Central venous catheters-related-thrombosis and risk factors in oncological patients: a retrospective evaluation of recent risk scores

BACKGROUND

Insertions of central venous catheters (CVC) has become a common practice in Onco-Hematologic Units to administer systemic treatments. Unfortunately they can cause complications influencing patient's care-pathway significantly. Oncological patients have a higher thrombotic risk than the general population, therefore specific recent risk scores are spreading through the clinical practice, such as Khorana, Protecht, COMPASS-CAT, and Michigan scores.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of 177 out of a total of 3046 outpatients accessing the Medical Day Hospital of Istituto Nazionale Tumori di Milano from March 2019 to February 2021 aged ⩾ 18 years who developed CVC complications was analyzed extracting clinical data from their medical records. Focusing on the risk factors, especially through recent risk scores to estimate the thrombotic risk we used Wilcoxon-test for continuous variables and the Pearson-Chi-Square test for categorical variables.

RESULTS

Anticoagulants resulted a protective factor mostly for partial CVC occlusion (p = 0.0001), preventing CVC occlusions. CVC occlusions were significantly associated with epitelial tumor histotype, (p = 0.0061). Complete CVC occlusions were significantly associated with peripherical inserted central venous catheters (PICC) (p < 0.0001). Catheter-related-thrombosis (CRT) was significantly associated with peripherical-inserted-central-venous-catheter, both when it was diagnosed clinically (p = 0.0121) and radiographically (p = 0.0168).There was a strong association between CRT and a high grade of Khorana Score (p = 0.0195), Protecht Score (p = 0.0412), COMPASS-CAT Score (p = 0.0027). A positive statistical trend was observed between the Michigan Score and CRT in patients carrying PICC (p = 0.053).

CONCLUSIONS

There are many different and various factors associated with higher or lower risk of CVC thrombotic complications, so it could be useful to test the recent risk scores to estimate thrombotic risk in oncological patients in clinical practice.

Comparison of outcomes of central venous catheters in patients with solid and hematologic neoplasms: an Italian real-world analysis

INTRODUCTION

Although many reports have analyzed the outcomes of central venous catheters (CVCs) in oncologic and oncohematologic patients, current guidelines do not routinely recommend a specific type of CVC over the other.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated the outcomes of 178 patients with CVCs referred to an Italian specialized cancer center between January 2016 and December 2018. The analysis compares midterm peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) with long-term centrally inserted catheters, including totally implanted ports and tunneled catheters with central insertion (tCVCs).

RESULTS

A total of 130 PICCs (73%) and 48 tCVCs (27%) were analyzed. The overall complication rate was significantly increased in the PICC cohort compared to the tCVC cohort (43.1% vs 25%, respectively; p = 0.037), leading to complication-related device removal in 30.8% of PICCs vs 12.5% of tCVCs (p = 0.013). No significant differences in terms of catheter-related thromboses (p = 0.676) or catheter-related infections (p = 0.140) were detected. Nonthrombotic obstructions were significantly higher in the PICC group compared to the tCVC cohort (p = 0.006). Overall complication-free survival was significantly longer for tCVCs compared to PICCs (hazard ratio [HR], 0.262; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.128-0.536; p < 0.0001), as well as obstruction-free survival (HR, 0.082; 95% CI, 0.018-0.372; p < 0.0001). In multivariable analysis, the type of CVC was independently correlated with the occurrence of any complication (HR, 0.273; 95% CI, 0.135-0.553; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

This Italian real-world experience suggests that PICCs are associated with a higher risk of overall complications compared with tCVCs. Catheter choice in oncologic patients should be guided by treatment type and duration, risk-benefit assessment, patient preferences, and compliance.