The treatment and outcome of cancer patients with thromboses on central venous catheters

Management of catheter-related upper extremity deep vein thrombosis in patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with cancer commonly require a central venous catheter, which is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Despite the frequent occurrence, the optimal anticoagulation management and outcomes for patients with cancer and catheter-related upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) are unclear.

OBJECTIVE

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the rates of recurrent VTE and bleeding in patients with cancer and catheter-related upper extremity DVT.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and CENTRAL from inception to June 2, 2023. The primary efficacy outcome was recurrent VTE, and the primary safety outcome was major bleeding. The incidence rates (with 95% CI) of outcomes were pooled using random effects model.

RESULTS

We included 29 studies (N = 2,836), among which 5 were prospective. The duration of follow-up and anticoagulation varied considerably. The main long-term anticoagulant used was low molecular weight heparin, followed by direct oral anticoagulants. The pooled 3-month recurrent VTE rate from 14 studies (N = 1,128) was 0.56% (95% CI, 0.10%-3.01%; I2 = 0%). The pooled 3-month major bleeding rate from 10 studies (N = 834) was 2.34% (95% CI, 1.14%-4.76%; I2 = 0%). We were unable to pool event rates beyond 3 months, given high heterogeneity. All studies had serious risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated a relatively low rate of recurrent VTE and moderate rate of major bleeding events within the first 3 months in patients with cancer and catheter-related upper extremity DVT. However, there was significant heterogeneity in the management and reporting after 3 months.

Incidence of asymptomatic catheter-related thrombosis in intensive care unit patients: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) incidence, rate, and risk factors vary in literature due to differences in populations, catheters, diagnostic methods, and statistical approaches. The aim of this single-center, prospective, observational study was to assess incidence, incidence rate (IR), cumulative incidence, and risk factors by means of IR ratio (IRR) of asymptomatic CRT in a non-oncologic Intensive Care Unit (ICU) population. CRT development was assessed daily by means of ultrasound screening. The proportions of patients and catheters developing CRT and CRT incidence rates, expressed as the number of events per catheter-days (cd), were calculated. Kalbfleisch and Prentice's method was used to estimate the cumulative incidence of CRTs. Univariate and multivariable Poisson regression models were fitted to calculate IRR in risk factors analysis.

RESULTS

Fifty (25%, 95% CI 19-31) out of 203 included patients, and 52 (14%, 95% CI 11-18) out of 375 catheters inserted developed CRT [IR 17.7 (13.5-23.2) CRTs/1000*cd], after 5 [3-10] days from insertion. Forty-six CRTs (88%) were partial thrombosis. All CRTs remained asymptomatic. Obesity and ECMO support were patient-related protective factors [IRR 0.24 (0.10-0.60), p = 0.002 and 0.05 (0.01-0.50), p = 0.011, respectively]. The internal jugular vein had higher CRT IR than other sites [20.1 vs. 5.9 CRTs/1000*cd, IRR 4.22 (1.22-14.63), p = 0.023]. Pulmonary artery catheter and left-side cannulation were catheter-related risk factors [IRR 4.24 (2.00-9.00), p < 0.001 vs. central venous catheters; IRR 2.69 (1.45-4.98), p = 0.002 vs. right cannulation, respectively]. No statistically significant effect of the number of simultaneously inserted catheters [IRR 1.11 (0.64-1.94), p = 0.708] and of the catheterization length [IRR 1.09 (0.97-1.22), p = 0.155] was detected. The ICU length of stay was longer in CRT patients (20 [15-31] vs. 6 [4-14] days, p < 0.001), while no difference in mortality was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

CRTs are frequent but rarely symptomatic. This study suggests that obesity and ECMO are protective factors, while pulmonary artery catheter, internal jugular vein and left-side positioning are risk factors for CRT.

Daily point-of-care ultrasound-assessment of central venous catheter-related thrombosis in critically ill patients: a prospective multicenter study

PURPOSE

Central venous catheter (CVC)-related thrombosis (CRT) is a known complication in critically ill patients. However, its clinical significance remains unclear. The objective of the study was to evaluate the occurrence and evolution of CRT from CVC insertion to removal.

METHODS

A prospective multicenter study was conducted in 28 intensive care units (ICUs). Duplex ultrasound was performed daily from CVC insertion until at least 3 days after CVC removal or before patient discharge from the ICU to detect CRT and to follow its progression. CRT diameter and length were measured and diameter > 7 mm was considered extensive.

RESULTS

The study included 1262 patients. The incidence of CRT was 16.9% (95% confidence interval 14.8-18.9%). CRT was most commonly found in the internal jugular vein. The median time from CVC insertion to CRT onset was 4 (2-7) days, and 12% of CRTs occurred on the first day and 82% within 7 days of CVC insertion. CRT diameters > 5 mm and > 7 mm were found in 48% and 30% of thromboses. Over a 7-day follow-up, CRT diameter remained stable when the CVC was in place, whereas it gradually decreased after CVC removal. The ICU length of stay was longer in patients with CRT than in those without CRT, and the mortality was not different.

CONCLUSION

CRT is a frequent complication. It can occur as soon as the CVC is placed and mostly during the first week following catheterization. Half of the thromboses are small but one-third are extensive. They are often non-progressive and may be resolved after CVC removal.

