Current management strategies and long-term clinical outcomes of upper extremity venous thrombosis

Incidence and clinical progression of asymptomatic peripherally inserted central catheter-related thrombosis in solid neoplasm patients: ultrasound insights from a prospective cohort study

Background

Managing central venous catheters in patients with neoplasms is challenging, and peripherally inserted central catheter PORT (PICC-PORT) has emerged as a promising option for safety and efficacy. However, understanding the clinical progression of catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) in cancer patients with central venous catheters remains limited, especially in certain neoplasm types associated with a higher risk of venous thrombosis.

Objectives

This study aims to assess the effectiveness of ultrasound-guided management in detecting and treating asymptomatic CRT in cancer patients with PICC.

Methods

In this prospective cohort study of 120 patients with solid neoplasms receiving chemotherapy, we investigated the incidence of isolated upper-extremity superficial vein thrombosis, upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis, and fibrin sheath formation through ultrasound follow-up at 30 and 90 days after catheter insertion. We analyzed risk factors associated with CRT and compared incidence rates between PICC-PORT and traditional PICC.

Results

Among the cohort, 69 patients (57.5%) had high-risk thromboembolic neoplasm, and 31 cases (25.8%) of CRT were observed, mostly within 30 days, with only 7 cases (22.6%) showing symptoms. Traditional PICC use (odds ratio, 5.86; 95% CI, 1.14-30) and high-risk thromboembolic neoplasm (odds ratio, 4.46; 95% CI, 1.26-15.81) were identified as independent risk factors for CRT.

Conclusion

The majority of CRT present asymptomatically within the first 30 days of venous catheter insertion in patients with solid neoplasms. Ultrasound follow-up is valuable for detecting asymptomatic CRT. The risk of CRT was lower with PICC-PORT than with PICC. Additionally, the risk of CRT was found to be higher in patients with high-risk thromboembolic neoplasms. It is crucial for larger studies to confirm the utility of treating asymptomatic thromboses and isolated superficial thrombosis.

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

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

Risk for recurrence of symptomatic upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis in patients without cancer: Analysis of three RIETE cohorts

BACKGROUND

The natural history of patients with a pacemaker-related upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) has not been consistently studied.

METHODS

We used the RIETE registry data to compare the outcomes during anticoagulation and after its discontinuation in noncancer patients with symptomatic UEDVT associated with a pacemaker, other catheters, or no catheter. The major outcome was the composite of symptomatic pulmonary embolism or recurrent DVT.

RESULTS

As of February 2022, 2578 patients with UEDVT were included: 156 had a pacemaker-related UEDVT, 557 had other catheters, and 1865 had no catheter. During anticoagulation, 61 patients (2.3%) developed recurrent VTE, 38 had major bleeding (1.4%), and 90 died (3.4%). After its discontinuation, 52 patients (4.4%) had recurrent acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) and six had major bleeding (0.5%). On multivariable analysis, there were no differences among subgroups in the rates of VTE recurrences or major bleeding during anticoagulation. After its discontinuation, patients with a pacemaker-related UEDVT had a higher risk for VTE recurrences than those with no catheter (adjusted OR: 4.59; 95% CI: 1.98-10.6).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with pacemaker-related UEDVT are at increased risk for VTE recurrences after discontinuing anticoagulation. If our findings are validated in adequately designed trials, this may justify changes in the current recommendations on the duration of anticoagulation.

Left brachiocephalic venous thrombus initially presenting as acute aortic syndrome

Upper extremity deep venous thrombosis (UEDVT) is rare but carries significant morbidity. Primary UEDVT presents non-specifically and there are no clear diagnostic or management guidelines, which are essential for early treatment to prevent potentially devastating complications such as pulmonary embolus or post-thrombotic pain syndrome. A patient with left brachiocephalic vein UEDVT initially diagnosed radiographically as an acute aortic syndrome and referred to a cardiothoracic unit is presented. Computed tomography venogram confirmed the diagnosis of UEDVT and therapeutic anticoagulation was started. This case highlights the need for validated diagnostic and management algorithms for UEDVT. Furthermore, this relatively rare condition should be considered for patients with acute chest pain and abnormal imaging referred to surgical units.

