Thrombosis, markers of thrombotic risk, indwelling central venous catheters and antithrombotic prophylaxis using low-dose warfarin in subjects with malignant disease

Systematic review of observational studies reporting antiphospholipid antibodies in patients with solid tumors

This review summarizes the evidence on antiphospholipid (aPL) antibodies and related thromboembolic events in patients with solid tumors. Data sources included Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, PubMed ePubs, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through August 2019 without restrictions. Observational studies that evaluated patients with solid tumors for the presence of aPL antibodies were included. Data were extracted and quality was assessed by one reviewer and cross-checked by another. Thirty-three studies were identified. Gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) cancers were the most frequently reported. Compared with healthy patients, patients with GI cancer were more likely to develop anticardiolipin antibodies (risk ratio [RR], 5.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6-9.95), as were those with GU (RR, 7.3; 95% CI, 3.3-16.2) and lung cancer (RR, 5.2; 95% CI, 1.3-20.6). The increased risk for anti-β2-glycoprotein I or lupus anticoagulant was not statistically significant. Patients with lung cancer who had positive aPL antibodies had higher risk of developing thromboembolic events than those who had negative antibodies (RR, 3.8%; 95% CI, 1.2-12.2), while the increased risk in patients with GU cancer was not statistically significant. Deaths due to thromboembolic events were more common among patients with lung cancer who had elevated aPL antibodies. A limitation of this review is that the results are contingent on the reported information. We found an increased risk of developing aPL antibodies in patients with GI, GU, and lung cancers resulting in thromboembolic events and death. Further studies are needed to better understand the pathogenesis and development of aPL antibodies in cancer.

Prophylaxis of thromboembolism during therapy with asparaginase in adults with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia

BACKGROUND

The risk of venous thromboembolism is increased in adults and enhanced by asparaginase-based chemotherapy, and venous thromboembolism introduces a secondary risk of treatment delay and premature discontinuation of key anti-leukaemic agents, potentially compromising survival. Yet, the trade-off between benefits and harms of primary thromboprophylaxis in adults with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) treated according to asparaginase-based regimens is uncertain.  OBJECTIVES: The primary objectives were to assess the benefits and harms of primary thromboprophylaxis for first-time symptomatic venous thromboembolism in adults with ALL receiving asparaginase-based therapy compared with placebo or no thromboprophylaxis. The secondary objectives were to compare the benefits and harms of different groups of primary systemic thromboprophylaxis by stratifying the main results per type of drug (heparins, vitamin K antagonists, synthetic pentasaccharides, parenteral direct thrombin inhibitors, direct oral anticoagulants, and blood-derived products for antithrombin substitution).

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature search on 02 June 2020, with no language restrictions, including (1) electronic searches of Pubmed/MEDLINE; Embase/Ovid; Scopus/Elsevier; Web of Science Core Collection/Clarivate Analytics; and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and (2) handsearches of (i) reference lists of identified studies and related reviews; (ii) clinical trials registries (ClinicalTrials.gov registry; the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry; the World Health Organisation's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP); and pharmaceutical manufacturers of asparaginase including Servier, Takeda, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Ohara Pharmaceuticals, and Kyowa Pharmaceuticals), and (iii) conference proceedings (from the annual meetings of the American Society of Hematology (ASH); the European Haematology Association (EHA); the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO); and the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH)). We conducted all searches from 1970 (the time of introduction of asparaginase in ALL treatment). We contacted the authors of relevant studies to identify any unpublished material, missing data, or information regarding ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs); including quasi-randomised, controlled clinical, cross-over, and cluster-randomised trial designs) comparing any parenteral/oral preemptive anticoagulant or mechanical intervention with placebo or no thromboprophylaxis, or comparing two different pre-emptive anticoagulant interventions in adults aged at least 18 years with ALL treated according to asparaginase-based chemotherapy regimens. For the description of harms, non-randomised observational studies with a control group were eligible for inclusion.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Using a standardised data collection form, two review authors independently screened and selected studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias for each outcome using standardised tools (RoB 2.0 tool for RCTs and ROBINS-I tool for non-randomised studies) and the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. Primary outcomes included first-time symptomatic venous thromboembolism, all-cause mortality, and major bleeding. Secondary outcomes included asymptomatic venous thromboembolism, venous thromboembolism-related mortality, adverse events (i.e. clinically relevant non-major bleeding and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia for trials using heparins), and quality of life. Analyses were performed according to the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. For non-randomised studies, we evaluated all studies (including studies judged to be at critical risk of bias in at least one of the ROBINS-I domains) in a sensitivity analysis exploring confounding.  MAIN RESULTS: We identified 23 non-randomised studies that met the inclusion criteria of this review, of which 10 studies provided no outcome data for adults with ALL. We included the remaining 13 studies in the 'Risk of bias' assessment, in which we identified invalid control group definition in two studies and judged outcomes of nine studies to be at critical risk of bias in at least one of the ROBINS-I domains and outcomes of two studies at serious risk of bias. We did not assess the benefits of thromboprophylaxis, as no RCTs were included. In the main descriptive analysis of harms, we included two retrospective non-randomised studies with outcomes judged to be at serious risk of bias. One study evaluated antithrombin concentrates compared to no antithrombin concentrates. We are uncertain whether antithrombin concentrates have an effect on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.19 (intention-to-treat analysis); one study, 40 participants; very low certainty of evidence). We are uncertain whether antithrombin concentrates have an effect on venous thromboembolism-related mortality (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.94 (intention-to-treat analysis); one study, 40 participants; very low certainty of evidence). We do not know whether antithrombin concentrates have an effect on major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major bleeding, and quality of life in adults with ALL treated with asparaginase-based chemotherapy, as data were insufficient. The remaining study (224 participants) evaluated prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin versus no prophylaxis. However, this study reported insufficient data regarding harms including all-cause mortality, major bleeding, venous thromboembolism-related mortality, clinically relevant non-major bleeding, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, and quality of life. In the sensitivity analysis of harms, exploring the effect of confounding, we also included nine non-randomised studies with outcomes judged to be at critical risk of bias primarily due to uncontrolled confounding. Three studies (179 participants) evaluated the effect of antithrombin concentrates and six studies (1224 participants) evaluated the effect of prophylaxis with different types of heparins. When analysing all-cause mortality; venous thromboembolism-related mortality; and major bleeding (studies of heparin only) including all studies with extractable outcomes for each comparison (antithrombin and low-molecular-weight heparin), we observed small study sizes; few events; wide CIs crossing the line of no effect; and substantial heterogeneity by visual inspection of the forest plots. Although the observed heterogeneity could arise through the inclusion of a small number of studies with differences in participants; interventions; and outcome assessments, the likelihood that bias due to uncontrolled confounding was the cause of heterogeneity is inevitable. Subgroup analyses were not possible due to insufficient data.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We do not know from the currently available evidence, if thromboprophylaxis used for adults with ALL treated according to asparaginase-based regimens is associated with clinically appreciable benefits and acceptable harms. The existing research on this question is solely of non-randomised design, seriously to critically confounded, and underpowered with substantial imprecision. Any estimates of effect based on the existing insufficient evidence is very uncertain and is likely to change with future research.

