Anticoagulation for patients with cancer and central venous catheters

Evaluation of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis protocol in hematopoietic cell transplant patients

Hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) recipients are at risk for thromboembolic and bleeding complications. There is limited evidence regarding the optimal approach to managing venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in hospitalized patients undergoing HCT. In this retrospective cohort study, we evaluated the incidence of bleeding and VTE events in hospitalized HCT patients who received VTE prophylaxis per our institution's VTE Prophylaxis Protocol (VPP), with either enoxaparin 40 mg subcutaneously daily or heparin 5 000 units subcutaneously twice daily, compared to historical controls who did not receive VTE prophylaxis. The primary outcome was a composite of major bleeding events, clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB), and minor bleeding. The secondary outcome was a composite of VTE events. A total of 614 patients were evaluated, including 278 prior to and 336 after implementation of VPP. VTE prophylaxis resulted in no difference in bleeding events (15.1% in the pre-VPP group vs. 14.6% in the post-VPP group, p = 0.86) or composite of major and CRNMB events (0.72% vs. 0.30%, p = 0.59). There was a trend toward lower incidence of VTE events in the post-VPP group which did not reach statistical significance (8.6% vs. 6.0%, p = 0.20). We conclude that VTE prophylaxis does not pose additional bleeding risk in HCT patients.

Factors affecting mechanical complications of central venous access devices in children

PURPOSE

Factors leading to mechanical complications following insertion of central venous access devices (CVADs) in children are poorly understood. We aimed to quantify the rates and elucidate the mechanisms of these complications.

METHODS

Retrospective (2016-2021) review of children (< 18 years old) receiving a CVAD. Data, reported as number of cases (%) and median (IQR), were analysed by Fisher's exact test, chi-squared test and logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 317 CVADs (245 children) were inserted. Median age was 5.0 (8.9) years, with 116 (47%) females. There were 226 (71%) implantable port devices and 91 (29%) Hickman lines. Overall, 54 (17%) lines had a mechanical complication after 0.4 (0.83) years from insertion: fracture 19 (6%), CVAD migration 14 (4.4%), occlusion 14 (4.4%), port displacement 6 (1.9%), and skin tethering to port device 1 (0.3%). Younger age and lower weight were associated with higher risk of complications (p < 0.0001). Hickman lines had a higher incidence of complications compared to implantable port devices [24/91 (26.3%) vs 30/226 (13.3%); p = 0.008].

CONCLUSION

Mechanical complications occur in 17% of CVADs at a median of < 6 months after insertion. Risk factors include younger age and lower weight. Implantable port devices have a lower complications rate.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 4: case-series with no comparison group.

Comparison of heparinized saline and 0.9% sodium chloride for maintaining central venous catheter patency in healthy dogs

Background

The purpose of this study was to determine whether heparinized saline (HS) would be more effective in maintaining the patency of central venous catheters (CVCs) in dogs compared to 0.9% sodium chloride. This was a prospective randomized blinded study conducted at a University Veterinary Teaching Hospital.

Methods

A total of 24 healthy purpose-bred dogs were randomized into two groups: a treatment and a control group. A CVC was placed in the jugular vein of each dog. Each dog in the treatment group had their CVC flushed with 10 IU/mL HS, while dogs in the control group had their CVC flushed with 0.9% sodium chloride every 6 h for 72 h. Immediately prior to flushing, each catheter was evaluated for patency by aspiration of blood. The catheter site was also evaluated for phlebitis, and a rectal temperature was obtained in each dog every 6 h. Prothrombin (PT) and activated partial thromboplastin (aPTT) times were evaluated prior to the administration of any flush solution. Results were then compared to values obtained 72 h later.

Results

All CVCs in both groups were patent after 72 h, which was demonstrated by aspiration of blood and ease of flushing the catheter. Two CVCs in the 0.9% sodium chloride group had a negative aspiration at hour 12 and 36, respectively. One CVC in the HS group had a negative aspiration at hour 18. Signs of phlebitis occurred in three dog: two in the 0.9% sodium chloride group and one in the HS group. No dog was hyperthermic (>103 °F). Two catheters were inadvertently removed by dogs in the HS group during the study. There were no significant differences in catheter patency, incidence of phlebitis, or incidence of negative aspirations between both groups. aPTT and PT values remained within the normal reference range for all dogs in both groups. Ultimately, 0.9% sodium chloride was as effective as 10 IU/mL HS in maintaining the patency of CVCs for up to 72 h in healthy dogs. Further evaluation in clinical patients is warranted.