Low-dose apixaban or rivaroxaban as secondary prophylaxis of upper extremity deep vein thrombosis

Upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) may occur without inciting factor or may be secondary to malignancy, surgery, trauma, central venous catheter or related to thoracic outlet syndrome (TOS). International guidelines recommend anticoagulant treatment for at least three months, in particular the use of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). No data on extended anticoagulant therapy and reduced dose of DOACs have been reported in patients affected by UEDVT with persistent thrombotic risk (active cancer, major congenital thrombophilia) or without affected vein recanalization. In our retrospective observational study, including 43 patients, we treated secondary UEDVT with DOACs. In the acute phase of thrombosis (median time of 4 months), we used therapeutic dose of DOACs; the 32 patients with permanent thrombotic risk factors or without recanalization of the UEDVT were shifted to low-dose DOACs (apixaban 2.5 mg twice daily or rivaroxaban 10 mg daily). During therapy with full-dose DOACs, 1 patient presented recurrence of thrombosis; no thromboembolic events were observed during treatment with low-dose DOACs. During full-dose treatment, 3 patients presented minor hemorrhagic complications; no hemorrhagic events were observed during DOACs at low dose. We think our preliminary data could support the indication to extend the anticoagulation with dose reduction of DOACs in patients affected by UEDVT and no-transient thrombotic risk. These data should be confirmed in randomized controlled prospective study.

Upper extremity deep vein thrombosis: An intensivist’s perspective

Upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) is less common than lower extremity DVT but is a cause of significant morbidity and mortality in intensive care unit patients. Increasing cancer incidence, prolonged life expectancy and increasing use of intravascular catheters and devices has led to an increased incidence of UEDVT. It is also associated with high rates of complications like pulmonary embolism, post-thrombotic syndrome and recurrent thrombosis. Clinical prediction scores and D-dimer may not be as useful in identifying UEDVT; hence, a high suspicion index is required for diagnosis. Doppler ultrasound is commonly employed for diagnosis, but other tests like computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging venography may also be required in some patients. Contrast venography is rarely used in patients with clinical and ultrasound findings discrepancies. Anticoagulant therapy alone is sufficient in most patients, and thrombolysis and surgical decompression is seldom indicated. The outcome depends on the cause and underlying comorbidities.

Cannula provoked upper extremity superficial vein thrombophlebitis: are we overtreating?

Cannula provoked upper extremity superficial vein thrombophlebitis (UESVT) is common. Retrospective audit of 93 consecutive patients, 51% male, median age 57 years (range 20-91), with symptomatic UESVT revealed varied management including symptomatic management (37%), prophylactic (37%) and higher dose anticoagulation (27%). There was 2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0-7.6) thrombus extension and 1% (95% CI 0-5.9) major bleeding, both limited to cancer. We argue anticoagulation is unnecessary in most UESVT patients.

Edoxaban: front-line treatment for brachiocephalic vein thrombosis in primitive mediastinal seminoma: A case report and literature review

RATIONALE

Venous thromboembolism is a feared frequent complication of cancer with a 2-way relationship. Low molecular weight heparin is the mainstay of treatment. The use of direct oral anticoagulants is supported by established evidence for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis also in active cancer and they are prioritized over low molecular weight heparin for cancer-associated thrombosis according to current guidelines. However, upper limb deep vein thrombosis is poorly studied with scant data on the use of direct oral anticoagulants in noncatheter-related deep vein thrombosis. We report the case of a patient with noncatheter-related deep vein thrombosis and a rare tumor site effectively and safely treated with a direct oral anticoagulant, edoxaban, after lack of efficacy with low molecular weight heparin.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 35-year-old man with primitive mediastinal seminoma presented at our Cardio-Oncology Unit for prechemotherapy assessment.

DIAGNOSIS

Persistent brachiocephalic deep vein thrombosis, despite full-dose enoxaparin, was detected at ultrasonography.

INTERVENTION

We decided to switch the anticoagulant treatment from enoxaparin to edoxaban.

OUTCOME

The 3-month ultrasonography showed almost total regression of the deep vein thrombosis without any adverse effects and a good patient compliance.

LESSONS

We conducted a literature review on upper limb deep vein thrombosis, since its management is challenging due to inconsistency of evidence. This report highlights the benefits of direct oral anticoagulants compared to low molecular weight heparins in cancer-associated thrombosis therapy in terms of efficacy, safety and ease of use.