Central venous catheter-related thrombosis in pediatric surgical patients: A prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Perioperative central venous catheters are required but may be associated with various complications.

AIMS

The purpose of our study was to assess the incidence and perioperative risk factors for catheter-related internal jugular vein thrombosis in pediatric surgical patients.

METHODS

This prospective observational study included children under 6 years of age who were scheduled to undergo central venous catheterization of the right internal jugular vein under general anesthesia. A central venous catheter was inserted under real-time ultrasound guidance. An investigator examined for thrombosis using ultrasonography at predetermined time points. The primary aim was the incidence of catheter-related thrombosis from insertion until the 5th day postoperatively or the removal of the central venous catheter. The secondary aim was the determination of the risk factors for thrombosis.

RESULTS

Eighty patients completed the study. Internal jugular vein thrombi were found in 31 patients (38.8%, 95% CI 28.0-49.4). On multiple logistic regression analyses, the number of insertion attempts was the only influencing factor for catheter-related thrombosis (p < .001). More than two insertion attempts increased the risk of thrombosis (odds ratio 5.6; 95% CI 1.7 - 18.7, p = .004). Anesthesia time (p = .017; mean difference 166.4 min; 95% CI 55.7-277.1), intraoperative red blood cell transfusion (p = .001; median difference 21.1 ml kg^-1 ; 95% CI 6.6-34.4), and intensive care unit stay (p = .001; median difference 100.0 h; 95% CI 48-311) differed between patients with transient thrombosis and those with thrombosis lasting for more than 3 days.

CONCLUSION

Internal jugular vein thrombosis was frequently detected by ultrasound following central venous catheterization in pediatric surgical patients. Multiple insertion attempts may be associated with the incidence of thrombosis. The clinical relevance of thrombi detected via ultrasound surveillance has not been determined.

Treatment of Atypical Clots

The term unusual site thrombosis refers to the occurrence of venous thromboembolism outside of the lower limbs and the pulmonary arteries. Unusual site thrombosis can virtually affect any venous segment, with the most common and/or clinically relevant sites including the upper limbs veins, the retinal veins, the splanchnic veins and the cerebral veins. Clinical features are obviously heterogeneous, while many predisposing factors are common, though with different prevalence among the various disorders. Antithrombotic therapy is prescribed to most patients, but the type, intensity, and duration of treatment vary both within and among patient groups. Increasing evidence is supporting the use of the direct oral anticoagulants in patients with upper limb deep vein thrombosis, cerebral vein thrombosis, and with splanchnic vein thrombosis. This article will review available evidence on the treatment of venous thrombosis occurring in unusual sites.

Central catheter-associated deep vein thrombosis in cancer: clinical course, prophylaxis, treatment

The adequate handling of central venous catheters is a key element in the management of patients with cancer. Catheter-associated deep vein thrombosis is frequently observed in patients with malignant diseases; however, despite being a common complication among these patients, objective information concerning its epidemiology, clinical course, prophylaxis and treatment strategies is very limited. The reported incidence of catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) is highly variable, depending on symptomatic events, or if patients are screened for asymptomatic thrombosis. Several factors have been identified as potential predisposing factors for CRT, both technical and pathological aspects. The anticoagulant of choice is still unclear; while low-molecular-weight heparin is most commonly used, recent studies assessing the role of direct oral anticoagulants in the treatment of CRT show promise as an alternative, but the evidence remains insufficient and the decision must be made on a case-by-case basis.

Risk of pulmonary emboli after removal of an upper extremity central catheter associated with a deep vein thrombosis

Standard treatment of catheter-associated upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UE-DVT) is anticoagulation, although catheters are often removed for this indication. The optimal time for catheter removal and whether the act and/or timing of catheter removal is associated with pulmonary embolism (PE) remain unknown. A retrospective cohort study was performed at 8 participating institutions through the Venous thromboEmbolism Network US. Patients with hematologic malignancies and central venous catheter (CVC)-associated UE-DVT were included from 1 January 2010 through 31 December 2016. The primary outcome was objectively confirmed PE within 7 days of UE-DVT diagnosis in anticoagulated patients comparing early (≤48 hours) vs delayed (>48 hours) catheter removal. A total of 626 patients were included, among whom 480 were treated with anticoagulation. Among anticoagulated patients, 255 underwent early CVC removal, while 225 had delayed or no CVC removal; 146 patients received no anticoagulation, among whom 116 underwent CVC removal alone. PE within 7 days occurred in 2 patients (0.78%) with early removal compared with 1 patient (0.44%) with delayed or no CVC removal (P > .9). PE or any cause of death within 7 days occurred in 3 patients in both the early removal (1.18%) and delayed/no removal (1.33%) groups (P > .9). In patients treated with CVC removal only (no anticoagulation), there were no PEs but 3 deaths within 7 days. In patients with hematological malignancy and CVC-associated UE-DVT, early removal of CVCs was not associated with an increased risk of PE compared with delayed or no removal.

A retrospective analysis of risk factors associated with catheter-related thrombosis: a single-center study

BACKGROUND

Catheter-related thrombosis may lead to catheter infections and failure, further deep venous thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism. Recognizing the risk factors for catheter-related thrombosis is extremely important to inform the development of catheter care guidelines.

