Anticoagulation for people with cancer and central venous catheters

Primary Thromboprophylaxis in Patients with Malignancies: Daily Practice Recommendations by the Hemostasis Working Party of the German Society of Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO), the Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis Research (GTH), and the Austrian Society of Hematology and Oncology (ÖGHO)

Patients with cancer, both hematologic and solid malignancies, are at increased risk for thrombosis and thromboembolism. In addition to general risk factors such as immobility and major surgery, shared by non-cancer patients, cancer patients are exposed to specific thrombotic risk factors. These include, among other factors, cancer-induced hypercoagulation, and chemotherapy-mediated endothelial dysfunction as well as tumor-cell-derived microparticles. After an episode of thrombosis in a cancer patient, secondary thromboprophylaxis to prevent recurrent thromboembolism has long been established and is typically continued as long as the cancer is active or actively treated. On the other hand, primary prophylaxis, even though firmly established in hospitalized cancer patients, has only recently been studied in ambulatory patients. This recent change is mostly due to the emergence of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). DOACs have a shorter half-life than vitamin K antagonists (VKA), and they overcome the need for parenteral application, the latter of which is associated with low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) and can be difficult for the patient to endure in the long term. Here, first, we discuss the clinical trials of primary thromboprophylaxis in the population of cancer patients in general, including the use of VKA, LMWH, and DOACs, and the potential drug interactions with pre-existing medications that need to be taken into account. Second, we focus on special situations in cancer patients where primary prophylactic anticoagulation should be considered, including myeloma, major surgery, indwelling catheters, or immobilization, concomitant diseases such as renal insufficiency, liver disease, or thrombophilia, as well as situations with a high bleeding risk, particularly thrombocytopenia, and specific drugs that may require primary thromboprophylaxis. We provide a novel algorithm intended to aid specialists but also family practitioners and nurses who care for cancer patients in the decision process of primary thromboprophylaxis in the individual patient.

American Society of Hematology 2021 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: prevention and treatment in patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication among patients with cancer. Patients with cancer and VTE are at a markedly increased risk for morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in their decisions about the prevention and treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

METHODS

ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The guideline development process was supported by updated or new systematic evidence reviews. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations.

RESULTS

Recommendations address mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients with cancer, those undergoing a surgical procedure, and ambulatory patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. The recommendations also address the use of anticoagulation for the initial, short-term, and long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Strong recommendations include not using thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients receiving cancer chemotherapy at low risk of VTE and to use low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. Conditional recommendations include using thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients with cancer, LMWH or fondaparinux for surgical patients with cancer, LMWH or direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) in ambulatory patients with cancer receiving systemic therapy at high risk of VTE and LMWH or DOAC for initial treatment of VTE, DOAC for the short-term treatment of VTE, and LMWH or DOAC for the long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

Predictive risk factors of venous thromboembolism (VTE) associated with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) in ambulant solid cancer patients: retrospective single Centre cohort study

Aims

Peripherally inserted central catheters(PICC) lines are becoming increasingly popular in solid cancer patients for the administration of chemotherapy. This study aims looking at the incidence of PICC line related and distant thromboembolism associated with these catheters and exploring risk factors.

Methods

Records were reviewed for 158 patients who underwent PICC line insertion over the two years period in the medical oncology unit, Milton Keynes University Hospital. The Incidence PICC line related Deep Venous Thrombosis (DVT) which is defined as upper extremity DVT at the site of PICC line insertion was documented after checking reports of ultrasound Doppler of all symptomatic patients to confirm the presence of thrombo-embolism and Computed Tomography(CT)scan or Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiography (CTPA) to confirm the presence Pulmonary Embolism(PE).

Results

23(13%) symptomatic patients with confirmed diagnosis by ultrasound Doppler were found to have PICC line related DVT and similar number of patients developed distant VTE, namely PE and lower limbs DVT. Average time to thrombo-embolism from the insertion of PICC line was 13 days and 51 days in distant VTE. Statistically significant results have been identified in the term of risk factors leading to VTE events during the period of PICC line insertion.

Conclusions

VTE is a common complication in medical oncology patients who underwent insertion PICC line insertion for chemotherapy. Risk of distant VTE is high as well as the PICC line related DVT and the risk of the PICC line related DVT is higher in the first two weeks after PICC insertion. We concluded that high BMI,high PLTs count and Fluropyrimidine containing chemotherapy are all significant risk factors for VTE events recorded while smoking and high BMI are significantly contributing to the high rate of the PICC line related DVT.

Upper-Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis in Patients With Breast Cancer With Chest Versus Arm Central Venous Port Catheters

Most of the patients undergoing treatment for cancer require placement of a totally implantable venous access device to facilitate safe delivery of chemotherapy. However, implantable ports also increase the risk of deep vein thrombosis and related complications in this high-risk population. The objective of this study was to assess the incidence of upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) in patients with breast cancer to determine whether the risk of UEDVT was higher with chest versus arm ports, as well as to determine the importance of previously reported risk factors predisposing to UEDVT in the setting of active cancer. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 297 women with breast cancer who had ports placed in our institution between the dates of December 1, 2010, and December 31, 2016. The primary outcome was the development of radiologically confirmed UEDVT ipsilateral to the implanted port. Overall, 17 of 297 study subjects (5.7%) were found to have UEDVT. There was 1 documented case of associated pulmonary embolism. Fourteen (9.5%) of 147 subjects with arm ports experienced UEDVT compared with only 3 (2.0%) of 150 subjects with chest ports (P = .0056). Thus, implantation of arm ports as opposed to chest ports may be associated with a higher rate of UEDVT in patients with breast cancer.