The Incidence of Venous Thromboembolism and Impact on Survival in Hodgkin Lymphoma

BACKGROUND

Thrombosis increase the acute and long-term morbidity and mortality in malignancy patients. We analyzed venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma, the impact of VTE on survival, predisposing factors for VTE, and predicting value of Khorana and ThroLy score models.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We included 150 adult patients with Hodgkin lymphoma between January 2010 and 2018 at our university hospital.

RESULTS

VTE was observed in 31 patients (20.7%). The types of VTE were 18 upper and 3 lower extremity deep vein thrombosis and 10 pulmonary embolism (1 with lower extremity deep vein thrombosis). Twenty-nine patients developed VTE during the treatment with a median time of episode as 5 months. In logistic regression analysis, a body mass index of >32 kg/m², high fibrinogen levels, initial thrombocytosis and leukocytosis, splenic and extranodal involvement, presence of a central venous line, advanced stage, line of treatment status of thromboprophylaxis, VTE timing, and better Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance scores were observed to be related with VTE. Kaplan Meier survival analysis showed a negative impact of VTE on survival. Khorana and ThroLy risk assessment models were found predictive for VTE (P = .000 and P = .003, respectively), although only ThroLy score was associated with the survival.

CONCLUSION

Thromboprophylaxis and precautions for VTE in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma according to validated risk assessment models can improve prognosis and quality of life owing to the impact of VTE on survival in the study.

Etiology and Management of Upper-Extremity Catheter-Related Thrombosis in Cancer Patients

Central venous access devices are a critical instrument in the treatment and supportive care delivery for oncology patients. Catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) is a common complication of central venous access devices in oncology patients. Risk factors for CRT include patient-, device-, and treatment-related risk factors. Treatment of CRT is indicated to reduce symptoms, prevent catheter malfunction, prevent recurrent DVT or thromboembolic pulmonary embolism, and minimize the risk of post-thrombotic syndrome. Minimal prospective data exist on the prevention and treatment of catheter-related thromboses in cancer patients. As such recommendations largely are derived from data in the lower-extremity DVT and PE studies in cancer and non-cancer patients. Based on the available literature, primary pharmacologic prophylaxis against CRT is not recommended in cancer patients. Treatment options for CRT include catheter removal, anticoagulation, catheter-directed thrombolysis, or surgical thrombectomy. Current evidence-based guidelines recommend LMWH as the anticoagulant of choice. However, recent data showing efficacy and safety of DOACs in cancer-related VTE may be extrapolated to treatment of CRT in cancer patients. In patients with CRT, catheter removal should be pursued if continued vascular access is no longer needed, the catheter is dysfunctional, a catheter-associated infection is present, or if CRT symptoms do not resolve with anticoagulation alone. Catheter-directed thrombolysis is reserved for rare severe cases of CRT. Herein we discuss the pathophysiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and general management of CRT in cancer patients.

Anticoagulation for people with cancer and central venous catheters

BACKGROUND

Central venous catheter (CVC) placement increases the risk of thrombosis in people with cancer. Thrombosis often necessitates the removal of the CVC, resulting in treatment delays and thrombosis-related morbidity and mortality. This is an update of the Cochrane Review published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in people with cancer with a CVC.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature search in May 2018 that included a major electronic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), and Embase (Ovid); handsearching of conference proceedings; checking of references of included studies; searching for ongoing studies; and using the 'related citation' feature in PubMed. This update of the systematic review was based on the findings of a literature search conducted on 14 May 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of unfractionated heparin (UFH), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), vitamin K antagonists (VKA), or fondaparinux or comparing the effects of two of these anticoagulants in people with cancer and a CVC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardized form, we extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Outcomes included all-cause mortality, symptomatic catheter-related venous thromboembolism (VTE), pulmonary embolism (PE), major bleeding, minor bleeding, catheter-related infection, thrombocytopenia, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach (Balshem 2011).

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen RCTs (23 papers) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. These trials enrolled 3420 participants. Seven RCTs compared LMWH to no LMWH (six in adults and one in children), six RCTs compared VKA to no VKA (five in adults and one in children), and three RCTs compared LMWH to VKA in adults.LMWH versus no LMWHSix RCTs (1537 participants) compared LMWH to no LMWH in adults. The meta-analyses showed that LMWH probably decreased the incidence of symptomatic catheter-related VTE up to three months of follow-up compared to no LMWH (risk ratio (RR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 0.81; risk difference (RD) 38 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 13 fewer to 52 fewer; moderate-certainty evidence). However, the analysis did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of LMWH on mortality at three months of follow-up (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.26; RD 14 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 36 fewer to 20 more; low-certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.06 to 36.28; RD 0 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 35 more; very low-certainty evidence), minor bleeding (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.92; RD 14 more per 1000, 95% CI 16 fewer to 79 more; low-certainty evidence), and thrombocytopenia (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.33; RD 5 more per 1000, 95% CI 35 fewer to 58 more; low-certainty evidence).VKA versus no VKAFive RCTs (1599 participants) compared low-dose VKA to no VKA in adults. The meta-analyses did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of low-dose VKA compared to no VKA on mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.55; RD 1 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 34 fewer to 52 more; low-certainty evidence), symptomatic catheter-related VTE (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.64; RD 31 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 62 fewer to 51 more; low-certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 7.14, 95% CI 0.88 to 57.78; RD 12 more per 1000, 95% CI 0 fewer to 110 more; low-certainty evidence), minor bleeding (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.26; RD 15 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 30 fewer to 13 more; low-certainty evidence), premature catheter removal (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.24; RD 29 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 114 fewer to 202 more; low-certainty evidence), and catheter-related infection (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.85; RD 71 more per 1000, 95% CI 109 fewer to 356; low-certainty evidence).LMWH versus VKAThree RCTs (641 participants) compared LMWH to VKA in adults. The available evidence did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of LMWH relative to VKA on mortality (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.59; RD 6 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 41 fewer to 56 more; low-certainty evidence), symptomatic catheter-related VTE (RR 1.83, 95% CI 0.44 to 7.61; RD 15 more per 1000, 95% CI 10 fewer to 122 more; very low-certainty evidence), PE (RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.74 to 3.92; RD 35 more per 1000, 95% CI 13 fewer to 144 more; low-certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 3.11, 95% CI 0.13 to 73.11; RD 2 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 72 more; very low-certainty evidence), or minor bleeding (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.20 to 4.61; RD 1 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 21 fewer to 95 more; very low-certainty evidence). The meta-analyses showed that LMWH probably increased the risk of thrombocytopenia compared to VKA at three months of follow-up (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.39; RD 149 more per 1000, 95% CI 43 fewer to 300 more; moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence was not conclusive for the effect of LMWH on mortality, the effect of VKA on mortality and catheter-related VTE, and the effect of LMWH compared to VKA on mortality and catheter-related VTE. We found moderate-certainty evidence that LMWH reduces catheter-related VTE compared to no LMWH. People with cancer with CVCs considering anticoagulation should balance the possible benefit of reduced thromboembolic complications with the possible harms and burden of anticoagulants.

