual sites (e.g. the hepatic vein in Budd-Chiari syndrome), is a generally accepted indication for screening. It is more likely to be cost-effective in people with a strong personal or family history of thrombosis. In contrast, the combination of thrombophilia with other risk factors may provide an indication for preventative treatment, which is why thrombophilia testing may be performed even in those who would not meet the strict criteria for these tests. Searching for a coagulation abnormality is not normally undertaken in patients in whom thrombosis has an obvious trigger. For example, if the thrombosis is due to immobilization after recent orthopedic surgery, it is regarded as "provoked" by the immobilization and the surgery and it is less likely that investigations will yield clinically important results.

When venous thromboembolism occurs when a patient is experiencing transient major risk factors such as prolonged immobility, surgery, or trauma, testing for thrombophilia is not appropriate because the outcome of the test would not change a patient's indicated treatment. In 2013, the American Society of Hematology, as part of recommendations in the Choosing Wisely campaign, cautioned against overuse of thrombophilia screening; false positive results of testing would lead to people inappropriately being labeled as having thrombophilia, and being treated with anticoagulants without clinical need

In the United Kingdom, professional guidelines give specific indications for thrombophilia testing. It is recommended that testing be done only after appropriate counseling, and hence the investigations are usually not performed at the time when thrombosis is diagnosed but at a later time. In particular situations, such as retinal vein thrombosis, testing is discouraged altogether because thrombophilia is not regarded as a major risk factor. In other rare conditions generally linked with hypercoagulability, such as cerebral venous thrombosis and portal vein thrombosis, there is insufficient data to state for certain whether thrombophilia screening is helpful, and decisions on thrombophilia screening in these conditions are therefore not regarded as evidence-based. If cost-effectiveness (quality-adjusted life years in return for expenditure) is taken as a guide, it is generally unclear whether thrombophilia investigations justify the often high cost, unless the testing is restricted to selected situations.

Recurrent miscarriage is an indication for thrombophilia screening, particularly antiphospholipid antibodies (anti-cardiolipin IgG and IgM, as well as lupus anticoagulant), factor V Leiden and prothrombin mutation, activated protein C resistance and a general assessment of coagulation through an investigation known as thromboelastography.

Women who are planning to use oral contraceptives do not benefit from routine screening for thrombophilias, as the absolute risk of thrombotic events is low. If either the woman or a first-degree relative has suffered from thrombosis, the risk of developing thrombosis is increased. Screening this selected group may be beneficial, but even when negative may still indicate residual risk. Professional guidelines therefore suggest that alternative forms of contraception be used rather than relying on screening.

Thrombophilia screening in people with arterial thrombosis is generally regarded unrewarding and is generally discouraged, except possibly for unusually young patients (especially when precipitated by smoking or use of estrogen-containing hormonal contraceptives) and those in whom revascularization, such as coronary arterial bypass, fails because of rapid occlusion of the graft.

Tests for thrombophilia include complete blood count (with examination of the blood film), prothrombin time, partial thromboplastin time, thrombodynamics test, thrombin time and reptilase time, lupus anticoagulant, anti-cardiolipin antibody, anti-β2 glycoprotein 1 antibody, activated protein C resistance, fibrinogen tests, factor V Leiden and prothrombin mutation, and basal homocysteine levels. Testing may be more or less extensive depending on clinical judgement and abnormalities detected on initial evaluation.

For hereditary cases, the patient must have at least 2 abnormal tests plus family history.

In general, the indications for anticoagulation during pregnancy are the same as the general population. This includes (but is not limited to) a recent history of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism, a metallic prosthetic heart valve, and atrial fibrillation in the setting of structural heart disease.

In addition to these indications, anticoagulation may be of benefit in individuals with lupus erythematosus, individuals who have a history of DVT or PE associated with a previous pregnancy, and even with individuals with a history of coagulation factor deficiencies and DVT not associated with a previous pregnancy.

In pregnant women with a history of recurrent miscarriage, anticoagulation seems to increase the live birth rate among those with antiphospholipid syndrome and perhaps those with congenital thrombophilia but not in those with unexplained recurrent miscarriage.