METHODS

Data were collected from a total of 1,532 patients who had undergone venous catheterization, including indwelling catheterization from 19 March 2019 to 30 March 2019 in the Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital. The factors for which data were to be collected included the patients' physical characteristics, catheter-related factors, and catheter care-related factors. Logistic regression analysis, the chi-squared test, Fisher's exact test, and the t-test were used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

Of the 1,532 patients studied, 28 developed intraductal thrombi, and of the factors analyzed, malignancy, a catheterization history, a history of thrombophilia, surgery during the week before catheterization, the catheterization duration, and anticoagulant therapy were significant risk factors associated with catheter-related thrombosis (all p < 0.05). There were no significant associations between the catheter brand, the number of lumens, the insertion direction, or the factors associated with catheter care and catheter-related thrombosis (all p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our study incorporated clear and systematic risk factors associated with catheter-related thrombosis. Malignancy, history of thrombophilia, history of catheterization, surgery during the week before catheterization, and catheterization duration were associated with increased risks of catheter-related thrombosis. Prophylactic anticoagulation was effective for preventing and treating catheter-related thrombosis.

Evaluation of complications of totally implantable central venous port system insertion

The aim of the present study was to describe the procedure of totally implantable central venous port system (TICVPS) insertion performed at our center and investigate associated complications. The study retrospectively evaluated 827 patients who underwent a single-type TICVPS insertion from January 2013 to July 2015. The length of the procedure, long-term device function, angle (chamber-to-tip) and complications of TICVPS, including infection, skin erosion, occlusion, malposition and thrombosis, were analyzed from the patients' medical records. A total of 843 TICVPS insertions were performed in 827 patients. The TICVPS implantation was successful in all cases (100%). A total of 34 cases (4.0%) with complications were recorded. Complications at the chamber insertion site occurred in 11 patients (1.3%), including 5 infection (0.6%) and 6 erosion cases (0.7%). All patients with chamber insertion site infection were treated by administration of antibiotics and dressing. Of the patients in which chamber insertion site erosion occurred, 2 were subjected to TICVPS removal and reinsertion and 4 were treated with debridement, irrigation and resuture. The most common type of complication was catheter-associated (2.3%; n=19). Among these cases, 7 had catheter-associated infection (0.8%), 8 had catheter migration (1.0%) confirmed by chest radiography, 4 had catheter-associated thrombosis (0.5%) and 2 had chamber malposition (0.3%). The present retrospective study on TICVPS, which used a relatively large cohort, demonstrated a low complication rate (4.0%) compared with that reported in previous studies (5-20%). A well-designed procedure, experienced vascular surgeons, an aseptic operating room environment, ultrasound-guided puncture, a wide angle (chamber-to-tip) and the use of fluoroscopy with contrast agent may reduce the complication rate of TICVPS insertion.

Management of cancer-associated upper extremity deep vein thrombosis with and without venous catheters at a tertiary care center

INTRODUCTION

Data on management of upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) in patients with cancer is limited. The objective of this study was to determine risk factors for UEDVT and the rates of recurrence and bleeding in a real-world setting.

METHODS

Retrospective review of consecutive patients assessed for cancer-associated UEDVT. Outcome measures were recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), and major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB). Risk factors for recurrent VTE and bleeding were assessed.

RESULTS

Mean duration of follow-up was 7.2 months. Two hundred cases were identified; 69% were associated with a central line. Non-line associated UEDVT occurred more frequently in the setting of breast cancer, lung cancer and documented local mass effect. The incidence of recurrent VTE was 18.5%, of which 14 (37.8%) were ipsilateral UEDVT. The risk of recurrence is higher with male gender (HR 2.0, 95% CI; 1.0-4.0). Major and CRNMB occurred in 1% and 11.5%, respectively. Concurrent use of an antiplatelet agent was associated with a higher risk of CRNMB compared to anticoagulant therapy alone (HR 3.9, 95% CI; 1.4-10.7).

CONCLUSIONS

Presence of a venous catheter was the primary risk factor for UEDVT, however, extrinsic compression by local tumour may be just as important for some cancer types. Furthermore, the majority of recurrent events did not occur in the same upper limb suggesting that UEDVT may be predictive of increased thrombotic risk rather than just a local effect of catheters.

Presentation and impact of catheter-associated thrombosis in patients with infected long-term central venous catheters: a prospective bicentric observational study

BACKGROUND

Catheter-associated thrombosis (CAT) in patients with infected long-term central venous catheter (LTCVC) has been poorly studied.

METHODS

We prospectively included patients with infected LTCVC and collected clinical data. Doppler ultrasound was systematically performed to screen for CAT. Outcome (death or infection relapse) was evaluated 12 weeks after infection diagnosis.