Risk associated with central catheters for malignant tumor patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The risk of venous thrombosis and mortality associated with central catheter (PICC/CICC) for malignant tumor patients is not definite. So, we carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate it. Among patients with comparing PICC with CICC, odds ratio (OR) or risk ratio (RR) was calculated with a random effect model meta-analysis. The result of the stratification analysis of 7 studies (PICC vs CICC) supported the theory that CICCs were associated with a decrease in the odds ratio of thrombosis compared with PICCs. 7 of 15 studies provided the information about the compared mortality rate of the patients. The result showed that CICCs were associated with a decrease in the odds ratio of thrombosis compared with PICCs (OR = 0.45, 95% CI:0.32-0.62, p < 0.0001, I2 = 0%,Tau2 = 0.00). Meta-analysis of 8 studies of 2639 patients showed that pharmacological deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis drugs could decrease the risk of mortality of malignant tumor patients with CICCs (RR = 0.58, 95% CI:0.48-0.71, Z = 5.32, p < 0.0001, I2 = 71%). We found that PICCs are associated with a raised risk of deep vein thrombosis, and pharmacological deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis drugs is a beneficial factor in decreasing the incidence of thrombosis, while warfarin may decrease the risk of mortality of malignant tumor patients with CICCs.

Venous thromboembolic events in lymphoma patients: Actual relationships between epidemiology, mechanisms, clinical profile and treatment

Venous thromboembolic events (VTE) are an underestimated health problem in patients with lymphoma. Many factors contribute to the pathogenesis of thromboembolism and the interplay between various mechanisms that provoke VTE is still poorly understood. The identification of parameters that are associated with an increased risk of VTE in lymphoma patients led to the creation of several risk-assessment models. The models that evaluate potential VTE risk in lymphoma patients in particular are quite limited, and have to be validated in larger study populations. Furthermore, the VTE prophylaxis in lymphoma patients is largely underused, despite the incidence of VTE. The lack of adequate guidelines for the prophylaxis and treatment of VTE in lymphoma patients, together with a cautious approach due to an increased risk of bleeding, demands great efforts to ensure the implementation of current knowledge in order to reduce the incidence and complications of VTE in lymphoma patients.

How I treat central venous access device-related upper extremity deep vein thrombosis

Central venous access device (CVAD)-related thrombosis (CRT) is a common complication among patients requiring central venous access as part of their medical care. Complications of CRT include pulmonary embolism, recurrent deep venous thrombosis, loss of central venous access, and postthrombotic syndrome. Patient-, device-, and treatment-related factors can influence the risk of CRT. Despite numerous randomized controlled trials, the clinical benefit of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis for the prevention of CRT remains to be established. Therefore, minimizing patient exposure to known risk factors is the best available approach to prevent CRT. Venous duplex is recommended for the diagnosis of CRT. Anticoagulation for at least 3 months or the duration of the indwelling CVAD is recommended for treatment of CRT. Thrombolysis should be considered for patients at low risk for bleeding who have limb-threatening thrombosis or whose symptoms fail to resolve with adequate anticoagulation. CVAD removal should be consider for patients with bacteremia, persistent symptoms despite anticoagulation, and if the CVAD is no longer needed. Superior vena cava filters should be avoided. Prospective studies are needed to define the optimal management of patients with or at risk for CRT.

Systemic Anticoagulant Prophylaxis for Central Catheter–Associated Venous Thrombosis in Cancer Patients

Objective:

To review the literature regarding the incidence of thrombosis in cancer patients with central venous catheters (CVCs) and weigh the evidence supporting thromboprophylaxis in this patient population.

Data Sources:

Clinical literature was identified by searching MEDLINE (1966–February 2007) using the key search terms malignancy, cancer, catheters, prophylaxis, thrombosis, and central venous catheters.

Study Selection and Data Extraction:

An evaluation of retrospective and prospective clinical trials that studied the use of systemic anticoagulants (eg, warfarin, heparin, and low-molecular-weight heparin [LMWH]) to prevent thrombosis with CVCs was performed. Different patient populations, including those manifesting with solid tumor or hematologic malignancy and those undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant, were evaluated for this review.

Data Synthesis:

Thrombosis associated with CVCs is a common complication in cancer patients. Most CVC thrombosis will occur within 30 days after placement, with a majority within 8 days. The incidence may depend on the type of CVC and location of the catheter tip. Despite recommendations against the use of systemic anticoagulation for prophylaxis against CVC thrombosis, a potential role continues to be explored in selected settings. Several variables are noted between published clinical trials, making any comparisons difficult to determine whether any benefit exists. Generally, the use of mini-dose warfarin, LMWH, or low-dose unfractionated heparin did not consistently reach significance in reporting a reduction in CVC thrombosis.

Conclusions:

Available data do not support the routine use of anticoagulants for thromboprophylaxis to prevent CVC-related thrombosis. However, several inconsistencies can be found in the studies done to date. More studies are needed to identify subsets of cancer patients who are at higher risk of developing CVC thrombosis and may benefit from prophylactic systemic anticoagulation.

Development and validation of multivariable predictive model for thromboembolic events in lymphoma patients

Lymphoma patients are at increased risk of thromboembolic events but thromboprophylaxis in these patients is largely underused. We sought to develop and validate a simple model, based on individual clinical and laboratory patient characteristics that would designate lymphoma patients at risk for thromboembolic event. The study population included 1,820 lymphoma patients who were treated in the Lymphoma Departments at the Clinics of Hematology, Clinical Center of Serbia and Clinical Center Kragujevac. The model was developed using data from a derivation cohort (n = 1,236), and further assessed in the validation cohort (n = 584). Sixty-five patients (5.3%) in the derivation cohort and 34 (5.8%) patients in the validation cohort developed thromboembolic events. The variables independently associated with risk for thromboembolism were: previous venous and/or arterial events, mediastinal involvement, BMI>30 kg/m(2) , reduced mobility, extranodal localization, development of neutropenia and hemoglobin level < 100g/L. Based on the risk model score, the population was divided into the following risk categories: low (score 0-1), intermediate (score 2-3), and high (score >3). For patients classified at risk (intermediate and high-risk scores), the model produced negative predictive value of 98.5%, positive predictive value of 25.1%, sensitivity of 75.4%, and specificity of 87.5%. A high-risk score had positive predictive value of 65.2%. The diagnostic performance measures retained similar values in the validation cohort. Developed prognostic Thrombosis Lymphoma - ThroLy score is more specific for lymphoma patients than any other available score targeting thrombosis in cancer patients. Am. J. Hematol. 91:1014-1019, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Incidence of catheter-related thrombosis in acute leukemia patients: a comparative, retrospective study of the safety of peripherally inserted vs. centrally inserted central venous catheters

Central venous catheters are a leading cause of upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis. Concomitant severe thrombocytopenia makes anticoagulation for catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) in patients with acute leukemia (AL) a challenge. Incidence of CRT has been reported to be increased in those with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) vs. those with centrally inserted ones (CICC). Our objective is to compare the incidence rate of CRT in leukemia inpatients who received either a PICC vs. CICC. We retrospectively reviewed adult inpatients admitted to hematology wards with a new diagnosis of AL and who received either a PICC or a CICC. Baseline patient and catheter characteristics were recorded. Our primary outcome was the incidence rate of CRT in each group. The secondary outcomes included rates of infectious and mechanical complications. Six hundred sixty-three patients received at least one PICC (338) or CICC (325) insertion. A total of 1331 insertions were recorded, with 82 (11.7 %) and 41 (6.5 %) CRT in the PICC and CICC groups, respectively. The incidence rates were 1.89 and 0.52 per 1000 catheter day in the PICC and CICC groups, respectively. A PICC, when compared to CICC, was a significant risk factor for CRT (sHR 2.5, p < 0.0001). The prevalence and incidence rates of CRT in our AL patients were higher than predicted for a general cancer patient population. These rates were higher in the PICC group compared to the CICC group. We recommend careful consideration of thrombotic and bleeding risks of AL inpatients when choosing a central venous catheter.