[Arm Swelling with a Camouflaged Cause]

Arm Swelling with a Camouflaged Cause Abstract. We report on a 72-year-old patient who presented to the emergency department due to a proximal multiple-fragment humeral fracture on the left. Despite correct therapeutic approaches, there was no improvement in the left arm swelling. Further investigations showed a provoked arm vein thrombosis on the left with a post-humeral fracture on the left. After therapeutic anticoagulation, the swelling regressed immediately, but with persistent lymphedema of the left hand.

Anticoagulant treatment for upper extremity deep vein thrombosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Data on anticoagulant treatment for upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) are largely derived from studies on usual site venous thromboembolism (VTE).

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of anticoagulant therapy for UEDVT.

PATIENTS/METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was conducted for studies including patients with UEDVT. Primary outcomes were recurrent VTE and major bleeding. Secondary outcomes included clinically-relevant non-major bleeding and all-cause mortality. Summary estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by random-effect meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 1473 patients from 11 prospective and nine retrospective studies were included. Sixty percent of patients had an indwelling catheter and 56.1% had cancer. Anticoagulant treatment consisted of direct oral anticoagulants, low molecular weight heparin followed by vitamin K antagonists, and low molecular weight heparin alone in 45.1%, 35.0%, and 19.9% of patients, respectively. During a median follow-up of 13 months, recurrent VTE occurred in 3% of patients (95% CI: 2-4; 21/1334 patients), major bleeding in 3% (95% CI: 2%-5%; 29/1235 patients), clinically-relevant non-major bleeding in 4% (95% CI: 3-6; 40/1075 patients), and all-cause mortality in 9% (95% CI: 5-15; 108/1084 patients). Rates of these outcomes were not significantly different between patients with or without cancer, patients with or without an indwelling catheter, and among those receiving different anticoagulant treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with UEDVT, anticoagulant treatment is associated with a low risk of recurrent VTE and a nonnegligible risk of major bleeding.

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.

Upper extremity deep vein thrombosis in COVID-19: Incidence and correlated risk factors in a cohort of non-ICU patients

Background

Venous thromboembolism is a frequent complication of COVID-19 infection. Less than 50% of pulmonary embolism (PE) is associated with the evidence of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) of the lower extremities. DVT may also occur in the venous system of the upper limbs especially if provoking conditions are present such as continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of UEDVT in patients affected by moderate-severe COVID-19 infection and to identify potential associated risk factors for its occurrence.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients affected by moderate-severe COVID-19 infection admitted to our unit. In accordance with the local protocol, all patients had undergone a systematic screening for the diagnosis of UEDVT, by vein compression ultrasonography (CUS). All the patients were receiving pharmacological thromboprophylaxis according to international guidelines recommendations. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify risk factors associated with UEDVT.

Results

257 patients were included in the study, 28 patients were affected by UEDVT with an incidence of 10.9% (95% CI, 7.1–14.7). At univariate analysis UEDVT appeared to be significantly associated (p< 0.05) with pneumonia, ARDS, PaO2/FiO2, D-dimer value higher than the age adjusted cut off value and need for CPAP ventilation. Multivariate analysis showed a significant association between UEDVT and the need for CPAP ventilation (OR 5.95; 95% IC 1.33–26.58). Increased mortality was found in patients affected by UEDVT compared to those who were not (OR 3.71; 95% CI, 1.41–9.78).

Conclusions

UEDVT can occur in COVID-19 patients despite adequate prophylaxis especially in patients undergoing helmet CPAP ventilation. Further studies are needed to identify the correct strategy to prevent DVT in these patients.

Upper extremities deep vein thrombosis treated with oral direct anticoagulants: A prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Limited data are available on the role of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for the treatment of upper extremities deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT).

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of DOACs in the treatment of UEDVT.

METHODS

Patients with an objectively confirmed acute UEDVT treated with DOACs were merged from prospective cohorts to a collaborative database. Primary study outcomes were recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) and major bleeding occurring during DOAC treatment.