The risk of VTE is increased in pregnancy by about five times because of a more hypercoagulable state, a likely adaptation against fatal postpartum hemorrhage. Additionally, pregnant women with genetic risk factors are subject to a roughly three to 30 times increased risk for VTE. Preventative treatments for pregnancy-related VTE in hypercoagulable women were suggested by the ACCP. Homozygous carriers of factor V Leiden or prothrombin G20210A with a family history of VTE were suggested for antepartum LMWH and either LMWH or a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) for the six weeks following childbirth. Those with another thrombophilia and a family history but no previous VTE were suggested for watchful waiting during pregnancy and LMWH or—for those without protein C or S deficiency—a VKA. Homozygous carriers of factor V Leiden or prothrombin G20210A with no personal or family history of VTE were suggested for watchful waiting during pregnancy and LMWH or a VKA for six weeks after childbirth. Those with another thrombophilia but no family or personal history of VTE were suggested for watchful waiting only. Warfarin, a common VKA, can cause harm to the fetus and is not used for VTE prevention during pregnancy.

D-dimers are a fibrin degradation product, and an elevated level can result from plasmin dissolving a clot—or other conditions. Hospitalized patients often have elevated levels for multiple reasons. When individuals are at a high-probability of having DVT, diagnostic imaging is preferred to a D-dimer test. For those with a low or moderate probability of DVT, a D-dimer level might be obtained, which excludes a diagnosis if results are normal. An elevated level requires further investigation with diagnostic imaging to confirm or exclude the diagnosis.

For a suspected first leg DVT in a low-probability situation, the American College of Chest Physicians recommends testing either D-dimer levels with moderate or high sensitivity or compression ultrasound of the proximal veins. These options are suggested over whole-leg ultrasound, and D-dimer testing is the suggested preference overall. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends D-dimer testing prior to proximal vein ultrasound.

For a suspected first leg DVT in a moderate-probability scenario, a high-sensitivity D-dimer is suggested as a recommended option over ultrasound imaging, with both whole-leg and compression ultrasound possible. The NICE guideline uses a two-point Wells score and does not refer to a moderate probability group.

HIT may be suspected if blood tests show a falling platelet count in someone receiving heparin, even if the heparin has already been discontinued. Professional guidelines recommend that people receiving heparin have a complete blood count (which includes a platelet count) on a regular basis while receiving heparin.

However, not all people with a falling platelet count while receiving heparin turn out to have HIT. The timing, severity of the thrombocytopenia, the occurrence of new thrombosis, and the presence of alternative explanations, all determine the likelihood that HIT is present. A commonly used score to predict the likelihood of HIT is the "4 Ts" score introduced in 2003. A score of 0–8 points is generated; if the score is 0-3, HIT is unlikely. A score of 4–5 indicates intermediate probability, while a score of 6–8 makes it highly likely. Those with a high score may need to be treated with an alternative drug while more sensitive and specific tests for HIT are performed, while those with a low score can safely continue receiving heparin as the likelihood that they have HIT is extremely low. In an analysis of the reliability of the 4T score, a low score had a negative predictive value of 0.998, while an intermediate score had a positive predictive value of 0.14 and a high score a positive predictive value of 0.64; intermediate and high scores therefore warrant further investigation.

The first screening test in someone suspected of having HIT is aimed at detecting antibodies against heparin-PF4 complexes. This may be with a laboratory test of the ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) type. The ELISA test, however, detects all circulating antibodies that bind heparin-PF4 complexes, and may also falsely identify antibodies that do not cause HIT. Therefore, those with a positive ELISA are tested further with a functional assay. This test uses platelets and serum from the patient; the platelets are washed and mixed with serum and heparin. The sample is then tested for the release of serotonin, a marker of platelet activation. If this serotonin release assay (SRA) shows high serotonin release, the diagnosis of HIT is confirmed. The SRA test is difficult to perform and is usually only done in regional laboratories.

If someone has been diagnosed with HIT, some recommend routine Doppler sonography of the leg veins to identify deep vein thromboses, as this is very common in HIT.

Suspicion of factor V Leiden being the cause for any thrombotic event should be considered in any Caucasian patient below the age of 45, or in any person with a family history of venous thrombosis.

There are a few different methods by which this condition can be diagnosed. Most laboratories screen 'at risk' patients with either a snake venom (e.g. dilute Russell's viper venom time) based test or an aPTT based test. In both methods, the time it takes for blood to clot is decreased in the presence of the factor V Leiden mutation. This is done by running two tests simultaneously; one test is run in the presence of activated protein C (APC) and the other, in the absence. A ratio is determined based on the two tests and the results signify to the laboratory whether APC is working or not.