Biomarkers for Prediction of Central Venous Catheter Related-Thrombosis in Patients With Hematological Malignancies

OBJECTIVE

In a prospective setting, we aimed to find associations between biomarkers of the hemostatic system and the occurrence of central venous catheter (CVC)-related thrombosis in patients with hematological malignancies undergoing intensive chemotherapy.

METHODS

The study was conducted between July 2006 and August 2010 at the University Hospital Maastricht, the Netherlands. Consecutive adult patients with hematological malignancies who were going to receive a CVC for intensive chemotherapy were included. The primary end points were (a) symptomatic CVC-related thrombosis and (b) CVC-related infections. Blood samples were taken directly after catheterization, and easy to determine biomarkers (platelet count, leukocyte count, and hemoglobin level) in combination with blood group, factor VIII (FVIII), plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 (PAI-1), activated protein C (APC) resistance, and free protein S antigen were determined.

RESULTS

Blood was collected and analyzed from 168 patients. The incidence of symptomatic CVC-related thrombosis was 9%. In univariate analysis, white blood cell count >10.6 × 10⁹/L, mean FVIII activity, and PAI-1 >12.2 IU/mL were found to be associated with the development of symptomatic CVC-related thrombosis.

CONCLUSION

Elevated leukocyte count, high PAI-1, and high FVIII were associated with an increased incidence of symptomatic CVC-related thrombosis. We hope in future that simple, easy to determine laboratory tests that reflect the hemostatic and fibrinolytic activity in combination with clinical parameters may help to identify hematological patients at highest risk of CVC-related thrombosis and help to tailor the management of thromboprophylaxis in hematological patients undergoing CVC placement.

Anticoagulation for people with cancer and central venous catheters

BACKGROUND

Central venous catheter (CVC) placement increases the risk of thrombosis in people with cancer. Thrombosis often necessitates the removal of the CVC, resulting in treatment delays and thrombosis-related morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in people with cancer with a CVC.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 12, 2012), MEDLINE Ovid (January 1966 to February 2013), and EMBASE Ovid (1980 to February 2013). We handsearched conference proceedings, checked references of included studies, used the 'related citations' feature within PubMed, and searched clinicaltrials.gov for ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of any dose of unfractionated heparin (UFH), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), vitamin K antagonists (VKA), or fondaparinux with no intervention or placebo or comparing the effects of two different anticoagulants in people with cancer and a CVC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Teams of two review authors independently used a standardized form to extract data in duplicate. They resolved any disagreements by discussion. They extracted data on risk of bias, participants, interventions, and outcomes. Outcomes of interest included mortality, symptomatic deep venous thrombosis (DVT), asymptomatic DVT, major bleeding, minor bleeding, infection, and thrombocytopenia. Where possible, we conducted meta-analyses using the random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 9559 identified citations, we included 12 RCTs (17 publications) reporting follow-up data on 2823 participants. Two of the RCTs included children. Of the 10 RCTs including 2564 adults, one compared prophylactic dose heparin with low-dose VKA. Three RCTs compared VKA with no VKA and four RCTs compared heparin with no heparin. Two additional trials had three separate arms comparing heparin, VKA, and no intervention. Prophylactic-dose heparin, compared with no heparin, was associated with a statistically significant reduction in symptomatic DVT (risk ratio (RR) 0.48; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.86; moderate-quality evidence). However, results did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of heparin on mortality (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.26; moderate-quality evidence), major bleeding (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.03 to 7.84; low-quality evidence), infection (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.54 to 1.85; moderate-quality evidence); thrombocytopenia (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.33; moderate-quality evidence), or minor bleeding (RR 1.35; 95% CI: 0.62 to 2.92). Low-dose VKAs, compared with no VKAs, were associated with a statistically significant reduction in asymptomatic DVT (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.62). Results did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of VKAs on mortality (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.22; low-quality evidence), symptomatic DVT (RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.21 to 1.22; low-quality evidence), major bleeding (RR 7.60; 95% CI 0.94 to 61.49; very-low-quality evidence), or minor bleeding (RR 3.14; 95% CI 0.14 to 71.51). The use of heparin, compared with VKA was associated with a statistically significant increase in thrombocytopenia (RR 3.73; 95% CI 2.26 to 6.16; low-quality evidence) and asymptomatic DVT (RR 1.74; 95% CI 1.20 to 2.52). However, results did not show or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect on any of the other outcomes of interest (very-low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with no anticoagulation, we found a statistically significant reduction of symptomatic DVT with heparin and asymptomatic DVT with VKA. Heparin was associated with a higher risk of thrombocytopenia and asymptomatic DVT when compared with VKA. However, the findings did not rule out other clinically important benefits and harms. People with cancer with CVCs considering anticoagulation should balance the possible benefit of reduced thromboembolic complications with the possible harms and burden of anticoagulants.

No impact of endogenous prothrombotic conditions on the risk of central venous line-related thrombotic events in children: results of the KIDCAT study (KIDs with Catheter Associated Thrombosis)

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Central venous lines (CVLs) are the major exogenous risk factor for deep venous thrombosis (DVT) in children. The study objective was to assess whether endogenous prothrombotic conditions contribute to the risk of CVL-related DVT in children.

METHODS

This was a cohort study of consecutive children with heart disease requiring CVLs for perioperative care. CVLs were inserted percutaneously in the upper venous system and patients received prophylaxis with continuous unfractionated heparin (50 u kg(-1)  d(-1) ). Blood samples to test for prothrombotic conditions were collected prospectively and assayed in a blinded fashion. Outcome assessment was by screening for DVT by venography, venous ultrasound and echocardiography.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 90 children, median age 2.7 years (0 months-18 years). Prevalence rates of antithrombin deficiency, protein C deficiency, protein S deficiency, heterozygous factor V Leiden, prothrombin G20210A mutation, methylentetrahydrofolate C677TT genotype, hyperhomocysteinemia, lupus anticoagulant, anticardiolipin antibodies and increased levels of lipoprotein (a) were within the range reported for the general population. At least one prothrombotic condition was present in 38% of children and combined abnormalities in 8%. The incidence of DVT was 28% (25/90), and most DVTs were asymptomatic. None of the prothrombotic conditions showed a significant association with DVT. The population attributable risk (i.e. the risk of DVT in the overall population attributable to a specific condition) did not exceed 2.2%.

CONCLUSION

Prothrombotic conditions did not have an important impact on the risk of DVT in children with short-term CVLs. The results of the study suggest that screening for prothrombotic conditions is not justified in this setting.