RESULTS

Overall, 188 patients were included in the study: mean age 52.4 ± 20.4 years, males 43.6%, patients with active cancer 29.2%. Twenty-nine percent of patients had 2 or more risk factors for VTE, 33.0% had catheter-related or pacemaker-related UEDVT. In 13.8% of patients, DOACs were started one month after UEDVT diagnosis or later. Active cancer was an independent predictor for delayed initiation of DOACs (OR 8.1, 95% CI 3.0-22.2). Mean duration of treatment with DOACs was 5.1 ± 2.8 months. During treatment with DOACs, recurrent VTE occurred in 0.9 per 100 patient-year, major bleeding in 1.7 and all-cause deaths in 6.0 per 100 patient-year. No fatal bleeding or fatal VTE recurrence were observed. During 232.1 patient-years of follow-up after DOAC withdrawal, recurrent VTE occurred in 3.0 per 100 patient-year. The 2019 ESC categories for risk of VTE recurrences were able to discriminate patient groups at different risk of events in the on and off-treatment periods.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data support the feasibility as well as the effectiveness and safety of DOACs for the treatment of acute UEDVT.

Upper extremity deep vein thrombosis treated with direct oral anticoagulants: a multi-center real world experience

Upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) accounts for about 5-10% of all cases of deep vein thrombosis (DVT). It is often associated with cancer and/or presence of a central venous catheter (CVC), but it may also occur in the absence of these favoring conditions. The safety and efficacy of using direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in subjects with UEDVT has not been systematically evaluated and the only data available in the literature derive from anecdotal evidence, analysis of registries, and small single-centre studies. In addition, a specific analysis of UEDVT not associated with cancer and/or CVC has never been made. In this study, we specifically focused on patients with no cancer and without a CVC who were diagnosed with a first episode of UEDVT and were treated with a DOAC. We studied 61 patients, treated in six Italian centres between January 2014 and December 2018. Treatment lasted at least 3 months in all patients. In terms of efficacy, no recurrence of thrombosis or pulmonary embolism were recorded, while Doppler ultrasonography, performed after at least three months of treatment, documented in all cases either partial or complete recanalization of obstructed veins. In terms of safety, no cases of major bleedings were recorded. This is the only series available in the literature of patients treated with DOACs for UEDVT not associated with cancer and/or CVC. This small multicenter real world experience supports the concept that DOACs might be safe and effective for treating UEDTV. Further studies are required to better understand the role of DOACs in these patients.

Management of upper extremity deep vein thrombosis: an updated review of the literature

Upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) represents about 5-10% of all cases of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) with a steadily increasing incidence mostly due to the high prevalence of cancer and frequent use of intravascular devices such as central venous catheters and pacemaker. In primary UEDVT, the venous outflow obstruction and subsequent thrombosis are related to congenital or acquired anatomical abnormalities, whereas secondary UEDVT is often associated with malignancy or indwelling lines. A considerable proportion of patients with UEDVT develops serious complications such as recurrent thrombosis, post-thrombotic syndrome, and pulmonary embolism, therefore timely diagnosis and adequate treatment are of crucial importance. Despite sharing many similarities with lower extremity DVT, UEDVT has distinctive features requiring specific diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. The present review discusses the latest evidence on the epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment of UEDVT, and provides management indications which may help guide clinical decision making.

Acute Superficial Vein Thrombosis of the Upper Extremity: A Case Report

Superficial vein thrombosis has traditionally been considered a disease of the lower extremity. Less frequently it can affect the breast, chest wall, penis, or upper extremity. Cases involving upper extremities are usually associated with intravascular access, and the vast majority remain self-limiting. This case report presents a 63-year-old patient who had acute extensive thrombosis of cephalic and basilic venous systems following resection of a desmoid tumor from the flank. This was likely related to intraoperative positioning and resulted in severe symptoms mimicking deep vein thrombosis and carpal tunnel syndrome. Additionally, diagnostic tools available to the hand surgeon that allow prompt diagnosis, management, and prevention are discussed.