There is also a genetic test that can be done for this disorder. The mutation (a 1691G→A substitution) removes a cleavage site of the restriction endonuclease "MnlI", so PCR, treatment with "MnlI", and then DNA electrophoresis will give a diagnosis. Other PCR based assays such as iPLEX can also identify zygosity and frequency of the variant.

Prevention of DVT and other types of venous thrombosis may be required if certain predisposing risk factors are present. One example from Sweden is based on the point system below, where points are summed to give the appropriate prophylaxis regimen.

After adding any risk factors together, a total of one point or less indicates no preventive action is needed. A total of two points indicates short-term prophylaxis, e.g. with LMWH, may be used in temporary risk factors, as well as administering prophylactic treatment seven days postpartum, starting a couple of hours after birth. A total of 3 points increases the necessary duration of "post partum" prophylaxis to six weeks.

A risk score of four points or higher means prophylaxis in the "ante partum" period is needed, as well as at least six weeks "post partum". A previous distal DVT indicates a minimum of 12 weeks (three months) of therapeutic anticoagulation therapy. A previous proximal DVT or pulmonary embolism requires a minimum of 26 weeks (6.5 months) of therapy If the therapy duration reaches delivery time, the remaining duration may be given after delivery, possibly extending the minimum of six weeks of "post partum" therapy. In a very high risk, high-dose "ante partum" prophylaxis should be continued at least 12 weeks after delivery.

Women with antiphospholipid syndrome should have an additional low-dose prophylactic treatment of aspirin.

Antiphospholipid syndrome is tested for in the laboratory using both liquid phase coagulation assays (lupus anticoagulant) and solid phase ELISA assays (anti-cardiolipin antibodies).

Genetic thrombophilia is part of the differential diagnosis of APS and can coexist in some APS patients. Presence of genetic thrombophilia may determine the need for anticoagulation therapy. Thus genetic thrombophilia screening can consist of:

- Further studies for factor V Leiden variant and the prothrombin G20210A mutation, factor VIII levels, MTHFR mutation.

- Levels of protein C, free and total protein S, factor VIII, antithrombin, plasminogen, tissue plasminogen activator (TPA) and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1)

The testing of antibodies to the possible individual targets of aPL such as β glycoprotein 1 and antiphosphatidyl serine is currently under debate as testing for anticardiolipin appears to be currently sensitive and specific for diagnosis of APS even though cardiolipin is not considered an in vivo target for antiphospholipid antibodies.

The use of heparin following surgery is common if there are no issues with bleeding. Generally, a risk-benefit analysis is required, as all anticoagulants lead to an increased risk of bleeding. In people admitted to hospital, thrombosis is a major cause for complications and occasionally death. In the UK, for instance, the Parliamentary Health Select Committee heard in 2005 that the annual rate of death due to thrombosis was 25,000, with at least 50% of these being hospital-acquired. Hence "thromboprophylaxis" (prevention of thrombosis) is increasingly emphasized. In patients admitted for surgery, graded compression stockings are widely used, and in severe illness, prolonged immobility and in all orthopedic surgery, professional guidelines recommend low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) administration, mechanical calf compression or (if all else is contraindicated and the patient has recently suffered deep vein thrombosis) the insertion of a vena cava filter. In patients with medical rather than surgical illness, LMWH too is known to prevent thrombosis, and in the United Kingdom the Chief Medical Officer has issued guidance to the effect that preventative measures should be used in medical patients, in anticipation of formal guidelines.

The diagnosis for thrombophlebitis is primarily based on the appearance of the affected area. Frequent checks of the pulse, blood pressure, and temperature may be required. If the cause is not readily identifiable, tests may be performed to determine the cause, including the following:

- Doppler ultrasound

- Extremity arteriography

- Blood coagulation studies (Blood clotting tests)

Anti-cardiolipin antibodies can be detected using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) immunological test, which screens for the presence of βglycoprotein 1 dependent anticardiolipin antibodies (ACA).

A low platelet count and positivity for antibodies against β-glycoprotein 1 or phosphatidylserine may also be observed in a positive diagnosis.

Prevention consists of walking, drinking fluids and if currently hospitalized, changing of IV lines. Walking is especially suggested after a long period seated, particularly when one travels.