Incidence and risk factors for central venous catheter-related thrombosis in hematological patients

Catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) is a serious complication in hematological patients, but the risk factors for its occurrence are not well established. The study objectives were to estimate the incidence of CRT and to identify the risk factors for developing CRT in hematological patients. In a prospective setting, 104 consecutive patients with 200 insertions of central venous catheters were enrolled into the study. The patients were screened for CRT by compression Doppler ultrasound every 10–14 days. Additionally, ultrasonography was performed in the case of clinical symptoms suggesting CRT. Over the course of 6,098 catheter days of follow-up, the incidence of CRT was 13.5 %. In 18/27 cases (66.6 %), radiological evidence of CRT was preceded by clinical symptoms. However, in 9/27 (33.3 %), CRT was clinically asymptomatic. The median times to symptomatic and asymptomatic CRT were 17 (range 1–49) and 8 (range 1–16) catheter days, respectively. In univariate analysis, the risk factors for CRT were exit-site infection (ESI) (P < 0.001), two or more prior chemotherapy lines (P = 0.015), catheter-related blood stream infection (P < 0.001), and Coagulase-negative staphylococci infection (P = 0.002). In multivariate analysis, ESI (OR 5.0; 95 % CI 1.6–6.3; P = 0.006) and two or more prior chemotherapy lines (OR 3.57; 95 % CI 1.27–10.11; P = 0.015) remained significantly associated with the risk of CRT. The results of our study provide information regarding the characteristic features of the patients who are at high risk of thrombosis, for whom Doppler ultrasound screening should be considered.

Incidence and risk factors for developing venous thromboembolism in Japanese with diffuse large b-cell lymphoma

The reported incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in lymphoma patients is 5% to 17% in Western countries. The incidence and risk factors for developing VTE, however, are not well elucidated in Asian lymphoma patients. The incidence and clinical presentations of VTE were retrospectively assessed in 142 patients newly diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) from April 2006 to November 2010 at Keio University Hospital. Clinical data were collected and all episodes of symptomatic VTE confirmed by imaging were included. Patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma or DLBCL transformed from prior low-grade lymphoma were excluded. Fifteen (11%) patients had at least one episode of VTE. Five patients developed VTE before beginning chemotherapy and 8 episodes of VTE occurred during the first three cycles of chemotherapy. By univariate analysis, age 60 or over (odds ratio [OR] 4.81, confidence interval [CI] 1.04-22.20, p=0.04), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 2, 3, or 4 (OR 39.90, CI 5.05-315.20, p=0.0005), and International Prognostic Index high or high-intermediate (OR 9.40, CI 1.20-73.69, p=0.03) were identified as risk factors for developing VTE. By multivariate analysis, performance status 2, 3, or 4 remained a significant risk factor for developing VTE (OR 31.14, CI 3.79-255.62, p=0.001). The incidence of VTE in Japanese with DLBCL was comparable with that in the Western population. Patients with DLBCL and poor performance status at diagnosis were at high risk for developing VTE especially early in the course of treatment.

Anticoagulation for patients with cancer and central venous catheters

BACKGROUND

Central venous catheter (CVC) placement increases the risk of thrombosis in cancer patients. Thrombosis often necessitates the removal of the CVC, resulting in treatment delays and thrombosis related morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation in cancer patients with a CVC.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 1 2010), MEDLINE (January 1966 to February 2010; accessed via OVID), EMBASE (January 1980 to February 2010; accessed via OVID) and ISI the Web of Science (1975 to February 2010). We handsearched conference proceedings, checked references of included studies and used the "related article" feature within PubMed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any dose of unfractionated heparin (UFH), low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), vitamin K antagonists (VKA), or fondaparinux to no intervention or placebo or comparing two different anticoagulants in cancer patients with a CVC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data from each included study and resolved their disagreements by discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 8187 identified citations, we included 12 RCTs enrolling 3611 patients and assessing either prophylactic dose heparin or low dose VKAs. Prophylactic dose heparin was not associated with a statistically significant effect on death (relative risk (RR) = 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.53 to 1.37), symptomatic deep venous thrombosis (DVT) (RR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.28 to 1.05) asymptomatic DVT (RR = 0.81; 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.02), major bleeding (RR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.10 to 4.78), thrombocytopenia (RR = 0.85; 95% CI: 0.49 to 1.46), or infection (RR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.49 to 1.68). Similarly, low dose VKAs were not associated with a statistically significant effect on death (RR = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.15), symptomatic DVT (RR = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.35 to 1.11) or major bleeding (RR = 6.93; 95% CI: 0.86 to 56.08). However, they were associated with a statistically significant reduction in asymptomatic DVT (RR = 0.42; 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.61). Studies comparing heparin to VKA found no effects on any of the outcomes of interest.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no statistically significant effect of heparin or VKA on the outcomes of interest. However, the findings did not rule out clinically important benefits and harms. Patients with cancer with CVCs considering anticoagulation should balance the possible benefit of reduced thromboembolic complications with the possible harms and burden of anticoagulants.

Anticoagulation for patients with cancer and central venous catheters

BACKGROUND

Central venous catheter (CVC) placement increases the risk of thrombosis in cancer patients. Thrombosis often necessitates the removal of the CVC, resulting in treatment delays and thrombosis related morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation in cancer patients with a CVC.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 1 2010), MEDLINE (January 1966 to February 2010; accessed via OVID), EMBASE (January 1980 to February 2010; accessed via OVID) and ISI the Web of Science (1975 to February 2010). We handsearched conference proceedings, checked references of included studies and used the "related article" feature within PubMed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any dose of unfractionated heparin (UFH), low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), vitamin K antagonists (VKA), or fondaparinux to no intervention or placebo or comparing two different anticoagulants in cancer patients with a CVC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data from each included study and resolved their disagreements by discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 8187 identified citations, we included 12 RCTs enrolling 3611 patients and assessing either prophylactic dose heparin or low dose VKAs. Prophylactic dose heparin was not associated with a statistically significant effect on death (relative risk (RR) = 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.53 to 1.37), symptomatic deep venous thrombosis (DVT) (RR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.28 to 1.05) asymptomatic DVT (RR = 0.81; 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.02), major bleeding (RR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.10 to 4.78), thrombocytopenia (RR = 0.85; 95% CI: 0.49 to 1.46), or infection (RR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.49 to 1.68). Similarly, low dose VKAs were not associated with a statistically significant effect on death (RR = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.15), symptomatic DVT (RR = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.35 to 1.11) or major bleeding (RR = 6.93; 95% CI: 0.86 to 56.08). However, they were associated with a statistically significant reduction in asymptomatic DVT (RR = 0.42; 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.61). Studies comparing heparin to VKA found no effects on any of the outcomes of interest.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no statistically significant effect of heparin or VKA on the outcomes of interest. However, the findings did not rule out clinically important benefits and harms. Patients with cancer with CVCs considering anticoagulation should balance the possible benefit of reduced thromboembolic complications with the possible harms and burden of anticoagulants.

Congenital thrombophilia and central venous catheter-related thrombosis in patients with cancer

Central venous catheter (CVC)-related thrombosis is a frequently occurring complication and may cause significant morbidity in patients with cancer. The aim of this review is to discuss the main studies that examined whether a state of thrombophilia increases the risk of CVC-related thrombosis in patients with cancer. The studies were retrieved by an extensive Medline search. Patients with cancer with a CVC and a factor V Leiden mutation have a higher risk of developing CVC-related thrombosis than patients with cancer having a CVC without the mutation. The scarce information available suggests hyperhomocysteinemia to be a risk factor for CVC-related thrombosis. For other congenital thrombophilia factors, the available data are too limited to allow for any definitive conclusions to be made. Because the clinical implications of all these findings remain to be clarified, routine screening of patients with cancer having a CVC for thrombophilia cannot yet be recommended on the basis of the studies discussed.