RESULTS

90 patients were included and CAT was diagnosed in 27 (30%). Local signs suggesting infection were more frequent in patients with CAT than without (11/27 versus 8/63, p = 0.03). Outcome was similar in patients with and without CAT. However, median duration of antimicrobials was longer (18 versus 14 days, p = 0.02), catheter removal tended to be more frequent (24/27 versus 46/63, p = 0.08), and anticoagulant therapy more often prescribed (17/27 versus 6/63, p < 0.01) in patients with CAT than without. Patients with occlusive thrombosis were more likely to have Staphylococcus aureus infections (4/7 versus 1/17, p = 0.02) and prolonged positivity of blood-cultures (3/7 versus 1/15, p = 0.02), than patients with non-occlusive thrombosis.

CONCLUSION

CAT is associated with local signs suggesting infection. A more aggressive treatment in CAT cases allowed a similar outcome at 12 weeks between patients with and without CAT. Occlusive thrombosis represented a subgroup of patients at risk of delayed clearance of bacteremia.

Cancer-associated thrombosis: an overview

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication in patients with malignant disease. Emerging data have enhanced our understanding of cancer-associated thrombosis, a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. In addition to VTE, arterial occlusion with stroke and anginal symptoms is relatively common among cancer patients, and is possibly related to genetic predisposition. Several risk factors for developing venous thrombosis usually coexist in cancer patients including surgery, hospital admissions and immobilization, the presence of an indwelling central catheter, chemotherapy, use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) and new molecular-targeted therapies such as antiangiogenic agents. Effective prophylaxis and treatment of VTE reduced morbidity and mortality, and improved quality of life. Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is preferred as an effective and safe means for prophylaxis and treatment of VTE. It has largely replaced unfractionated heparin (UFH) and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). Recently, the development of novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) that directly inhibit factor Xa or thrombin is a milestone achievement in the prevention and treatment of VTE. This review will focus on the epidemiology and pathophysiology of cancer-associated thrombosis, risk factors, and new predictive biomarkers for VTE as well as discuss novel prevention and management regimens of VTE in cancer according to published guidelines.

Venous thromboembolism in cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication in cancer patients. This review summarizes some of the most current knowledge of the epidemiology, risk factors, risk models, prophylaxis, and treatment of VTE in cancer patients.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using PubMed; the search terms were venous thromboembolism, anticoagulation, and cancer. The bibliographies of pertinent studies and review articles were reviewed for additional references.

RESULTS

Venous thromboembolism is the second leading cause of death in patients with cancer. Cancer patients with VTE have poorer outcomes compared with noncancer patients with VTE. Many risk factors have been identified for VTE in patients with cancer that are patient-related, cancer-related, or treatment-related. Several biomarkers have been identified as potentially predictive of VTE risk. Risk assessment models such as the Khorana Risk Score stratify cancer patients with low, intermediate, and high risk of developing VTE based on baseline clinical and laboratory variables. Currently, enoxaparin is the preferred anticoagulant for initial VTE treatment in cancer patients. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is recommended for both initial and long-term management of cancer-related VTE. Because the optimal duration of anticoagulation in cancer patients with VTE is unknown, the decision to extend anticoagulation requires weighing the risk of recurrent thrombosis against the risk of major bleeding. Patients with recurrent VTE can be bridged with LMWH, transitioned to full-dose LMWH or treated with LMWH dose escalation. While there is insufficient data to determine whether anticoagulation should be held in the setting of thrombocytopenia, full-dose anticoagulation is typically considered unsafe when platelets are < 50 000/μL. Inferior vena cava filters are currently recommended only for patients with acute VTE and contraindications to anticoagulation. Although management of catheter-associated thrombosis has not been well studied in cancer patients, it is recommended that cancer patients with catheter-associated thrombosis be treated with therapeutic anticoagulation for ≥ 3 months. Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis with UFH, LMWH, or fondaparinux is recommended in all hospitalized nonsurgical cancer patients and cancer patients undergoing major cancer surgery. Primary thromboprophylaxis is only currently recommended in high-risk ambulatory cancer patients such as multiple myeloma patients receiving thalidomide- or lenalidomide- based therapy.

CONCLUSION

Cancer-associated thrombosis is a common problem. As we begin to better understand the risk factors and biomarkers for cancer-associated VTE, we can further refine and develop risk-assessment models to determine those patients who would most likely benefit from anticoagulation. While LMWH products are generally preferred in cancer-related VTE, more research will continue to evolve our understanding of treatment and thrombopprophylaxis in cancer-associated VTE.

What are the pharmacotherapy options for treating venous thromboembolism in cancer patients?

INTRODUCTION

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent complication in patients with malignancies. The treatment of VTE disorders in cancer patients remains a difficult clinical task.

AREAS COVERED

Current evidence on the most appropriate initial and long-term treatment of cancer patients with VTE was addressed, as was the management of recurrent VTE despite anticoagulation, the management of incidentally detected isolated pulmonary embolism (PE), the potential role of the novel direct oral anticoagulants and the impact of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) on cancer evolution.

EXPERT OPINION

LMWHs are the cornerstone of VTE treatment in cancer patients. The intensity and duration of treatment are dependent on several factors that need to be individually evaluated. The novel oral anticoagulants should be investigated more carefully before being routinely implemented in the treatment of cancer-associated VTE. Incidentally detected isolated sub-segmental PE is unlikely to require systematic full-dose anticoagulation. Evidence favoring an impact of LMWH on survival in cancer patients is weak.