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.

ABO blood group related venous thrombosis risk in patients with peripherally inserted central catheters

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association between ABO blood group and upper limb venous thrombosis (VT) risk in patients with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC).

METHODS

Single centre retrospective cohort study. A cohort of patients who underwent PICC insertion from September 2010 to August 2014 were followed up for symptomatic VT presentations diagnosed by ultrasound. Blood group status was identified from hospital information systems.

RESULTS

2270 participants had 3020 PICCs inserted. There were 124 cases of symptomatic VT, an incident rate of 4% [95% confidence interval, CI (3-5%)]. Univariate analysis adjusting for the clustered sample showed that having chemotherapy, two or more previous PICCs, a larger catheter size, a diagnosis of cancer and having a blood group B were all associated with an increased risk of a VT. In the multivariate analysis, PICC diameter, cancer diagnosis and blood group B were all independently associated with increased risk of VT.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing PICC insertion with a blood group B appear to have a higher risk of VT, independent of risks attached to the PICC procedure and cancer diagnosis. Without any existing guidelines for PICC-related VT, this investigation creates a platform for further research to be conducted in order to establish guidelines. Advances in knowledge: Previous studies investigating VT risk associated with blood group status related to large heterogeneous populations. In this article, we look at patients specifically with PICC, which reduces the heterogeneity in the cohort. In addition, due to the substantial number of patients enrolled, we had a chance to perform multivariate analyses with statistical significance.

Primary prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) often complicates the clinical course of cancer. The risk is further increased by chemotherapy, but the trade-off between safety and efficacy of primary thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients treated with chemotherapy is uncertain. This is the second update of a review first published in February 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of primary thromboprophylaxis for VTE in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy compared with placebo or no thromboprophylaxis.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Group Specialised Register (June 2016). In addition, the Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 5). Clinical trials registries were searched up to June 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing any oral or parenteral anticoagulant or mechanical intervention to no thromboprophylaxis or placebo, or comparing two different anticoagulants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on methodological quality, participant characteristics, interventions, and outcomes including symptomatic VTE and major bleeding as the primary effectiveness and safety outcomes, respectively.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified five additional randomised controlled trials (2491 participants) in the updated search, considering in this update 26 trials with a total of 12,352 participants, all evaluating pharmacological interventions and performed mainly in people with locally advanced or metastatic cancer. The quality of the evidence ranged from high to very low across the different outcomes and comparisons. The main limiting factors were imprecision and risk of bias. One large trial of 3212 participants found a 64% (risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 0.60) reduction of symptomatic VTE with the ultra-low molecular weight heparin (uLMWH) semuloparin relative to placebo, with no apparent difference in major bleeding (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.00). When compared with no thromboprophylaxis, LMWH significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.75; no heterogeneity, Tau² = 0.00%) with a non-statistically significant 44% higher risk of major bleeding events (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.11). In participants with multiple myeloma, LMWH was associated with a significant reduction in symptomatic VTE compared with the vitamin K antagonist warfarin (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.83), while the difference between LMWH and aspirin was not statistically significant (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.17). Major bleeding was observed in none of the participants treated with LMWH or warfarin and in less than 1% of those treated with aspirin. Only one study evaluated unfractionated heparin against no thromboprophylaxis but did not report on VTE or major bleeding. When compared with placebo, warfarin was associated with a non-statistically significant reduction of symptomatic VTE (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.20). Antithrombin, evaluated in one study involving paediatric patients, had no significant effect on VTE or on major bleeding when compared with no antithrombin. The direct oral factor Xa inhibitor apixaban was evaluated in a phase II dose-finding study that suggested a low rate of major bleeding (2.1% versus 3.4%) and symptomatic VTE (1.1% versus 13.8%) in comparison with placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this second update, we confirmed that primary thromboprophylaxis with LMWH significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE in ambulatory cancer patients treated with chemotherapy. In addition, the uLMWH semuloparin, which is not commercially available, significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE. The risk of major bleeding associated with LMWH, while not reaching statistical significance, suggest caution and mandate additional studies to determine the risk-to-benefit ratio of LMWH in this setting. Despite the encouraging results of this review, routine prophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients cannot be recommended before safety issues are adequately addressed. We need additional studies investigating targeted primary prophylaxis in people with specific types or stages of cancer associated with a higher risk of VTE.

The Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC): Results From a Multispecialty Panel Using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method

Use of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) has grown substantially in recent years. Increasing use has led to the realization that PICCs are associated with important complications, including thrombosis and infection. Moreover, some PICCs may not be placed for clinically valid reasons. Defining appropriate indications for insertion, maintenance, and care of PICCs is thus important for patient safety. An international panel was convened that applied the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to develop criteria for use of PICCs. After systematic reviews of the literature, scenarios related to PICC use, care, and maintenance were developed according to patient population (for example, general hospitalized, critically ill, cancer, kidney disease), indication for insertion (infusion of peripherally compatible infusates vs. vesicants), and duration of use (≤5 days, 6 to 14 days, 15 to 30 days, or ≥31 days). Within each scenario, appropriateness of PICC use was compared with that of other venous access devices. After review of 665 scenarios, 253 (38%) were rated as appropriate, 124 (19%) as neutral/uncertain, and 288 (43%) as inappropriate. For peripherally compatible infusions, PICC use was rated as inappropriate when the proposed duration of use was 5 or fewer days. Midline catheters and ultrasonography-guided peripheral intravenous catheters were preferred to PICCs for use between 6 and 14 days. In critically ill patients, nontunneled central venous catheters were preferred over PICCs when 14 or fewer days of use were likely. In patients with cancer, PICCs were rated as appropriate for irritant or vesicant infusion, regardless of duration. The panel of experts used a validated method to develop appropriate indications for PICC use across patient populations. These criteria can be used to improve care, inform quality improvement efforts, and advance the safety of medical patients.

Prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer: the Saudi clinical practice guideline

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is commonly encountered in the daily clinical practice. Cancer is an important VTE risk factor. Proper thromboprophylaxis is key to prevent VTE in patients with cancer, and proper treatment is essential to reduce VTE complications and adverse events associated with the therapy.

DESIGN AND SETTINGS

As a result of an initiative of the Ministry of Health of Saudi Arabia, an expert panel led by the Saudi Association for Venous Thrombo-Embolism (a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society) and the Saudi Scientific Hematology Society with the methodological support of the McMaster University working group produced this clinical practice guideline to assist health care providers in evidence-based clinical decision-making for VTE prophylaxis and treatment in patients with cancer.

METHODS

Six questions related to thromboprophylaxis and antithrombotic therapy were identified and the corresponding recommendations were made following the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.

RESULTS

Question 1. Should heparin versus no heparin be used in outpatients with cancer who have no other therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation?

RECOMMENDATION

For outpatients with cancer, the Saudi Expert Panel suggests against routine thromboprophylaxis with heparin (weak recommendation; moderate quality evidence).Question 2. Should oral anticoagulation versus no oral anticoagulation be used in outpatients with cancer who have no other therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation?

RECOMMENDATION

For outpatients with cancer, the Saudi Expert Panel recommends against thromboprophylaxis with oral anticoagulation (strong recommendation; moderate quality evidence).Question 3. Should parenteral anticoagulation versus no anticoagulation be used in patients with cancer and central venous catheters?

RECOMMENDATION

For outpatients with cancer and central venous catheters, the Saudi Expert Panel suggests thromboprophylaxis with parenteral anticoagulation (weak recommendation; moderate quality evidence).Question 4. Should oral anticoagulation versus no anticoagulation be used in patients with cancer and central venous catheters?

RECOMMENDATION

For outpatients with cancer and central venous catheters, the Saudi Expert Panel suggests against thromboprophylaxis with oral anticoagulation (weak recommendation; low quality evidence).Question 5. Should low-molecular-weight heparin versus unfractionated heparin be used in patients with cancer being initiated on treatment for venous thromboembolism?

RECOMMENDATION

In patients with cancer being initiated on treatment for venous thromboembolism, the Saudi Expert Panel suggests low-molecular-weight heparin over intravenous unfractionated heparin (weak; very low quality evidence).Question 6. Should heparin versus oral anticoagulation be used in patients with cancer requiring long-term treatment of VTE?

RECOMMENDATION

In patients with metastatic cancer requiring long-term treatment of VTE, the Saudi Expert Panel recommends low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) over vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) (strong recommendation; moderate quality evidence). In patients with non-metastatic cancer requiring long-term treatment of venous thromboembolism, the Saudi Expert Panel suggests LMWH over VKA (weak recommendation; moderate quality evidence).