Thrombotic complications in adult patients with lymphoma: a meta-analysis of 29 independent cohorts including 18 018 patients and 1149 events

Thrombotic complications in hematologic malignancies have important clinical implications. In this meta-analysis we sought to obtain accurate estimates of the thrombotic risk in lymphoma patients. Articles were searched in electronic databases and references. Eighteen articles were identified (29 cohorts, 18 018 patients and 1149 events). Pooled incidence rates (IRs) were calculated by the use of a method based on the exact maximum likelihood binomial distribution. The global IR of thrombosis was 6.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.0%-6.8%). The global IRs of venous or arterial events were 5.3% (95% CI, 5.0%-5.7%) and 1.1% (95% CI, 0.9%-1.2%), respectively. The IR of thrombosis observed in subjects with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) was 6.5% (95% CI, 6.1%-6.9%), significantly greater than that observed for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (4.7%; 95% CI, 3.9%-5.6%). Within NHL, patients with high-grade disease had a greater risk of events (IR 8.3%; 95% CI, 7.0%-9.9%) than low-grade disease (IR 6.3%; 95% CI, 4.5%-8.9%). This meta-analysis shows that the IR of thrombosis in lymphoma patients is quite high, especially in those with NHL at an advanced stage of the disease. These results may help better defining lymphoma populations at high thrombotic risk, to whom prophylactic approaches could be preferentially applied.

Central Venous Catheter-related Complications in Patients with Hematological Malignancies: A Retrospective Analysis of Risk Factors and Prophylactic Measures

We retrospectively analyzed the incidence of thrombotic and infectious complications in relation with the use of central venous catheters (CVCs), in a series of patients with hematological malignancies and low platelet and leucocyte counts.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

126 patients with hematological malignancies were analyzed. A total of 207 CVCs were implanted: 137 centrally (CICCs) and 70 peripherally (PICCs). The median duration of the CVCs was 19 days for a total of 4051 catheter-days. Antithrombotic prophylaxis was unfractionated heparin (UFH), 2,500 IU daily by 24 h continuous infusion in 169 CVCs, low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), 3,800 IU daily by single bolus intravenous injection (i.v.) in 21 and warfarin in one. No prophylaxis was given in 16 CVCs. Thrombotic complications developed in 15.5% of the CVCs (7.9 events/1000 catheter days), and the frequency of infectious complications was 10.6% (5.2 events/1000 catheter days). On multivariate analysis thromboses were more frequent and earlier with PICCs than CICCs (p = 0.0001), and in patients on UFH (16.6%) than in LMWH prophylaxis (4.7%), but the last difference was not statistically significant. In conclusions the incidence of thrombotic complications in our series was comparable to that observed in non-thrombocytopenic patients and was significantly higher in those carrying PICC than CICC (p = 0.0001). There were fewer thrombotic events in the patients receiving i.v. LMWH prophylaxis than in those receiving i.v. UFH. The use of anticoagulants was safe and not associated with hemorrhages.

Risk of thrombosis and infections of central venous catheters and totally implanted access ports in patients treated for cancer

INTRODUCTION

Thrombosis and infections are well known complications of central venous catheters and totally implanted access ports. These complications lead to increased costs due to prolonged hospitalisation, increased antibiotics use and need for replacement. The objectives of the study were to document the occurrence of catheter related thrombosis and infections in patients with central venous catheters and totally implanted chest ports in cancer patients and to investigate whether factor V Leiden is a risk factor for catheter related thrombosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between February 2002 and November 2004, 43 patients with central venous catheter or totally implanted access port were followed up to document the occurrence of catheter related thrombosis and infections. Patients received chemotherapy either for haematological malignancy or for solid tumours. Factor V Leiden (R506Q) was determined by restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis. Follow-up period ended in April 2007.

RESULTS

Catheter related thrombosis occurred in 4 patients (4/43; 9.3%) with a totally implanted access port. None of the 3 patients with factor V Leiden had catheter related infection or thrombosis. Catheter related infections occurred in 15 patients: 10 patients (23.3%; 10/43) with central venous catheter and 5 patients (11.6%; 5/43) with totally implanted access ports. Time to infection was 32.5 days in the central venous catheter group compared to 88 days in the totally implanted access port group.

CONCLUSION

A higher incidence of catheter related infections was observed in patients with central venous catheters in contrast to patients with totally implanted access ports were venous thrombosis was more frequent.

Thrombophilia and risk of venous thrombosis in patients with cancer

Venous thrombosis is a common and severe complication in patients with cancer. We reviewed studies assessing whether a state of acquired or congenital thrombophilia influenced the risk of thrombosis in patients with cancer. The results are equivocal. However, the majority of studies were of limited size. The influence of thrombophilia in patients with cancer may be more difficult to demonstrate than in the general population, the risk of thrombosis due to cancer per se possibly outweighing the contribution of thrombophilic factors. Moreover, the results may depend on the genetic background of the population, the type of cancer, the type of thrombosis, and the chemotherapeutic treatment. Nevertheless, it appears that factor V Leiden or G20210A prothrombin gene mutation increases the risk of venous thromboembolism about 2- to 4-fold, compared with patients with cancer without either of these mutations. Similar results were observed for the occurrence of central venous catheter-associated thrombosis. Antiphospholipid antibodies and acquired resistance to activated protein C were frequently observed in patients with cancer and appeared to favor the occurrence of thrombosis. The role of hyperhomocysteinemia deserves further investigation. Since the clinical implications of these findings remain to be clarified, routine screening of cancer patients for thrombophilia cannot yet be recommended on the basis of these studies. Studies designed to assess the value of thromboprophylaxis in high-risk patients, including thrombophilic patients, with long-term central venous catheters may be valuable.

Association between inherited thrombophilic abnormalities and central venous catheter thrombosis in patients with cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is increased in cancer patients with central venous catheters (CVC). Factor (F)V Leiden and the G20210A prothrombin mutation (PTM) may play a role in causing catheter-related DVT in patients with cancer. However, information on the association between these thrombophilic abnormalities and CVC-related thrombosis are scarce.

PURPOSE

To assess the risk of CVC-related thrombosis associated with these two thrombophilic disorders.

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE databases (up to March 2007); reference lists of retrieved articles. Studies comparing the prevalence of prothrombotic abnormalities in cancer patients with CVC-related thrombosis and in a control group of cancer subjects with CVC without thrombosis. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted study characteristics, quality and outcomes. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for each trial and pooled.

RESULTS

Ten studies involving 1000 patients were included. The pooled OR for CVC-related thrombosis was 4.6 (95% CI: 2.6, 8.1) in patients with FV Leiden. The pooled OR for CVC-related thrombosis was 4.9 (95% CI: 1.7, 14.3) in patients with PTM. The estimated attributable risk of CVC-related thrombosis was 13.1% for FV Leiden and 4.5% for PTM.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis suggests that the presence of FV Leiden and PTM is associated with CVC-related thrombosis.

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.

Prevention of central venous catheter-associated thrombosis: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Anticoagulant prophylaxis in patients with central venous catheters is controversial. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of anticoagulant prophylaxis in patients with central venous catheters.

