Characterization and Probability of Upper Extremity Deep Venous Thrombosis

[Translation into French and republication of: "Central venous catheter associated upper extremity deep vein thrombosis in cancer patients: Diagnosis and therapeutic management"]

Catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) is a relatively frequent and potentially fatal complication arising in patients with cancer who require a central catheter placement for intravenous treatment. In everyday practice, CRT remains a challenge for management; despite its frequency and its negative clinical impact, few data are available concerning diagnosis and treatment of CRT. In particular, no diagnostic studies or clinical trials have been published that included exclusively patients with cancer and a central venous catheter (CVC). For this reason, many questions regarding optimal management of CRT remain unanswered. Due to the paucity of high-grade evidence regarding CRT in cancer patients, guidelines are derived from upper extremity DVT studies for diagnosis, and from those for lower limb DVT for treatment. This article addresses the issues of diagnosis and management of CRT through a review of the available literature and makes a number of proposals based on the available evidence. In symptomatic patients, venous ultrasound is the most appropriate choice for first-line diagnostic imaging of CRT because it is noninvasive, and its diagnostic performance is high (which is not the case in asymptomatic patients). In the absence of direct comparative clinical trials, we suggest treating patients with CRT with a therapeutic dose of either a LMWH or a direct oral factor Xa inhibitor, with or without a loading dose. These anticoagulants should be given for a total of at least 3 months, including at least 1 month after catheter removal following initiation of therapy.

Central venous catheter associated upper extremity deep vein thrombosis in cancer patients: Diagnosis and therapeutic management

Catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) is a relatively frequent and potentially fatal complication arising in patients with cancer who require a central catheter placement for intravenous treatment. In everyday practice, CRT remains a challenge for management; despite its frequency and its negative clinical impact, few data are available concerning diagnosis and treatment of CRT. In particular, no diagnostic studies or clinical trials have been published that included exclusively patients with cancer and a central venous catheter (CVC). For this reason, many questions regarding optimal management of CRT remain unanswered. Due to the paucity of high-grade evidence regarding CRT in cancer patients, guidelines are derived from upper extremity DVT studies for diagnosis, and from those for lower limb DVT for treatment. This article addresses the issues of diagnosis and management of CRT through a review of the available literature and makes a number of proposals based on the available evidence. In symptomatic patients, venous ultrasound is the most appropriate choice for first-line diagnostic imaging of CRT because it is noninvasive, and its diagnostic performance is high (which is not the case in asymptomatic patients). In the absence of direct comparative clinical trials, we suggest treating patients with CRT with a therapeutic dose of either a LMWH or a direct oral factor Xa inhibitor, with or without a loading dose. These anticoagulants should be given for a total of at least three months, including at least one month after catheter removal following initiation of therapy.

Risk and Prognosis of Upper Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis

Objectives: We aimed to investigate the clinical features of upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the background, thrombus site, treatment, and outcome of 76 UEDVT patients. Results: Of the 76 UEDVT patients, 44 (57.9%) were men, and 51 (67.1%) were complicated by malignancy, 44 (57.9%) had an indwelling central vein (CV) catheter, 8 (10.5%) had concomitant pulmonary embolization (PE), and 33 (43.3%) were symptomatic. Regarding the thrombus site, the right internal jugular vein was the most common, with 30 cases (35.3%). As regards the treatment method, 53 patients (69.7%) received oral anticoagulants. In 2015, when direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) was covered by insurance, there were 44 UEDVT cases, of which 34 (77.3%) received DOACs. Outcomes at a mean observation period of 37.5±41.5 months included 40 deaths (52.6%) with a mean survival of 16.3±21.3 months. The most common cause of death was malignancy, with 33 cases (82.5%). Conclusion: In the background of UEDVT, the combination of indwelling CV catheter placement and malignancy was frequently observed. While the risk of recurrence or PE complications is low, the prognosis of UEDVT complicated by malignancy is extremely poor.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Suspected Upper Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis

This publication includes the appropriate imaging modalities to assess suspected deep vein thrombosis in the upper extremities. Ultrasound duplex Doppler is the most appropriate imaging modality to assess upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis. It is a noninvasive test, which can be performed at the bedside and used for serial evaluations. Ultrasound can also directly identify thrombus by visualizing echogenic material in the vein and by lack of compression of the vein walls from manual external pressure. It can indirectly identify thrombus from altered blood-flow patterns. It is most appropriate in the evaluation of veins peripheral to the brachiocephalic vein. CT venography and MR venography are not first-line imaging tests, but are appropriate to assess the central venous structures, or to assess the full range of venous structures from the hand to the right atrium. Catheter venography is appropriate if therapy is required. Radionuclide venography and chest radiography are usually not appropriate to assess upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

A Randomized Trial of Central Venous Catheter Type and Thrombosis in Critically Ill Neurologic Patients

BACKGROUND

Observational studies suggest peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) are associated with a high risk of catheter-related large vein thrombosis (CRLVT) in critically ill neurologic patients. We evaluated the difference in thrombosis risk between PICCs and centrally inserted central venous catheters (CICVCs).

METHODS

We conducted a pragmatic, randomized controlled trial of critically ill adult neurologic patients admitted to neurological and trauma critical care units at two level I trauma centers. Patients were randomized to receive either a PICC or CICVC and undergo active surveillance for CRLVT or death within 15 days of catheter placement.

RESULTS

In total, 39 subjects received a PICC and 41 received a CICVC between February 2012 and July 2015. The trial was stopped after enrollment of 80 subjects due to feasibility affected by slow enrollment and funding. In the primary intention-to-treat analysis, 17 (43.6 %) subjects that received a PICC compared to 9 (22.0 %) that received a CICVC experienced the composite of CRLVT or death, with a risk difference of 21.6 % (95 % CI 1.57-41.71 %). Adjusted common odds ratio of CRLVT/death was significantly higher among subjects randomized to receive a PICC (adjusted OR 3.08; 95 % CI 1.1-8.65). The higher adjusted odds ratio was driven by risk of CRLVT, which was higher in those randomized to PICC compared to CICVC (adjusted OR 4.66; 95 % CI 1.3-16.76) due to increased large vein thrombosis without a reduction in proximal deep venous thrombosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our trial demonstrates that critically ill neurologic patients who require a central venous catheter have significantly lower odds of ultrasound-diagnosed CRLVT with placement of a CICVC as compared to a PICC.

Risk factors associated with catheter-related upper extremity deep vein thrombosis in patients with peripherally inserted central venous catheters: a prospective observational cohort study: part 2

This is the second part of a 2-part series that reports on the results of a prospective observational cohort study designed to examine risk factors associated with symptomatic upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) in patients with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). Part 1, published in the May/June 2014 issue of the Journal of Infusion Nursing, provided an extensive review and critique of the literature regarding risk factors associated with catheter-related UEDVT and identified 28 suspected risk factors. A study was undertaken to examine each of the risk factors among 203 acute care patients with PICCs, 13 of whom experienced a UEDVT, yielding an incidence of 6.4%. The most common reason for admission was infection (33.5%), and the primary reason for insertion of the PICC was venous access (58.6%). Hypertension (P = .022) and obesity (P = .008), defined as a body mass index ≥30, were associated with UEDVT. The clinical symptoms of edema (P < .001) and a 3-cm or more increase in arm circumference (P < .001) in the PICC arm after PICC placement were associated with UEDVT. All other variables were not statistically significant. The results suggest that patients who are obese and hypertensive may be at greater risk for the development of UEDVT and that the physical finding of edema and increased arm circumference in the PICC arm are possibly suggestive of UEDVT.

Risk factors associated with catheter-related upper extremity deep vein thrombosis in patients with peripherally inserted central venous catheters: literature review: part 1

This is part 1 of a 2-part series of articles that report on the results of a prospective observational cohort study designed to examine the risk factors associated with symptomatic upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) in patients with peripherally inserted central catheters. This article provides an extensive review and critique of the literature that serves to explicate what is currently known about risk factors associated with catheter-related UEDVT. Risk factors such as anticoagulant use, cancer, infection, hypertension, catheter tip placement, and catheter size were identified most frequently in the literature as being associated with UEDVT development. Other risk factors--such as obesity, smoking history, surgery, and presence of pain or edema--were examined in a limited number of studies and lacked consistent evidence of their impact on UEDVT development. The subsequent study that evolved from the review of the literature investigates the relationship between identified risk factors and UEDVT development.