Bleeding and thrombosis in the cancer patient

There is an increased risk not only of bleeding but also of thrombosis in the cancer patient. The double jeopardy creates an additional problem in their management and requires special attention. This review provides information on pathophysiology in the regulation of hemostasis, leading to bleeding and thrombotic complications. The process is complex with multiple factors being involved. In addition to the pathogenesis, a number of clinical syndromes, diagnostic methods and the management of hemostatic abnormalities in the cancer patient are presented. Potential effects of cancer treatment on these risks magnify the hazards encountered by the managing team. Wherever management is discussed, emphasis is placed on the scientific basis for the rationale of the therapeutic approach.

Treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis

Therapeutic options for the management of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer remain very limited. Although low-molecular-weight heparin monotherapy has been identified as a simple and efficacious regimen compared with an initial parenteral anticoagulant followed by long-term therapy with a vitamin K antagonist, many clinical questions remain unanswered. These include optimal duration of anticoagulant therapy, treatment of recurrent VTE, and the treatment of patients with concurrent bleeding or those with a high risk of bleeding. Treatment recommendations from consensus clinical guidelines are largely based on retrospective reports or extrapolated data from the noncancer population with VTE, as randomized controlled trials focused on cancer-associated thrombosis are sorely lacking. Furthermore, with improvements in imaging technology and extended survival duration of patients with cancer, we are encountering more unique challenges, such as the management of incidental VTE. Clinicians should be aware of the limitations of the novel oral anticoagulants and avoid the use of these agents because of the paucity of evidence in the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis.

Subclavian central venous catheter-related thrombosis in trauma patients: incidence, risk factors and influence of polyurethane type

Introduction

The incidence of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) related to a central venous catheter varies considerably in ICUs depending on the population included. The aim of this study was to determine subclavian central venous catheter (SCVC)-related DVT risk factors in severely traumatized patients with regard to two kinds of polyurethane catheters.

Methods

Critically ill trauma patients needing a SCVC for their usual care were prospectively included in an observational study. Depending on the month of inclusion, patients received one of the two available products in the emergency unit: either an aromatic polyurethane SCVC or an aliphatic polyurethane SCVC. Patients were screened weekly by ultrasound for SCVC-related DVT. Potential risk factors were collected, including history-related, trauma-related and SCVC-related characteristics.

Results

A total of 186 patients were included with a median Injury Severity Sore of 30 and a high rate of severe brain injuries (21% of high intracranial pressure). Incidence of SCVC-related DVT was 37% (95% confidence interval: 26 to 40) in patients or 20/1,000 catheter-days. SCVC-related DVT occurred within 8 days in 65% of cases. There was no significant difference in DVT rates between the aromatic polyurethane and aliphatic polyurethane SCVC groups (38% vs. 36%). SCVC-related DVT independent risk factors were age >30 years, intracranial hypertension, massive transfusion (>10 packed red blood cell units), SCVC tip position in the internal jugular or in the innominate vein, and ipsilateral jugular catheter.

Conclusion

SCVC-related DVT concerned one-third of these severely traumatized patients and was mostly clinically silent. Incidence did not depend on the type of polyurethane but was related to age >30 years, intracranial hypertension or misplacement of the SCVC. Further studies are needed to assess the cost-effectiveness of routine screening in these patients in whom thromboprophylaxis may be hazardous.

International clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prophylaxis of thrombosis associated with central venous catheters in patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Although long-term indwelling central venous catheters (CVCs) may lead to pulmonary embolism (PE) and loss of the CVC, there is lack of consensus on management of CVC-related thrombosis (CRT) in cancer patients and heterogeneity in clinical practices worldwide.

OBJECTIVES

To establish common international Good Clinical Practices Guidelines (GCPG) for the management of CRT in cancer patients.

METHODS

An international working group of experts was set up to develop GCPG according to an evidence-based medicine approach, using the GRADE system.

RESULTS

For the treatment of established CRT in cancer patients, we found no prospective randomized studies, two non-randomized prospective studies and one retrospective study examining the efficacy and safety of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) plus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). One retrospective study evaluated the benefit of CVC removal and two small retrospective studies were on thrombolytic drugs. For the treatment of symptomatic CRT, anticoagulant treatment (AC) is recommended for a minimum of 3 months; in this setting, LMWHs are suggested. VKAs can also be used, in the absence of direct comparisons of these two types of anticoagulants in this setting [Guidance]. The CVC can be kept in place if it is functional, well-positioned and non-infected and there is good resolution under close surveillance; whether the CVC is kept or removed, no standard approach in terms of AC duration has been established [Guidance]. For the prophylaxis of CRT in cancer patients, we found six randomized studies investigating the efficacy and safety of VKA vs. placebo or no treatment, one on the efficacy and safety of unfractionnated heparin, six on the value of LMWH, one double-blind randomized and one non randomized study on thrombolytic drugs and six meta-analyses of AC and CVC thromboprophylaxis. Type of catheter (open-ended like the Hickman(®) catheter vs. closed-ended catheter with a valve like the Groshong(®) catheter), its position (above, below or at the junction of the superior vena cava and the right atrium) and method of placement may influence the onset of CRT on the basis of six retrospective trials, four prospective non-randomized trials, three randomized trials and one meta-analysis. In light of these data: use of AC for routine prophylaxis of CRT is not recommended [1A]; a CVC should be inserted on the right side, in the jugular vein, and distal extremity of the CVC should be located at the junction of the superior vena cava and the right atrium [1A].