American Society of Nephrology Quiz and Questionnaire 2013: RRT

The Nephrology Quiz and Questionnaire (NQ&Q) remains an extremely popular session for attendees of the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Nephrology. As in past years, the conference hall of the 2013 meeting was overflowing with interested audience members. Topics covered by expert discussants included electrolyte and acid-base disorders, glomerular disease, ESRD/dialysis, and transplantation. Complex cases representing each of these categories, along with single best answer questions, were prepared by a panel of experts. Before the meeting, program directors of United States nephrology training programs answered questions through an Internet-based questionnaire. A new addition to the NQ&Q was participation in the questionnaire by nephrology fellows. To review the process, members of the audience test their knowledge and judgment on a series of case-oriented questions prepared and discussed by experts. Their answers are compared in real time using audience response devices with the answers of nephrology fellows and training program directors. The correct and incorrect answers are then briefly discussed after the audience responses and the results of the questionnaire are displayed. This article recapitulates the session and reproduces its educational value for CJASN readers. Enjoy the clinical cases and expert discussions.

Predictors of venous thromboembolic events associated with central venous port insertion in cancer patients

Insertion of central venous port (CVP) catheter in the cancer population is associated with increased incidence of venous thromboembolic events (VTE). However, trials have shown limited benefit of antithrombotic treatment to prevent catheter-related venous thrombosis. This prospective observational cohort study was designed to assess the incidence of VTE closely related to CVP implantation in patients with cancer and undergoing chemotherapy, and to identify a high risk subgroup of patients. Between February 2006 and December 2011, 1097 consecutive cancer patients with first CVP implantation were included. Catheter-related VTE were defined as deep venous thrombosis in the arm, with or without pulmonary embolism (PE), or isolated PE. The incidence of CVP-associated VTE was 5.9% (IC95 4.4-7.3%) at 3 months, and 11.3% (IC95 9.4-13.2%) at 12 months. The incidence of any VTE was 7.6% (IC95 6.0-9.3%) at 3 months, and 15.3% (IC95 13.1-17.6%) at 12 months. High Khorana risk score and lung cancer were significant predictors of 3 month VTE. In conclusion, this large cohort study of patients with first CVP catheter implantation confirms the high incidence of VTE associated with the CVP implantation and allow identifying high risk patients who may benefit from thromboprophylaxis.

Bench-to-bedside review: Challenges of diagnosis, care and prevention of central catheter-related bloodstream infections in children

Central venous catheters (CVCs) are indispensable in modern pediatric medicine. CVCs provide secure vascular access, but are associated with a risk of severe complications, in particular bloodstream infection. We provide a review of the recent literature about the diagnostic and therapeutic challenges of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) in children and its prevention. Variations in blood sampling and limitations in blood culturing interfere with accurate and timely diagnosis of CRBSI. Although novel molecular testing methods appear promising in overcoming some of the present diagnostic limitations of conventional blood sampling in children, they still need to solidly prove their accuracy and reliability in clinical practice. Standardized practices of catheter insertion and care remain the cornerstone of CRBSI prevention although their implementation in daily practice may be difficult. Technology such as CVC impregnation or catheter locking with antimicrobial substances has been shown less effective than anticipated. Despite encouraging results in CRBSI prevention among adults, the goal of zero infection in children is still not in range. More high-quality research is needed in the field of prevention, accurate and reliable diagnostic measures and effective treatment of CRBSI in children.

Prophylaxis of catheter-related deep vein thrombosis in cancer patients with low-dose warfarin, low molecular weight heparin, or control: a randomized, controlled, phase III study

PURPOSE

Whether an anticoagulant prophylaxis is needed for patients with cancer with a central venous catheter is a highly controversial subject. We designed a study to compare different prophylactic strategies over 3 months of treatment.

METHODS

We performed a phase III prospective, open-label randomized trial. After the insertion of a central venous access device, consecutive patients with planned chemotherapy for cancer were randomized to no anticoagulant prophylaxis, low molecular weight heparin [low molecular weight heparin (LMWH); with isocoagulation doses], or warfarin 1 mg/day. Treatments were given over the first 3 months. Doppler ultrasound and venographies were performed on days 1 and 90, respectively, or sooner in case of clinical presumption of thrombosis.