Upper extremity deep vein thrombosis in hospitalized patients: a descriptive study

Increasingly, there is a focus on the prevention of hospital-acquired conditions including venous thromboembolism. Many studies have evaluated pulmonary embolism and lower extremity deep vein thrombosis, but less is known about upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) in hospitalized patients. The objective of this study was to describe UEDVT incidence, associated risks, outcomes, and management in our institution. Using an information technology tool, we reviewed records of all symptomatic adult inpatients diagnosed with UEDVT at an academic tertiary center between September 2011 and November 2012. Fifty inpatients were diagnosed with 76 UEDVTs. Their mean age was 49 years; 70% were men. Sixteen percent had a history of venous thromboembolism; 20% had a history of malignancy. The mean length of stay (LOS) was 24.6 days (range, 2-91 days); 50% were transferred from outside hospitals. Thirty-eight percent of UEDVTs were in internal jugular veins, 21% in axillary veins, and 25% in brachial veins. Forty-four percent of patients had UEDVT associated with central venous catheters (CVCs). During hospitalization, 78% were fully anticoagulated; 75% of survivors at discharge. Only 38% were discharged to self-care; 10% died during hospitalization. Patients with UEDVT were more likely to have CVCs, malignancy, and severe infection. Many patients were transferred critically ill with prolonged LOS and high in-hospital mortality. Most UEDVTs were treated even in the absence of concurrent lower extremity deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. Additional research is needed to modify risks and optimize outcomes. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2014;9:48-53. © 2013 Society of Hospital Medicine.

The Risk Factors and Clinical Outcomes of Upper Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis

The prevalence of upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) has shown a dramatic increase with the use of central venous catheters (CVCs) for patient care. The objective of this study was to identify risk factors and clinical outcomes in patients diagnosed with UEDVT at an academic medical center over a 1-year period. Medical records of 373 consecutive patients who underwent upper extremity venous duplex ultrasound (VDU) examination were retrospectively reviewed. A quarter of the patients screened by VDU (94 of 373) had acute UEDVT; 63% presented with arm swelling or arm pain; 48% had cancer; and 93% had indwelling CVCs. Cancer patients with CVCs were more likely to develop UEDVT (48%). Of the 94 UEDVTs, 16% had concurrent lower extremity DVT. The incidence of objectively confirmed pulmonary embolism (PE) was 9% (8 of 94 patients), and the 1-month mortality rate was 6.4%. The majority of patients (80%) with UEDVT received anticoagulation therapy and 20% were not treated. The most common risk factors for UEDVT were indwelling CVCs and a diagnosis of cancer. The incidence rate of PE and mortality rate from UEDVT were not insignificant at 9% and 6%, respectively. There were no institutional screening protocols for patients at risk of UEDVT associated with CVCs. Future research should focus on risk assessment and management protocols for patients at risk of UEDVT. In addition, a comparison of clinical outcomes associated with the type, size, and duration of catheter placement should be conducted in patients at risk of or diagnosed with UEDVT.

Pulmonary embolism from upper extremity deep vein thrombosis and the role of superior vena cava filters: a review of the literature

The placement of superior vena cava (SVC) filters to prevent pulmonary emboli (PE) from upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT), although controversial, has been reported. A total of 21 publications were identified that reported 209 SVC filters and documented eight major filter-related complications (3.8%), including four cardiac tamponades, two aortic perforations, and one recurrent pneumothorax. The in-hospital or 1-month mortality rate was 43.1%. Twenty-eight additional publications were identified that reported 3,747 cases of UEDVT. The rates of PE and associated mortality were 5.6% and 0.7%, respectively. Studies imaging both upper and lower extremities found deep vein thrombus 14.7 times more likely to occur in the lower extremities and the rate of PE from a lower-extremity thrombus to be 25.1%. The lack of evidence documenting the risk from UEDVT and the absence of data supporting the safety and efficacy of SVC filters bring their benefit into question.