CONCLUSION

Dissemination and implementation of these international GCPG for the prevention and treatment of CRT in cancer patients at each national level is a major public health priority, needing worldwide collaboration.

Catheter-related thrombosis: lifeline or a pain in the neck?

Central venous catheters (CVCs) are used extensively in cancer patients for the administration of therapy and phlebotomy. An important complication of CVCs is the development of catheter-related thrombosis (CRT), which becomes symptomatic in approximately 5% of the patients. Several factors, such as insertion location and position of the catheter tip, increase the risk of CRT. Prevention of CRT with systemic anticoagulant prophylaxis has largely been ineffective. In addition, the optimal diagnostic strategy and anticoagulant treatment are unclear due to the lack of well-designed studies. The most recent American College of Chest Physicians guidelines recommend (color) Doppler ultrasound more than venography as the initial diagnostic test in patients with suspected arm thrombosis. Only if the ultrasound is negative and clinical suspicion is high is further testing with D-dimer, serial ultrasound, or venography advocated. In case of CRT, removal of the catheter is not necessary if it is functional and needed for chemotherapy. Anticoagulant treatment of CRT consists of treatment with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) followed by vitamin K antagonists for at least 3 months. Whether long-term treatment with LMWH is more effective than vitamin K antagonists in cancer patients with CRT is unknown, but LMWH may be advocated following the recommendations in lower limb thrombosis and cancer. In addition, the effect of new anticoagulants in CRT has not been studied.

Epidemiology and prevention of catheter-related thrombosis in patients with cancer

Central venous catheters are extensively used in patients with cancer to secure delivery of chemotherapy and facilitate phlebotomy. Unfortunately, considerable morbidity can result from early complications or late sequelae, ranging from arterial puncture, pneumothorax and bloodstream infections to catheter-related thrombosis (CRT). Contemporary studies have shown that the incidence of symptomatic CRT is ∼5%, whereas the incidence of asymptomatic CRT is higher, at 14-18%. The significance and mechanisms of catheter design, material, insertion location and technique, position of the catheter tip and other risk factors in contributing to the development of CRT are not well understood. Efforts to reduce thrombotic complications, involving flushing the catheter with heparinized solutions, the use of heparin-bonded catheters, and systemic anticoagulant prophylaxis, have been largely ineffective. More studies are needed to understand the pathophysiology of thrombotic complications, to help identify effective interventions to reduce this adverse outcome.

Treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer: Guidelines of the Italian Society for Haemostasis and Thrombosis (SISET)

BACKGROUND

The treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients remains controversial.

PURPOSE

The Italian Society for Thrombosis and Haemostasis (SISET) commissioned a project to develop clinical practice guidelines for the therapy of VTE in patients with malignancies.

METHODS

Key questions about the treatment of VTE in patients with malignancies were formulated by a multidisciplinary working group consisting of experts in clinical medicine and research. After a systematic review and discussion of the literature, recommendations were formulated and graded according to the supporting evidence. For those questions for which the literature search did not yield any definitive answer (absence of evidence evidence of low quality, and contradictory evidence), a formal consensus method was used to issue clinical recommendations.

RESULTS

The results of the available literature on VTE treatment in cancer patients were reviewed and clinical recommendations were drafted.

CONCLUSION

We describe the results of a systematic literature review and an explicit approach to consensus techniques which resulted in recommendations for the key therapeutic issues in cancer patients with VTE.

Enoxaparin can be Used Safely in Patients with Severe Thrombocytopenia due to Intensive Chemotherapy Regimens

Treatment with intensive chemotherapy regimens is frequently complicated by severe thrombocytopenia. During the period of severe thrombocytopenia, anticoagulant treatment is not uncommonly indicated for thromboembolic events or thromboprophylaxis in these patients. We report 10 hematological patients treated with intensive chemotherapy protocols that were anticoagulated with enoxaparin for catheter related central venous thrombosis and thromboprophylaxis. During the period of severe thrombocytopenia the dosages of enoxaparin were reduced and no major bleeding occurred. Based on our experience we suggest that reduced dosages of low molecular weight heparins may be used relatively safely during transient severe thrombocytopenia.

2008 SOR guidelines for the prevention and treatment of thrombosis associated with central venous catheters in patients with cancer: report from the working group

BACKGROUND

In view of the lack of recommendations on central venous catheter (CVC)-associated thrombosis in cancer patients, we established guidelines according to the well-standardized Standards, Options and Recommendations methodology.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A literature review (1990-2007) on CVC-associated thrombosis was carried out. The guidelines were developed on the basis of the corresponding levels of evidence derived from analysis of the 36 of 175 publications selected. They were then peer reviewed by 65 independent experts.

RESULTS

For the prevention of CVC-associated thrombosis, the distal tip of the CVC should be placed at the junction between the superior cava vein and right atrium; anticoagulants are not recommended. Treatment of CVC-associated thrombosis should be based on the prolonged use of low-molecular weight heparins. Maintenance of the catheter is justified if it is mandatory, functional, in the right position, and not infected, with a favorable clinical evolution under close monitoring; anticoagulant treatment should then be continued as long as the catheter is present.