Incidence of Upper Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis in Acute Leukemia and Effect on Mortality

The cumulative incidence, risk factors, rate of subsequent venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding and impact on mortality of isolated upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UE DVT) in acute leukemia are not well-described. The California Cancer Registry, used to identify treated patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) diagnosed between 2009 and 2014, was linked with the statewide hospitalization database to determine cumulative incidences of UE DVT and subsequent VTE and bleeding after UE DVT diagnosis. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to assess the association of UE DVT on the risk of subsequent pulmonary embolism (PE) or lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (LE DVT) and subsequent bleeding, and the impact of UE DVT on mortality. There were 5,072 patients identified: 3,252 had AML and 1,820 had ALL. Three- and 12-month cumulative incidences of UE DVT were 4.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.1–5.6) and 6.6% (95% CI: 5.8–7.5) for AML and 4.1% (95% CI: 3.2–5.1) and 5.9% (95% CI: 4.9–7.1) for ALL, respectively. Twelve-month cumulative incidences of subsequent VTE after an incident UE DVT diagnosis were 5.3% for AML and 12.2% for ALL. Twelve-month cumulative incidences of subsequent bleeding after an incident UE DVT diagnosis were 15.4% for AML and 21.1% for ALL. UE DVT was associated with an increased risk of subsequent bleeding for both AML (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.07; 95% CI: 1.60–2.68) and ALL (HR: 1.62; 95% CI: 1.02–2.57) but was not an independent risk factor for subsequent PE or LE DVT for either leukemia subtype. Isolated incident UE DVT was associated with increased leukemia-specific mortality for AML (HR: 1.42; 95% CI: 1.16–1.73) and ALL (HR: 1.80; 95% CI: 1.31–2.47). UE DVT is a relatively common complication among patients with AML and ALL and has a significant impact on bleeding and mortality. Further research is needed to determine appropriate therapy for this high-risk population.

Assessment of Upper Extremity Venous Compliance in Patients With Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is associated with morphological and functional changes in both aneurysmal and non-aneurysmal arteries. However, it remains uncertain whether similar changes also exist in the venous vasculature. The aim of this study was to evaluate global venous function in patients with AAA and controls.

METHODS

This experimental study comprised 31 men with AAA (mean ± standard deviation age 70.0 ± 2.8 years) and 29 male controls (aged 70.6 ± 3.4 years). Venous occlusion plethysmography (VOP) was used to evaluate arm venous compliance at venous pressures between 10 and 60 mmHg in steps of 5 mmHg. Compensatory mobilisation of venous capacitance blood (capacitance response) was measured with a volumetric technique during experimental hypovolaemia induced by lower body negative pressure (LBNP).

RESULTS

The VOP induced pressure-volume curve was significantly less steep in patients with AAA (interaction, p < .001), indicating lower venous compliance. Accordingly, the corresponding pressure-compliance curves displayed reduced venous compliance at lower venous pressures in patients with AAA vs. controls (interaction, p < .001; AAA vs. control, p = .018). After adjusting for arterial hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidaemia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and smoking, VOP detected differences in venous compliance remained significant at low venous pressures, that is, at 10 mmHg (p = .008), 15 mmHg (p = .013), and 20 mmHg (p = .026). Mean venous compliance was negatively correlated with aortic diameter (r = -.332, p = .010). Mobilisation of venous capacitance response during LBNP was reduced by approximately 25% in patients with AAA (p = .030), and the redistribution of venous blood during LBNP was negatively correlated with aortic diameter (r = -.417, p = .007).

CONCLUSION

Men with AAA demonstrated reduced venous compliance and, as a result, a lesser capacity to mobilise peripheral venous blood to the central circulation during hypovolaemic stress. These findings imply that the AAA disease may be accompanied by functional changes in the venous vascular wall.

The Khorana score for prediction of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: An individual patient data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Oncology guidelines suggest using the Khorana score to select ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy for primary venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention, but its performance in different cancers remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the performance of the Khorana score in assessing 6-month VTE risk, and the efficacy and safety of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) among high-risk Khorana score patients.

METHODS

This individual patient data meta-analysis evaluated (ultra)-LMWH in patients with solid cancer using data from seven randomized controlled trials.