Evidence supports the use of heparin in people following surgery who have a high risk of thrombosis to reduce the risk of DVTs; however, the effect on PEs or overall mortality is not known. In hospitalized non-surgical patients, mortality decreased but not statistically significant. It does not appear however to decrease the rate of symptomatic DVTs. Using both heparin and compression stockings appears better than either one alone in reducing the rate of DVT.

In hospitalized people who have had a stroke and not had surgery, mechanical measures (compression stockings) resulted in skin damage and no clinical improvement. Data on the effectiveness of compression stockings among hospitalized non-surgical patients without stroke is scarce.

The American College of Physicians (ACP) gave three strong recommendations with moderate quality evidence on VTE prevention in non-surgical patients: that hospitalized patients be assessed for their risk of thromboembolism and bleeding before prophylaxis (prevention); that heparin or a related drug is used if potential benefits are thought to outweigh potential harms; and that graduated compression stockings not be used. As an ACP policy implication, the guideline stated a lack of support for any performance measures that incentivize physicians to apply universal prophylaxis without regard to the risks. Goldhaber recommends that people should be assessed at their hospital discharge for persistent high-risk of venous thrombosis, and that people who adopt a heart-healthy lifestyle might lower their risk of venous thrombosis.

In those with cancer who are still walking about yet receiving chemotherapy, LMWH decreases the risk of VTE. Due to potential concerns of bleeding its routine use is not recommended. For people who are having surgery for cancer, it is recommended that they receive anticoagulation therapy (preferably LMWH) in order to prevent a VTE. LMWH is recommended for at least 7–10 days following cancer surgery, and for one month following surgery for people who have a high risk of VTEs.

In adults who have had their lower leg casted or placed in a brace for more than a week, LMWH decreased the risk of VTEs. LMWH is recommended for adults not in hospital with an above-knee cast and a below-knee cast, and is safe for this indication.

Following the completion of warfarin in those with prior VTE, long term aspirin is beneficial.

Studies have found that about 5 percent of Caucasians in North America have factor V Leiden. The condition is less common in Latin Americans and African-Americans and is extremely rare in people of Asian descent.

Up to 30 percent of patients who present with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism have this condition. The risk of developing a clot in a blood vessel depends on whether a person inherits one or two copies of the factor V Leiden mutation. Inheriting one copy of the mutation from a parent (heterozygous) increases by fourfold to eightfold the chance of developing a clot. People who inherit two copies of the mutation (homozygous), one from each parent, may have up to 80 times the usual risk of developing this type of blood clot. Considering that the risk of developing an abnormal blood clot averages about 1 in 1,000 per year in the general population, the presence of one copy of the factor V Leiden mutation increases that risk to between 4 in 1,000 to 8 in 1,000. Having two copies of the mutation may raise the risk as high as 80 in 1,000. It is unclear whether these individuals are at increased risk for "recurrent" venous thrombosis. While only 1 percent of people with factor V Leiden have two copies of the defective gene, these homozygous individuals have a more severe clinical condition. The presence of acquired risk factors for venous thrombosis—including smoking, use of estrogen-containing (combined) forms of hormonal contraception, and recent surgery—further increase the chance that an individual with the factor V Leiden mutation will develop DVT.

Women with factor V Leiden have a substantially increased risk of clotting in pregnancy (and on estrogen-containing birth control pills or hormone replacement) in the form of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. They also may have a small increased risk of preeclampsia, may have a small increased risk of low birth weight babies, may have a small increased risk of miscarriage and stillbirth due to either clotting in the placenta, umbilical cord, or the fetus (fetal clotting may depend on whether the baby has inherited the gene) or influences the clotting system may have on placental development. Note that many of these women go through one or more pregnancies with no difficulties, while others may repeatedly have pregnancy complications, and still others may develop clots within weeks of becoming pregnant.

There are no laboratory tests used to diagnose RVT.

Observing the patient's symptoms, medical history and imaging remain the fundamental source for diagnosing RVT. Imaging is used to detect the presence of a blood clot. In an abnormal kidney with RVT, a blood clot is present in the renal vein. In cases where the renal vein is suddenly and/or fully blocked, the kidneys will enlarge, reaching its maximum size within a week. An ultrasound imaging can be used to observe and track the size of the kidneys in RVT patients. Ultrasound is not efficient for use in detecting blood flow in the renal veins and artery. Instead a color doppler ultrasound may be used to detect renal blood flow. It is most commonly used to detect RVT in patients who have undergone renal transplantation. CT angiography is currently the top choice in diagnosing RVT. It is non-invasive, relatively cheap and fast with high accuracy. CT scanning can be used to detect renal enlargement, renal tumors, blood flow and other renal pathologies. An alternative is magnetic resonance angiography or MRA. It is non-invasive, fast and avoids radiation (unlike a CT scan) but it is relatively expensive. MRA produces detailed images of the renal blood flow, vesicle walls, the kidneys and any surrounding tissue. An inferior venocavography with selective venography can be used to rule out the diagnoses of RVT.