CONCLUSIONS

Several rigorous studies do not support the use of anticoagulants for the prevention of CVC-associated thrombosis. Treatment of CVC-associated thrombosis relies on the same principles as those applied in the treatment of established thrombosis in cancer patients.

Best choice of central venous insertion site for the prevention of catheter-related complications in adult patients who need cancer therapy: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Central venous access is extensively used in oncology, though practical information from randomized trials on the most convenient insertion modality and site is unavailable.

METHODS

Four hundred and three patients eligible for receiving i.v. chemotherapy for solid tumors were randomly assigned to implantation of a single type of port (Bard Port, Bard Inc., Salt Lake City, UT), through a percutaneous landmark access to the internal jugular, a ultrasound (US)-guided access to the subclavian or a surgical cut-down access through the cephalic vein at the deltoid-pectoralis groove. Early and late complications were prospectively recorded until removal of the device, patient's death or ending of the study.

RESULTS

Four hundred and one patients (99.9%) were assessable: 132 with the internal jugular, 136 with the subclavian and 133 with the cephalic vein access. The median follow-up was 356.5 days (range 0-1087). No differences were found for early complication rate in the three groups {internal jugular: 0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.0% to 2.7%], subclavian: 0% (95% CI 0.0% to 2.7%), cephalic: 1.5% (95% CI 0.1% to 5.3%)}. US-guided subclavian insertion site had significantly lower failures (e.g. failed attempts to place the catheter in agreement with the original arm of randomization, P = 0.001). Infections occurred in one, three and one patients (internal jugular, subclavian and cephalic access, respectively, P = 0.464), whereas venous thrombosis was observed in 15, 8 and 11 patients (P = 0.272).

CONCLUSIONS

Central venous insertion modality and sites had no impact on either early or late complication rates, but US-guided subclavian insertion showed the lowest proportion of failures.

Thrombotic and infectious complications of central venous catheters in patients with hematological malignancies

Central venous catheters (CVCs) have considerably improved the management of patients with hematological malignancies, by facilitating chemotherapy, supportive therapy and blood sampling. Complications of insertion of CVCs include mechanical (arterial puncture, pneumothorax), thrombotic and infectious complications. CVC-related thrombosis and infections are frequently occurring complications and may cause significant morbidity in patients with hematological malignancies. CVC-related thrombosis and infections are related and can therefore not be seen as separate entities. The incidence of symptomatic CVC-related thrombosis had been reported to vary between 1.2 and 13.0% of patients with hematological malignancy. The incidence of CVC-related bloodstream infections varies between 0.0 and 20.8%. There is need for a specific approach regarding diagnosis and treatment of CVC-related thrombosis and infection with specific attention to the preservation of the catheter. Since data on CVC-related infections and thrombosis in hematological patients have been obtained mainly from retrospective studies of small sample size, prospective, randomized studies of prophylactic measures concerning CVC-related thrombosis and infection are warranted.

Catheter-Related Central Venous Thrombosis: The Development of a Nationwide Consensus Paper in Italy

Catheter-related central venous thrombosis is a serious complication in patients who need long-term venous access. Though scientific data and clinical experience are steadily increasing, many uncertainties still exist about several aspects of this complication, including etiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, management, and prevention of this complication. The GAVeCeLT (the Italian Study Group for Long Term Central Venous Access) promoted a nationwide consensus, and 12 experts reviewed systematically all the available literature. A preliminary document was presented and discussed during a specific Consensus Meeting, in front of a panel of more than 80 experts (representing different health professions and disciplines). This led to a prefinal document, which was presented to more than 800 health professionals. After peer review by an external board of experts, the final document was prepared. In this article, methodology and results of the consensus are presented.

Therapy Insight: venous-catheter-related thrombosis in cancer patients

Central venous catheters (CVCs) have improved the management of patients with cancer substantially, by facilitating chemotherapy and supportive therapy. The use of CVCs is associated with complications such as infection and upper-limb deep vein thrombosis (UL-DVT). The incidence of clinically overt UL-DVT related to the use of CVCs ranges between 2% and 4%. In the most recent study, the incidence of CVC-related thrombosis, as screened by venography, was approximately 18% in the absence of prophylaxis. In cancer patients with CVC-related UL-DVT, the incidence of clinically overt pulmonary embolism was between 15% and 25%, and the incidence of autopsy-proven pulmonary embolism was up to 50%. Pathogenic factors for CVC-related thrombosis include vessel injury caused by the CVC insertion procedure, venous stasis because of the indwelling CVC, and hypercoagulability associated with cancer. Recent studies have not confirmed a benefit for prophylaxis with antithrombotic agents for CVC-related thrombosis. The recommended treatment for CVC-related thrombosis is based on long-term anticoagulant therapy, with or without catheter removal.

Application of upper extremity radionuclide venography as a diagnostic approach for Port-A catheter thrombosis

BACKGROUND

To investigate the role of upper extremity radionuclide venography as a potential diagnostic modality in the assessment of venous thrombosis associated with a Port-A catheter.