RESULTS

A total of 3293 patients from the control groups with an available Khorana score had lung (n = 1913; 58%), colorectal (n = 452; 14%), pancreatic (n = 264; 8%), gastric (n = 201; 6%), ovarian (n = 184; 56%), breast (n = 164; 5%), brain (n = 84; 3%), or bladder cancer (n = 31; 1%). The 6-month VTE incidence was 9.8% among high-risk Khorana score patients and 6.4% among low-to-intermediate-risk patients (odds ratio [OR], 1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.2). The dichotomous Khorana score performed differently in lung cancer patients (OR 1.1; 95% CI, 0.72-1.7) than in the group with other cancer types (OR 3.2; 95% CI, 1.8-5.6; Pinteraction  = .002). Among high-risk patients, LMWH decreased the risk of VTE by 64% compared with controls (OR 0.36; 95% CI, 0.22-0.58), without increasing the risk of major bleeding (OR 1.1; 95% CI, 0.59-2.1).

CONCLUSION

The Khorana score was unable to stratify patients with lung cancer based on their VTE risk. Among those with other cancer types, a high-risk score was associated with a three-fold increased risk of VTE compared with a low-to-intermediate risk score. Thromboprophylaxis was effective and safe in patients with a high-risk Khorana score.

Diagnostic and Therapeutic Management of Upper Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis

Upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) accounts for 5% of all deep vein thromboses (DVTs). UEDVT may be complicated by post thrombotic syndrome and pulmonary embolism, and early recognition and prompt start of anticoagulant treatment are key. Primary UEDVT, also known as Paget-von Schrötter syndrome, is associated with repeated or sudden physical activity of the upper arm and venous outflow obstruction due to anatomical variations. Secondary UEDVT is often associated with malignancy or use of intravenous devices, such as central venous catheters or pacemaker leads. Although the diagnosis and treatment of UEDVT have many similarities with DVT of the lower extremities, knowledge of specific aspects regarding UEDVT is important to guide optimal management. In this review, we will discuss the epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment of UEDVT based on the current literature.

Long-Term Outcomes of Patients Investigated for Suspected Upper Extremities Deep Venous Thrombosis Irrespective of Imaging Results

Background

Outcome data are limited for upper extremity deep venous thrombosis (UEDVT). The outcomes of patients investigated for, but without UEDVT remain uncertain.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of clinical records of adult patients undergoing Doppler ultrasound for potential UEDVT between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2014 was undertaken. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were new cancer diagnosis and thromboembolic recurrence.

Results

The final cohort (n = 528) comprised 25 primary UEDVT, 100 secondary UEDVT, 40 superficial-venous thrombosis and 363 without thrombus patients. There were 207 deaths. Survival was higher in primary than in secondary UEDVT (log-rank p < 0.0001) or those without thrombus (log-rank p = 0.001). Pre-existing cancer [hazard ratio 3.6 (95% confidence interval 1.5-8.9)] was the biggest independent predictor of mortality and leading cause of death. Developing UEDVT was a poor prognostic marker in cancer patients.

Conclusion

There was high early mortality regardless of radiological findings, with the exception of primary UEDVT. Prospective studies evaluating aggressive treatment of underlying comorbidities in these patients are needed.

Apixaban for Routine Management of Upper Extremity Deep Venous Thrombosis (ARM-DVT): Methods of a prospective single-arm management study

BACKGROUND

Upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) constitutes approximately 10% of all deep vein thromboses (DVTs). The incidence of UEDVT is increasing in association with use of peripherally inserted central venous catheters. Treatment for UEDVT is derived largely from evidence for treatment of lower extremity DVT. Limited evidence exists for the use of a direct oral anticoagulant for the treatment of UEDVT.

POPULATION

Sequential patients identified within the Intermountain Healthcare System and University of Utah Healthcare system with symptomatic UEDVT defined as the formation of thrombus within the internal jugular, subclavian, axillary, brachial, ulnar, or radial veins of the arm.

INTERVENTION

Apixaban 10 mg PO twice daily for 7 days followed by apixaban 5 mg twice daily for 11 weeks.

COMPARISON

The historical literature review rate of venous thrombosis reported for recurrent clinically overt objective venous thromboembolism (VTE) and VTE-related death. If the confidence interval for the observed rate excludes the threshold event rate of 4%, we will conclude that treatment with apixaban is noninferior and therefore a clinically valid approach to treat UEDVT.

SAMPLE SIZE

We elected a sample size of 375 patients so that an exact 95% confidence interval would exclude an event rate of VTE in the observation cohort of 4%.