There are various neuroimaging investigations that may detect cerebral sinus thrombosis. Cerebral edema and venous infarction may be apparent on any modality, but for the detection of the thrombus itself, the most commonly used tests are computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), both using various types of radiocontrast to perform a venogram and visualise the veins around the brain.

Computed tomography, with radiocontrast in the venous phase ("CT venography" or CTV), has a detection rate that in some regards exceeds that of MRI. The test involves injection into a vein (usually in the arm) of a radioopaque substance, and time is allowed for the bloodstream to carry it to the cerebral veins - at which point the scan is performed. It has a sensitivity of 75-100% (it detects 75-100% of all clots present), and a specificity of 81-100% (it would be incorrectly positive in 0-19%). In the first two weeks, the "empty delta sign" may be observed (in later stages, this sign may disappear).

Magnetic resonance venography employs the same principles, but uses MRI as a scanning modality. MRI has the advantage of being better at detecting damage to the brain itself as a result of the increased pressure on the obstructed veins, but it is not readily available in many hospitals and the interpretation may be difficult.

Cerebral angiography may demonstrate smaller clots than CT or MRI, and obstructed veins may give the "corkscrew appearance". This, however, requires puncture of the femoral artery with a sheath and advancing a thin tube through the blood vessels to the brain where radiocontrast is injected before X-ray images are obtained. It is therefore only performed if all other tests give unclear results or when other treatments may be administered during the same procedure.

Evidence-based clinical guidelines were published in 2016 for the treatment of VTE.

Given the fact that HIT predisposes strongly to new episodes of thrombosis, it is not sufficient to simply discontinue the heparin administration. Generally, an alternative anticoagulant is needed to suppress the thrombotic tendency while the generation of antibodies stops and the platelet count recovers. To make matters more complicated, the other most commonly used anticoagulant, warfarin, should not be used in HIT until the platelet count is at least 150 x 10^9/L because there is a very high risk of warfarin necrosis in people with HIT who have low platelet counts. Warfarin necrosis is the development of skin gangrene in those receiving warfarin or a similar vitamin K inhibitor. If the patient was receiving warfarin at the time when HIT is diagnosed, the activity of warfarin is reversed with vitamin K. Transfusing platelets is discouraged, as there is a theoretical risk that this may worsen the risk of thrombosis; the platelet count is rarely low enough to be the principal cause of significant hemorrhage.

Various non-heparin agents are used to provide anticoagulation in those with strongly suspected or proven HIT: danaparoid, fondaparinux, bivalirudin and argatroban. These are alternatives to heparin therapy. Not all agents are available in all countries, and not all are approved for this specific use. For instance, argatroban is only recently licensed in the United Kingdom, and danaparoid is not available in the United States. Fondaparinux, a Factor Xa inhibitor, is commonly used off label for HIT treatment in the United States.

According to a systematic review, people with HIT treated with lepirudin showed a relative risk reduction of clinical outcome (death, amputation, etc.) to be 0.52 and 0.42 when compared to patient controls. In addition, people treated with argatroban for HIT showed a relative risk reduction of the above clinical outcomes to be 0.20 and 0.18. Lepirudin production stopped on May 31, 2012.

The treatment for thrombosis depends on whether it is in a vein or an artery, the impact on the person, and the risk of complications from treatment.

A 2004 study suggested that the D-dimer blood test, already in use for the diagnosis of other forms of thrombosis, was abnormal (above 500 μg/l) in 34 out of 35 patients with cerebral sinus thrombosis, giving it a sensitivity of 97.1%, a negative predictive value of 99.6%, a specificity of 91.2%, and a positive predictive value of 55.7%. Furthermore, the level of the D-dimer correlated with the extent of the thrombosis. A subsequent study, however, showed that 10% of patients with confirmed thrombosis had a normal D-dimer, and in those who had presented with only a headache 26% had a normal D-dimer. The study concludes that D-dimer is not useful in the situations where it would make the most difference, namely in lower probability cases.