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched up to May 2006, supplemented by manual searches of conference proceedings and bibliographies.

RESULTS

Fifteen trials were included. Unfractionated heparin infusion, oral fixed low-dose vitamin K antagonist, and subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin were evaluated. For all catheter-associated deep vein thrombosis (symptomatic and asymptomatic combined), the summary relative risks ranged from 0.31 to 0.73 (all achieved statistical significance). For symptomatic deep vein thrombosis, the summary relative risks ranged from 0.28 to 0.72, but did not achieve statistical significance for any individual regimen.

CONCLUSION

Anticoagulant prophylaxis is effective for preventing all catheter-associated deep vein thrombosis in patients with central venous catheters. The effectiveness for preventing symptomatic venous thromboembolism, including pulmonary embolism, remains uncertain.

Anticoagulation for thrombosis prophylaxis in cancer patients with central venous catheters

BACKGROUND

Central venous catheter (CVC) placement increases the risk of thrombosis in cancer patients. Thrombosis often necessitates the removal of the CVC, resulting in treatment delays and thrombosis related morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation in reducing venous thromboembolic (VTE) events in cancer patients with CVC.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A comprehensive search for studies of anticoagulation in cancer patients up to January 2006 was conducted in the following databases: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials ( CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and ISI the Web of Science.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing unfractionated heparin (UFH), low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), vitamin K antagonists (VKA), fondaparinux or ximelagatran to no intervention or placebo in cancer patients with a CVC or comparing two different anticoagulants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data was extracted on methodological quality, patients, interventions and outcomes including all cause mortality (primary outcome), premature CVC removal, catheter-related infections, CVC site and non CVC site deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), major and minor bleeding and thrombocytopenia.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 3986 identified citations nine RCTs were included in the meta-analysis including one published as an abstract and one focusing on paediatric patients not included in the meta-analysis. None of these RCTs tested fondaparinux or ximelagatran. The use of heparin in cancer patients with CVC was associated with a trend towards a reduction in symptomatic DVT (Relative Risk (RR) = 0.43; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.18 to 1.06), but the data did not show any statistically significant effect on mortality (RR = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.40 to 1.36), infection (RR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.36 to 2.28), major bleeding (RR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.10 to 4.78) or thrombocytopenia (RR = 0.85; 95% CI: 0.49 to 1.46). The effect warfarin on symptomatic DVT was not statistically significant (RR = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.30 to 1.27). When studies assessing different types of anticoagulants were pooled, symptomatic DVT rates were significantly reduced (RR = 0.56; 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.92).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Cancer patients with CVC considering anticoagulation, should consider the possible benefit of reduced incidence of thromboembolic complications with the burden and harms of anticoagulation. Future studies should be adequately powered and evaluate the effects of newer anticoagulants such as fondaparinux and ximelagatran in cancer patients with CVC.

Doit-on prescrire une prophylaxie de la maladie thromboembolique aux patients porteurs d'un cathéter central et/ou recevant unechimiothérapie pour une tumeur solide?

INTRODUCTION

Deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism are well-recognized complications of cancer, especially in patients with a venous access device or receiving chemotherapy. The pathogenic mechanisms of thrombosis in cancer patients involve a complex interaction between the patient's tumor cells and hemostatic system. Chemotherapy and central venous catheters increase the risk of thromboembolism. Prophylactic treatment for these patients remains controversial.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review using the Medline database and abstract books for meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Hematology since 2000. Our search focused on clinical trials of primary prevention of venous catheter-related thrombosis or prevention of chemotherapy-related venous thromboembolism in cancer patients.

RESULTS

Ten studies evaluating primary prevention of patients with central catheters were identified, and their results are contradictory. Currently only one study has examined prevention of chemotherapy-related venous thromboembolism, in women with metastatic breast cancer. Its results cannot be extrapolated to other tumors.

CONCLUSION

Systematic prophylaxis cannot yet be recommended. In the near future we must improve our knowledge of the risk factors of these complications. Prophylaxis should be individualized for each patient. New anticoagulant drugs should be tested in cancer patients.

Central venous line-related thrombosis in children

Central venous lines are used in critically ill children and in children with chronic conditions for the administration of intravenous therapy, such as fluids, medications, total parenteral nutrition and blood products. Although the use of central venous lines has greatly improved the quality of care in these children, these catheters may cause serious mechanical, infectious and thrombotic complications. The reported frequency of catheter thrombosis in children is low as 5% in studies including only symptomatic cases and high as 50% in studies where patients are systematically screened for catheter-related thrombosis. The risk factors for catheter-related thrombosis in children are associated with the methods used for catheter insertion and with individual patient characteristics, underlying diagnosis and treatment. The management of catheter-related thrombosis is largely dependent on the requirement of the catheter. If no longer required or nonfunctioning the catheter should be removed. If access is still required and the catheter is functioning, treatment with anticoagulation is recommended in the absence of contraindications. The management of radiographically detected asymptomatic thrombosis in children is less clear. Clinical studies of prophylaxis for catheter-related thrombosis are inconclusive and no definitive recommendations for prophylaxis in adults or in children with central venous thrombosis can be made. Properly designed studies are needed to assess the role of prophylactic anticoagulation for preventing catheter-related thrombosis.

Thrombophilia in children with venous thromboembolic disease

Venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) in children are usually associated with underlying clinical conditions such as central venous line, cancer and cardiac diseases. The objective of this review is to present the importance of thrombophilia to the occurrence of childhood VTE. The reported prevalence of thrombophilia in children with VTE varies extremely between 10% and 78% in different registries. The variation in the reported prevalence most probably reflects differences in the clinical characteristics of the children studied and differences in study designs. The initial management of children with thrombophilia and VTE is similar to those individuals who do not have a specific inherited thrombophilic risk factor, except in the rare events of homozygous deficiencies of prothrombotic coagulation proteins. The impact of thrombophilic markers on long-term therapy and outcome of children with VTE has not been completely clarified. According to the current guidelines for thrombophilia, all children with VTE should be tested for a full panel of genetic and acquired prothrombotic traits. However, re-evaluation of co-morbid risk factors other than thrombophilic markers and careful consideration of the prognostic value of thrombophilic markers might help to change future attitude from the rigidity of current guidelines to more rational schemes.

Prevalence of inherited prothrombotic abnormalities and central venous catheter-related thrombosis in haematopoietic stem cell transplants recipients

In this prospective study, we assessed the incidence of central venous catheter (CVC)-related thrombosis in haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients. We determined the contribution of inherited prothrombotic abnormalities in blood coagulation to CVC-related thrombosis in these patients. The study was conducted between May 2002 and September 2004. CVCs were externalized, nontunneled, polyurethane double lumen catheters. Before catheter insertion, laboratory prothrombotic markers included factor V Leiden, the prothrombin gene Gly20210A mutation, plasma antithrombin levels, and protein C and S activity. All patients were systematically examined by ultrasonography just before, or <24 h after, catheter removal, and in case of clinical signs of thrombosis. A total of 171 patients were included during the 28-month study period. Five (2.9%) and three (1.7%) patients had evidence of protein C and protein S deficiency, respectively. Only one patient had an antithrombin deficiency (0.6%). In total, 10 patients (5.8%) were heterozygous for the factor V Leiden mutation, and one patient had heterozygous prothrombin G20210A mutation (0.6%). We observed a CVC-related thrombosis in 13 patients (7.6%). Thrombosis was diagnosed in four out of 20 patients (20%) with a inherited prothrombotic abnormality compared to nine of 151 patients (6%) who did not have a thrombophilic marker (relative risk 3.3 CI 95% 1.1-9.9). Our results suggest that inherited prothrombotic abnormalities contribute substantially to CVC-related thrombosis in HSCT recipients. In view of physicians' reluctance to prescribe prophylactic anticoagulant treatment in these patients, a priori determination of inherited prothrombotic abnormalities may form a basis to guide these treatment decisions.