OUTCOME

Ninety-day rate of new or recurrent objectively confirmed symptomatic venous thrombosis and VTE-related death. The primary safety outcome is the composite of major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding.

Deep Vein Thrombosis of the Upper Extremity

BACKGROUND

Deep venous thrombosis (DVT) arises with an incidence of about 1 per 1000 persons per year; 4-10% of all DVTs are located in an upper extremity (DVT-UE). DVT-UE can lead to complications such as post-thrombotic syndrome and pulmonary embolism and carries a high mortality.

METHODS

This review is based on pertinent literature, published from January 1980 to May 2016, that was retrieved by a systematic search, employing the PRISMA criteria, carried out in four databases: PubMed (n = 749), EMBASE (n = 789), SciSearch (n = 0), and the Cochrane Library (n = 12). Guidelines were included in the search.

RESULTS

DVT-UE arises mainly in patients with severe underlying diseases, especially cancer (odds ratio [OR] 18.1; 95% confidence interval [9.4; 35.1]). The insertion of venous catheters-particularly central venous catheters-also elevates the risk of DVT-UE. Its clinical manifestations are nonspecific. Diagnostic algorithms are of little use, but ultrasonography is very helpful in diagnosis. DVT-UE is treated by anticoagulation, with heparin at first and then with oral anticoagulants. Direct oral anticoagulants are now being increasingly used. The thrombus is often not totally eradicated. Anticoagulation is generally continued as maintenance treatment for 3-6 months. Interventional techniques can be used for special indications. Patients with DVT-UE have a high mortality, though they often die of their underlying diseases rather than of the DVT-UE or its complications.

CONCLUSION

DVT of the upper extremity is becoming increasingly common, though still much less common than DVT of the lower extremity. The treatment of choice is anticoagulation, which is given analogously to that given for DVT of the lower extremity.

Clinical Course and Complications of Catheter and Non-Catheter-Related Upper Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis in Patients with Cancer

Patients with cancer have an increased risk of venous thromboembolism. Upper extremity venous system is a peculiar site, and little is known about the clinical course in patients with cancer. Electronic medical records were searched for patients with cancer with a diagnosis of upper extremity venous thrombosis. Individual patient data were reviewed. Eighty-seven patients were identified, and the median age was 52.4. The most common underlying malignancies were breast (23.0%), colorectal (18.4%), and gastroesophageal (18.4%). Median time from cancer diagnosis to upper extremity venous thromboembolism (UEDVT) was 3.44 months. Subclavian vein was the most common involved site (56.3%) and 54.0% patients had a central venous catheter; 50.6% of patients developed a complication; pulmonary embolism (PE) in 9.2%, superior vena cava (SVC) syndrome in 14.9%, and 26.4% had postthrombotic syndrome. In patients with isolated single vein thrombosis, complications were higher in the subset with internal jugular vein involvement compared to other sites (68.2% vs 52.2%) as were complications in patients with non-catheter-related thrombosis compared to patients with a central venous catheter in place (55% vs 27.7%). Median overall survival from time of cancer and UEDVT diagnoses was 29.6 and 13.25 months, respectively. In conclusion, UEDVT is an uncommon event. Around 50% developed a complication including PE, SVC or postthrombotic syndromes. Larger studies are needed to better identify risks associated with thrombosis and the best therapeutic approach and duration in this unique subset of patients with cancer.

Upper Extremity Deep Venous Thrombosis Prophylaxis After Elective Upper Extremity Surgery

Historically, upper extremity deep venous thromboses (DVTs) have been rare; however, their incidence has increased as awareness has increased. Patients who develop upper extremity DVTs often have multiple comorbidities. However, in the past decade, studies have found a small risk of upper extremity DVTs associated with orthopedic procedures involving the upper extremity. The risk of complications following a DVT, including postthrombotic syndrome and pulmonary embolism, is substantially higher with a DVT of the upper extremity compared with a DVT of the lower extremity. Furthermore, there is no consensus regarding the role and efficacy of prophylactic measures in preventing upper extremity DVT after upper extremity surgery. This article discusses the use of prophylactic agents after elective upper extremity surgery, with an emphasis on the efficacy of commonly used interventions. [Orthopedics. 2018; 41(1):21-27.].