Internal Jugular, Subclavian, and Axillary Deep Venous Thrombosis and the Risk of Pulmonary Embolism

The objective of this study was to investigate the risk of acute internal jugular, subclavian, and axillary deep venous thrombosis (upper torso DVT [UTDVT]) and pulmonary embolism (PE) and the role of anticoagulation in a cohort of hospitalized patients.

A 2-year retrospective review of hospitalized patients who underwent upper torso vein duplex scanning was performed. Patient demographics, underlying comorbidities, indication for scanning, diagnostic tests, intensive care unit stay, length of stay, presence of a central line (current or within the last 2 weeks), malignancy (current or former), hypercoaguable condition, postoperative state, renal failure, mortality, and use of anticoagulation were recorded. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to investigate significant risk factors for acute UTDVT. The impact of an acute UTDVT and use of anticoagulation on hospital length of stay, survival to 30 days and 1 year, and PE rate were calculated.

One hundred eighty-nine patients were scanned. Sixty-three patients (33%) were found to have an acute UTDVT. The internal jugular vein was the most common site of thrombosis. The presence of a central venous catheter was the only factor found to be a significant risk factor for an acute UTDVT ( p = .03). Five patients (7.9%) with an UTDVT had a PE documented by computed tomographic angiography-pulmonary arteriography, and all had an internal jugular thrombosis (four isolated and one combined with an axillary-subclavian thrombosis). No PE was fatal. Thirty-eight (60%) patients with an acute UTDVT were treated with therapeutic anticoagulation; the remainder were observed. All patients with a PE received anticoagulation. Hospital length of stay, 30-day mortality, and 12-month survival were no different for patients with and without an UTDVT ( p = .7). The use of anticoagulation had no observable effect on survival in patients with UTDVT ( p = .1).

An acute internal jugular, subclavian, or axillary DVT is a relatively common finding in the hospitalized patient. Patients with a central line (current or within the previous 14 days) were at greatest risk, with an internal jugular vein thrombosis being the most common source. The inconsistent use of anticoagulation therapy for UTDVT was associated with a moderate risk of PE. A survival benefit for anticoagulation could not be documented.

Subklaviathrombose nach Portanlage bei metastasiertem Melanom

The use of implanted central venous catheters with ports has become almost irreplaceable in clinical treatment of cancer patients with advanced disease. It improves the patient's quality of life and simplifies medical treatment. For safe use during outpatient follow-up treatment, possible complications such as wound infections, thrombosis or even pulmonary embolism have to be considered. The incidence of catheter-associated thrombosis in cancer patients has been estimated as 25-66% in screening evaluations. Clinical symptoms were present in only in 6-28% of all patients with diagnosed thromboses. We report on a patient with metastatic malignant melanoma, who developed a deep arm vein thrombosis two weeks after port implantation. The prognosis of deep arm vein thrombosis is determined by the development of pulmonary embolism (8-36%). In such cases, early diagnosis and treatment are essential for the patient's survival.

Diagnosis of a rare source of upper extremity symptoms in a healthy woman after weight lifting

STUDY DESIGN

Resident's case problem.

BACKGROUND

The popularity of weight training has increased dramatically during the past 20 years. With the increase in popularity of weight training, the rate of injury has also increased dramatically. The types of injuries range from benign to life threatening.

DIAGNOSIS

The patient was a 21-year-old woman originally referred for pelvic pain who presented with new complaints of right upper extremity swelling, discomfort, and cyanosis after recently beginning a comprehensive weight-lifting program. Additional signs, including paresthesias decreased pulses, and venous distension, warranted a timely referral by the physical therapist bavk to the referring physician.

DISCUSSION

The primary injury in this case report was hypothesized to have been induced by the recent start of a weight-lifting program, with no other significant contributing risk factors. A comprehensive examination by the physical therapist revealed clinical signs of an upper extremity deep vein thrombosis, leading to a same-day referral back to the referring physician. Further research, resulting in a clinical decision rule for upper extremity deep vein thrombosis or estimates of diagnostic accuracy of clinical signs and symptoms, would improve the diagnostic process.