Thrombose symptomatique sur cathéter veineux central de longue durée en oncologie : un score de risque prédictif?

BACKGROUND

Central venous catheters are essential to management of cancer patients. Thrombotic complications are potentially severe, but it is difficult to prescribe systematically a prophylactic treatment. So it is necessary to identify the higher risk patients who need a prophylaxis.

AIM

To identify factors associated with the development of clinically significant venous thrombosis in cancer patients with long-term catheters.

METHODS

Monocentric prospective study about 5447 long-term central venous catheters inserted into patients receiving treatment for solid tumours (50% of breast cancers). Clinically significant catheter-related thromboses are confirmed by ultrasonography, phlebography or scanner.

RESULTS

The median duration of catheter use is 147 days. There are 135 clinically significant catheter-related thromboses. The risk for thrombosis is 0.1149 events per 1000 device days. The incidence of symptomatic thrombosis is 0.9% at 30 days, 1.36% at 60 days, 1.83% at 90 days and 2.25% at 120 days. The multivariate analysis shows that female sex, duration of insertion procedure (more than 25 minutes) and place of insertion (femoral place) are factors associated with clinically significant venous thrombosis. The right subclavian insertion causes less risk. The catheters with their tip too "high" in the superior vena cava are systematically changed, so that the position of the catheter tip does not appear as a risk factor in our study. The disease stage and the type of treatments are not well examined.

CONCLUSIONS

A predictive score can be made with the three risk factors that have been identified. Thanks to this score it is possible to determine the patients with higher risk for clinically significant catheter-related venous thrombosis. These patients must be more frequently watched over and must receive a prophylactic treatment. The best prophylaxis has to be determined.

Central venous catheter related thrombosis in haematology patients and prediction of risk by screening with Doppler-ultrasound

Patients with a central venous catheter (CVC) who receive intensive chemotherapy or a stem cell transplantation for haematological disease are at risk for developing CVC-related thrombosis. To study the incidence of thrombosis, 105 consecutive patients underwent serial Doppler-ultrasound and we evaluated whether clinically manifest thrombosis could be predicted by screening with Doppler-ultrasound. Patients with subclavian or jugular inserted CVCs were clinically assessed each day for signs and symptoms of thrombosis. Additional Doppler-ultrasound screens were performed weekly by an independent physician in all patients until CVC removal. Doppler-ultrasound recordings were assessed by two blinded observers. In cases of clinically suspected thrombosis, the attending physicians followed routine diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. The overall cumulative incidence of CVC-related thrombosis was 28.6% (30 of 105 patients). Of the 30 patients with thrombosis, 26 had subclinical thrombosis by Doppler-ultrasound, nine of whom developed clinically manifest thrombosis later. Four patients had clinically manifest thrombosis without prior abnormal Doppler-ultrasound. In cases of subclinical thrombosis the risk of developing symptomatic disease increased sevenfold (34.6% vs. 5.1%). Doppler-ultrasound screening may be useful to identify those patients that are at high and low risk for clinically manifest CVC-related thrombosis.

Central line thrombosis in patients with cancer

Central venous catheters are used frequently to care for patients with cancer and often serve as long-term venous access. Catheter-related central venous thrombosis is a serious and common complication in these patients. The incidence of this event ranges from 2 to 40%. Potential risk factors are catheter position, size of the catheter, and perhaps site of insertion. The diagnosis of catheter-associated deep venous thrombosis may be difficult. Doppler ultrasound has a lower accuracy in this setting than it does in symptomatic lower extremity venous thrombosis. No clinical management studies have validated the practice of withholding anticoagulant therapy in patients with a negative Doppler ultrasound. The practice of prophylaxis with low-dose warfarin or low-molecular-weight heparin has been recommended, although results from recent studies have called this into question. Larger, prospective, randomized trials with a uniform population of patients or stratification of risk factors will be essential to address this issue further.

Minidose warfarin prophylaxis for catheter-associated thrombosis in cancer patients: can it be safely associated with fluorouracil-based chemotherapy?

PURPOSE

The use of prophylactic low-dose oral warfarin in cancer patients with a central venous catheter (CVC) in place has an established role in the prevention of thrombotic complications and is associated with a low hemorrhagic risk. Despite the literature indicating an adverse interaction between warfarin and fluorouracil (FU), the frequency of this interaction and whether it occurs when minidose warfarin is used is unknown. We analyzed the incidence of alterations in the International Normalized Ratio (INR) and bleeding in cancer patients given minidose warfarin during treatment with continuous-infusion FU-based regimens.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between July 1999 and August 2001, 95 cancer patients were evaluated. Forty-one patients (43%) had liver metastases. Seventy-nine patients (83%) had a Groshong CVC (Bard Access System, Salt Lake City, UT), and 16 (17%) had a Port-a-Cath device (Bard Access System). All patients received oral warfarin at a dose of 1 mg/daily as prophylaxis beginning the day after the catheter was positioned. An INR of more than 1.5 was considered significantly elevated.

RESULTS

INR elevation occurred in 31 patients (33%), with 18 patients (19%) having an INR more than 3.0. Twelve (39%) of the 31 patients had liver metastases. Bleeding was observed in eight patients (8%); seven of these patients had elevated INR levels. We observed INR elevations in 12 of 21 patients treated with a FU, folinic acid, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) regimen, 11 of 40 treated with a de Gramont regimen (FU and folinic acid), and five of 19 treated with a FU, folinic acid, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) regimen.

CONCLUSION

A high incidence of INR abnormalities was observed in our cohort of patients, especially those treated with FOLFOX regimen. Clinicians should be aware of this interaction and should regularly monitor the prothrombin time in patients receiving warfarin and FU.

Bleeding and thrombotic complications in critically ill patients with cancer

Alterations in hemostasis are common in patients with cancer admitted to the ICU. Depending on the underlying disease and specific hemostatic abnormality, the patient with cancer may develop bleeding, thrombosis, or both, such as DIC. Bleeding complications usually result from abnormalities in platelets or deficiency of coagulation factors and require specific blood or coagulation factor replacement. Similarly, critically ill patients with cancer are predisposed to thrombotic complications such as DVT, PE, and central vein thrombosis, the last as a result of the widespread use of long-term indwelling catheter devices. Advances in diagnostic imaging and the availability of newer and more potent anticoagulant agents have facilitated the care of these patients greatly. Ultimately, it is hoped that a thorough understanding of the various disturbances in hemostasis, innovative treatment approaches, and implementation of preventive strategies in patients with cancer will lead to decreased morbidity and improved survival rates of critically ill patients with cancer in the ICU.