Rivaroxaban in the Treatment of PICC-associated Upper Extremity Venous Thrombosis

PURPOSE

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are frequently used for prolonged drug administration, but their use is commonly complicated by the development of upper extremity deep venous thrombosis (UEDVT) requiring anticoagulation. Here, we compared the efficacy and safety profile of rivaroxaban (20 mg/d) with low molecular weight (LMW) heparin and vitamin K antagonists in the treatment of PICC-associated UEDVT.

METHODS

Patients (N = 84) with PICC-associated UEDVT were studied. All had UEDVT identified by ultrasound scanning. Further ultrasound images were obtained at 1, 2, and 3 months after the start of treatment. Forty-four patients were treated with rivaroxaban and 40 with initial LMW heparin and vitamin K antagonist with continuation of vitamin K antagonists alone once international normalized ratio was therapeutic FINDINGS: In the rivaroxaban group mean (SD) age was 51 (16) years and 57% were men, whereas in the other group respective values were 50 (16) years and 56%. All patients were receiving treatment for cancer. Resolution of thrombus had occurred in 53.5% at 1 month, 76.1% at 2 months, and 92.6% at 3 months in the rivaroxaban-treated patients. Corresponding values in the LMW heparin/vitamin antagonist-treated patients were 34.2%, 55.5%, and 88.5%, respectively. Differences between groups were significant at 1 month (P < 0.01) and 2 months (P < 0.05). There were no major bleeds in either group, and cumulative bleeding rates by 3 months were 7.3% in the rivaroxaban group and 11.4% in the LMW heparin/vitamin K antagonist group.

IMPLICATIONS

Rivaroxaban led to faster resolution of PICC-associated UEDVT than LMW/vitamin K antagonists without any increase in bleeding.

The diagnostic management of upper extremity deep vein thrombosis: A review of the literature

Upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) accounts for 4% to 10% of all cases of deep vein thrombosis. UEDVT may present with localized pain, erythema, and swelling of the arm, but may also be detected incidentally by diagnostic imaging tests performed for other reasons. Prompt and accurate diagnosis is crucial to prevent pulmonary embolism and long-term complications as the post-thrombotic syndrome of the arm. Unlike the diagnostic management of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) of the lower extremities, which is well established, the work-up of patients with clinically suspected UEDVT remains uncertain with limited evidence from studies of small size and poor methodological quality. Currently, only one prospective study evaluated the use of an algorithm, similar to the one used for DVT of the lower extremities, for the diagnostic workup of clinically suspected UEDVT. The algorithm combined clinical probability assessment, D-dimer testing and ultrasonography and appeared to safely and effectively exclude UEDVT. However, before recommending its use in routine clinical practice, external validation of this strategy and improvements of the efficiency are needed, especially in high-risk subgroups in whom the performance of the algorithm appeared to be suboptimal, such as hospitalized or cancer patients. In this review, we critically assess the accuracy and efficacy of current diagnostic tools and provide clinical guidance for the diagnostic management of clinically suspected UEDVT.

Preferred Management of Primary Deep Arm Vein Thrombosis

OBJECTIVE

Given its rarity, the management of primary upper extremity deep vein thrombosis is controversial. Although anticoagulation alone is commonly advocated for its treatment, it is unclear if this will reduce the risk of developing post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS). The aim of this "Evidence Driven" Clinical Scenario is to evaluate whether more aggressive treatments (including catheter directed thrombolysis or surgery) might help reduce the risk of PTS or recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with primary upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT).

METHODS

An electronic systematic review of Ovid MEDLINE and Embase was conducted. Randomised controlled trials and observational studies were eligible. The primary outcome was PTS.

RESULTS

The initial search identified 146 articles, and 36 more were identified during a secondary search. In total, 25 studies, reporting the outcome of 1271 patients, were included. None of the studies included was a randomised controlled trial and the large majority of studies were retrospective cohorts. The use of anticoagulation alone was associated with a significant risk of PTS. In patients treated with surgery with or without thrombolysis the incidence of PTS was significantly reduced.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence, albeit with some methodological limitations, suggests that anticoagulation may not be sufficient to prevent PTS in patients with primary upper extremity DVT and that surgery with or without thrombolysis to repair the anatomical defects is needed.