METHODS

Fourteen symptomatic patients who had received Port-A catheter implantation were enrolled. A dynamic nuclear medicine flow study was performed with intravenous administration of Technetium-99m macroaggregated albumin to both upper extremities. Imaging patterns of the venous system were categorized as patency, partial obstruction, and total occlusion.

RESULTS

The findings of the dynamic images clearly demonstrated clinical problems. Three patients were free of a definite venous flow change. Three patients had partial obstruction of venous return. A significant cut-off of venous return was demonstrated in 8 patients, and total occlusions were hence diagnosed. All patients underwent this procedure smoothly without any complication.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that upper extremity radionuclide venography is an easily performed and effective method for diagnosing Port-A catheter thrombosis in clinical practice.

Atypical pulmonary embolism of port catheter fragments in oncology patients

GOALS OF WORK

Embolization of venous catheter fragments to the pulmonary vasculature is a very rare form of pulmonary embolism which is only sporadically reported in the literature. The incidence and clinical picture of this complication are unknown.

PATIENT AND METHODS

In this retrospective analysis between 1999 and 2004, in our clinic, 1,014 port catheters were implanted. In this 5-year period, the patients' files were screened for the incidence of pulmonary embolism of catheter fragments and the accompanying complication rate.

MAIN RESULTS

In 11 patients, port catheter dislodgment and embolism into the pulmonary artery occurred. In all the patients' port examination by fluoroscopy, catheter dislocation and embolization were shown. In these 11 patients, no obvious clinical signs indicating dislocation of catheter fragments into the pulmonary circulation were found. None of these patients demonstrated respiratory symptoms. Heart rate, blood pressure, respiration frequency, and even oxygen saturation were normal. In 7 of the 11 patients, malfunction of port catheter was the first indicator of catheter dislocation. In four patients, embolized catheter fragments were an incidental finding. The main cause of catheter embolization was the pinch off syndrome. All embolized catheter fragments were retrieved by a 'goose-neck' snare without complication.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that the migration of fractured catheter into the pulmonary artery occurs in 1% of the central port catheter implantation. It is often asymptomatic, and malfunction of the catheter may be the first sign of this complication. The pinch off syndrome might be prevented by using the internal jugular vein or by implantation of the port catheter more laterally in the subclavian vein.

Incidence of thrombotic complications in patients with haematological malignancies with central venous catheters: a prospective multicentre study

This prospective, observational and multicentre study assessed the incidence of, and risk factors for, symptomatic venous thrombotic complications after central venous catheter (CVC) positioning in patients with haematological malignancies. A total of 458 consecutive CVC insertions were registered in 416 patients (81.2% of whom had severe thrombocytopenia). Over the observation period (3 months or up to catheter removal), the incidence of events was: CVC-related deep vein thrombosis (DVT), 1.5%; lower limb DVT, 0.4%; pulmonary embolism (PE), 1.3%; fatal PE, 0.6%; CVC-related superficial thrombophlebitis, 3.9%; CVC-occlusion/malfunction of thrombotic origin, 6.1%; major arterial events, 1.1%. Severe bleeding and CVC-related infections were observed in 3.5% and 4.6% of cases respectively. A composite end point (any venous thromboembolism or superficial thrombophlebitis or CVC occlusion/malfunction) was defined in order to consider venous thrombotic events with a significant impact on clinical practice. With this criterion, the overall incidence was 12.0% (2.54 cases/1000 catheter days). No factor helped to predict venous thrombotic complications: only thrombocytopenia was associated with a weak trend for a reduced risk (odds ratio 0.52; 95% confidence interval 0.26-1.07). No severe bleeding was observed in those patients who received antithrombotic prophylaxis. This study shows that the impact on clinical practice of symptomatic CVC-related thrombotic complications is not negligible in patients with haematological malignancies.

Venous thromboembolism associated with long-term use of central venous catheters in cancer patients

Long-term central venous catheters (CVCs) have considerably improved the management of cancer patients because they facilitate chemotherapy, transfusions, parenteral nutrition, and blood sampling. However, the use of long-term CVCs, especially for chemotherapy, has been associated with the occurrence of upper-limb deep venous thrombosis (UL-DVT). The incidence of clinically overt UL-DVT related to CVCs has been reported to vary between 0.3% and 28.3%. The incidence of CVC-related UL-DVT screened by venography reportedly varies between 27% and 66%. The incidence of clinically overt pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients with CVC-related UL-DVT ranges from 15% to 25%, but an autopsy-proven PE rate of up to 50% has been reported. Vessel injury caused by the procedure of CVC insertion, venous stasis caused by the indwelling CVC, and cancer-related hypercoagulability are the main pathogenetic factors for CVC-related venous thromboembolism (VTE). Several studies have assessed the benefit of the prophylaxis of UL-DVT after CVC insertion in cancer patients. According to the results of these studies, prophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin or a low fixed dose of warfarin has been recently proposed. However, the limitations of the experimental design of the prophylactic studies do not allow definitive recommendations. The recommended therapy for UL-DVT associated with CVC is based on anticoagulant therapy with or without catheter removal. This review focuses on the epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of VTE in cancer patients with long-term CVC.