RESULTS

A total of 420 patients were randomized, and 407 were evaluable. Forty-two catheter-related deep vein thrombosis (DVT) occurred (10.3 %), 20 in those with no anticoagulation, 8 in those receiving warfarin, and 14 in those receiving LMWH. Nine additional non-related catheter deep vein thrombosis (CDVT) occurred. Anticoagulation significantly reduced the incidence of catheter-related DVT (p = 0.035) and catheter non-related DVT (p = 0.007), with no difference between warfarin and LMWH. Safety was good (3.4 % of attributable events) but compliance with randomized prophylaxis was lower than expected.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylaxis showed a benefit regarding catheter-related and non-catheter-related DVT with no increase in serious side effects.

Systematic evaluation of the methodology of randomized controlled trials of anticoagulation in patients with cancer

Background

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that are inappropriately designed or executed may provide biased findings and mislead clinical practice. In view of recent interest in the treatment and prevention of thrombotic complications in cancer patients we evaluated the characteristics, risk of bias and their time trends in RCTs of anticoagulation in patients with cancer.

Methods

We conducted a comprehensive search, including a search of four electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI the Web of Science, and CENTRAL) up to February 2010. We included RCTs in which the intervention and/or comparison consisted of: vitamin K antagonists, unfractionated heparin (UFH), low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), direct thrombin inhibitors or fondaparinux. We performed descriptive analyses and assessed the association between the variables of interest and the year of publication.

Results

We included 67 RCTs with 24,071 participants. In twenty one trials (31%) DVT diagnosis was triggered by clinical suspicion; the remaining trials either screened for DVT or were unclear about their approach. 41 (61%), 22 (33%), and 11 (16%) trials respectively reported on major bleeding, minor bleeding, and thrombocytopenia. The percentages of trials satisfying risk of bias criteria were: adequate sequence generation (85%), adequate allocation concealment (61%), participants’ blinding (39%), data collectors’ blinding (44%), providers’ blinding (41%), outcome assessors’ blinding (75%), data analysts’ blinding (15%), intention to treat analysis (57%), no selective outcome reporting (12%), no stopping early for benefit (97%). The mean follow-up rate was 96%. Adequate allocation concealment and the reporting of intention to treat analysis were the only two quality criteria that improved over time.

Conclusions

Many RCTs of anticoagulation in patients with cancer appear to use insufficiently rigorous outcome assessment methods and to have deficiencies in key methodological features. It is not clear whether this reflects a problem in the design, conduct or the reporting of these trials, or both. Future trials should avoid the shortcomings described in this article.

Prevention of VTE in nonsurgical patients: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines

BACKGROUND

This guideline addressed VTE prevention in hospitalized medical patients, outpatients with cancer, the chronically immobilized, long-distance travelers, and those with asymptomatic thrombophilia.

METHODS

This guideline follows methods described in Methodology for the Development of Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis Guidelines: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines in this supplement.

RESULTS

For acutely ill hospitalized medical patients at increased risk of thrombosis, we recommend anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), low-dose unfractionated heparin (LDUH) bid, LDUH tid, or fondaparinux (Grade 1B) and suggest against extending the duration of thromboprophylaxis beyond the period of patient immobilization or acute hospital stay (Grade 2B). For acutely ill hospitalized medical patients at low risk of thrombosis, we recommend against the use of pharmacologic prophylaxis or mechanical prophylaxis (Grade 1B). For acutely ill hospitalized medical patients at increased risk of thrombosis who are bleeding or are at high risk for major bleeding, we suggest mechanical thromboprophylaxis with graduated compression stockings (GCS) (Grade 2C) or intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) (Grade 2C). For critically ill patients, we suggest using LMWH or LDUH thromboprophylaxis (Grade 2C). For critically ill patients who are bleeding or are at high risk for major bleeding, we suggest mechanical thromboprophylaxis with GCS and/or IPC at least until the bleeding risk decreases (Grade 2C). In outpatients with cancer who have no additional risk factors for VTE we suggest against routine prophylaxis with LMWH or LDUH (Grade 2B) and recommend against the prophylactic use of vitamin K antagonists (Grade 1B).

CONCLUSIONS

Decisions regarding prophylaxis in nonsurgical patients should be made after consideration of risk factors for both thrombosis and bleeding, clinical context, and patients' values and preferences.