Treatment of asymptomatic congenital dysfibrinogenemia depends in part on the expectations of developing bleeding and/or thrombotic complications as estimated based on the history of family members with the disorder and, where available, determination of the exact mutation causing the disorder plus the propensity of the particular mutation type to develop these complications. In general, individuals with this disorder require regular follow-up and multidiscipline management prior to surgery, pregnancy, and giving childbirth. Women with the disorder appear to have an increased rate of miscarriages and all individuals with fibrinogen activity in clotting tests below 0.5 grams/liter are prone to bleeding and spontaneous abortions. Women with multiple miscarriages and individuals with excessively low fibrinogen activity levels should be considered for prophylaxis therapy with fibrinogen replacement during pregnancy, delivery, and/or surgery.

In a study of 189 individuals diagnosed with congenital dysfibrinogenemia, ~33% were asymptomatic, ~47% experienced episodic bleeding, and ~20% experienced episodic thromboses. Due to the rareness of this disorder, treatment of individuals with these presentations are based primarily on case reports, guidelines set by the United Kingdom, and expert opinions rather than controlled clinical studies.

It is known that diabetes causes changes to factors associated with coagulation and clotting, however not much is known of the risk of thromboembolism, or clots, in diabetic patients. There are some studies that show that diabetes increases the risk of thromboembolism; other studies show that diabetes does not increase the risk of thromboembolism. A study conducted in the Umea University Hospital, in Sweden, observed patients that were hospitalized due to an thromboembolism from 1997 to 1999. The researchers had access to patient information including age, sex, vein thromboembolism diagnosis, diagnostic methods, diabetes type and medical history. This study concluded that there is, in fact, an increased risk of thromboembolism development in diabetic patients, possibly due to factors associated with diabetes or diabetes itself. Diabetic patients are twice as likely to develop a thromboembolism than are non-diabetic patient. The exact mechanism of how diabetes increases the risk of clot formation remains unclear and could possibly be a future direction for study.

From previous studies, it is known that long distance air travel is associated with high risk of venous thrombosis. Long periods of inactivity in a limited amount of space may be a reason for the increased risk of blood clot formation. In addition, bent knees compresses the vein behind the knee (the popliteal vein) and the low humidity, low oxygen, high cabin pressure and consumption of alcohol concentrate the blood. A recent study, published in the British Journal of Haematology in 2014, determined which groups of people, are most at risk for developing a clot during or after a long flight. The study focused on 8755 frequent flying employees from international companies and organizations. It found that travelers who have recently undergone a surgical procedure or who have a malignant disease such as cancer or who are pregnant are most at risk. Preventative measures before flying may be taken in these at-risk groups as a solution.

Patients who have undergone kidney transplant have a high risk of developing RVT (about 0.4% to 6%). RVT is known to account for a large proportion of transplanted kidney failures due to technical problems (damage to the renal vein), clotting disorders, diabetes, consumption of ciclosporin or an unknown problem. Patients who have undergone a kidney transplant are commonly prescribed ciclosporin, an immunosuppressant drug which is known to reduce renal blood flow, increase platelet aggregation in the blood and cause damage to the endothelial tissue of the veins. In a clinical study conducted by the Nuffield Department of Surgery at the Oxford Transplant Centre, UK, transplant patients were given low doses of aspirin, which has a some anti-platelet activity. There is risk of bleeding in transplant patients when using anticoagulants like warfarin and herapin. Low dosage of aspirin was used as an alternative. The study concluded that a routine low-dose of aspirin in kidney transplant patients who are also taking ciclosporin significantly reduces the risk of RVT development.

Clinical evaluation is the primary diagnostic tool for thrombophlebitis. Patients with thrombophlebitis complain of pain along the affected area. Some report constitutional symptoms such as low grade fever and aches. On physical examination, the skin over the affected vein exhibits erythema, warmth, swelling, and tenderness. Later in the disease, as induration subsides, erythema gives way to a ruddy or bruised color.

Duplex ultrasound identifies the presence, location and extent of venous thrombosis, and can help identify other pathology that may be a source of the patient's complaints. Ultrasound is indicated if superficial phlebitis involves or extends into the proximal one-third of the medial thigh, there is evidence for clinical extension of phlebitis, lower extremity swelling is greater than would be expected from a superficial phlebitis alone or diagnosis of superficial thrombophlebitis in question.