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.

A state of the art review on optimal practices to prevent, recognize, and manage complications associated with intravascular devices in the critically ill

Intravascular catheters are inserted into almost all critically ill patients. This review provides up-to-date insight into available knowledge on epidemiology and diagnosis of complications of central vein and arterial catheters in ICU. It discusses the optimal therapy of catheter-related infections and thrombosis. Prevention of complications is a multidisciplinary task that combines both improvement of the process of care and introduction of new technologies. We emphasize the main component of the prevention strategies that should be used in critical care and propose areas of future investigation in this field.

Is Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter-Related Thrombosis Associated With ABO Blood Group? A Case-Control Pilot Study

Peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) use is associated with many complications including line-related thrombosis. Several studies and meta-analyses confirmed the increased risk to develop venous thromboembolism in non-O blood group individuals. Our pilot study aimed to examine whether PICC-related thrombosis is influenced by ABO blood group. We identified patients admitted to Hurley Medical Center between March 2012 and March 2016 who had PICC placed during their admission, had their ABO blood group identified in their medical record, and had upper extremity venous Doppler ultrasound performed on the same side of PICC. We excluded pregnant women, patients on anticoagulation initiated before PICC insertion, and patients with active cancer. Data of 227 patients who met our criteria were analyzed. Of these patients, 140 (61.7%) patients had PICC-related thrombosis (cases) and 86 (37.9%) patients had O blood group. Controls were patients who had PICC and did not develop PICC-related thrombosis. Multivariate logistic regression revealed no association between PICC-related thrombosis and ABO blood group (adjusted odds ratio: 1.1; 95% confidence interval: 0.6-2.0; P = .733). Therefore, our data suggest that non-O blood group does not increase the odds of having PICC-related thrombosis.

The risk of venous thromboembolism associated with peripherally inserted central catheters in ambulant cancer patients

Background

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a common complication of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). PICCs are increasingly utilised in the management of cancer patients, a group which carries both additional risks for vascular thromboembolism as well as for complex morbidity. We analysed a cohort of cancer patients subjected to PICC insertion in a single cancer centre for the incidence of all-type vascular thromboembolism (VTE) and investigated relative risk factors.

Methods

In this clinical audit, the records of patients referred for PICC insertion in our centre in the period between 1/1/2011 and 1/4/2014 were retrospectively reviewed. The primary outcomes investigated were a) PICC-related deep vein thrombosis (PRDVT) and b) distant VTE (lower limb DVT and pulmonary embolism). 4Fr single lumen PICCs were placed in all patients. The Kaplan Meier method was used to study time from PICC insertion to PRDVT/VTE. Survival curves were compared using the log rank method. Logistic and Cox regression analyses were used to assess local, distant and combined endpoints.

Results

Four hundred ninety patients were included in the analysis of which 27 (5.5%) developed a PRDVT. Statistically significant risk factors for developing PRDVT in multivariate analysis included more than one attempt for insertion (OR 2.61, 95%CI: 1.12–6.05) and the use of fluoropyrimidine containing chemotherapy (OR 4.27, 95%CI 1.3–14.07). Twenty-six patients developed a distant VTE. Male gender was the only significant risk factor for distant VTE. When all-type VTE were considered together fluoropyrimidine containing chemotherapy (OR 4.54, 95% CI 1.63–12.61), male gender (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.04–3.93) and white cell count (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.00–1.26) were statistically significant as risk factors in this analysis.

Conclusions

This is a large study of VTE following PICC insertion in cancer patients which also looks at the rate of distant VTE. The observed PRDVT incidence is comparable with available literature. Fluoropyrimidine containing chemotherapy and more than one attempt for PICC insertion were independent predictors of PICC-associated VTE whilst the former remained an independent predictor of all-type VTE. Anticoagulation did not prevent thrombotic events in this cohort.

Parenteral anticoagulation in ambulatory patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Anticoagulation may improve survival in patients with cancer through a speculated anti-tumour effect, in addition to the antithrombotic effect, although may increase the risk of bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of parenteral anticoagulants in ambulatory patients with cancer who, typically, are undergoing chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, immunotherapy or radiotherapy, but otherwise have no standard therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation.

SEARCH METHODS

A comprehensive search included (1) a major electronic search (February 2016) of the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1946 to February 2016; accessed via OVID) and Embase (1980 to February 2016; accessed via OVID); (2) handsearching of conference proceedings; (3) checking of references of included studies; (4) use of the 'related citation' feature in PubMed and (5) a search for ongoing studies in trial registries. As part of the living systematic review approach, we are running searches continually and we will incorporate new evidence rapidly after it is identified. This update of the systematic review is based on the findings of a literature search conducted on 14 August, 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of parenteral anticoagulation in ambulatory patients with cancer. Typically, these patients are undergoing chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, immunotherapy or radiotherapy, but otherwise have no standard therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardized form we extracted data in duplicate on study design, participants, interventions outcomes of interest, and risk of bias. Outcomes of interested included all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE), symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), major bleeding, minor bleeding, and quality of life. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach (GRADE handbook).

MAIN RESULTS

Of 6947 identified citations, 18 RCTs fulfilled the eligibility criteria. These trials enrolled 9575 participants. Trial registries' searches identified nine registered but unpublished trials, two of which were labeled as 'ongoing trials'. In all included RCTs, the intervention consisted of heparin (either unfractionated heparin or low molecular weight heparin). Overall, heparin appears to have no effect on mortality at 12 months (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.03; risk difference (RD) 10 fewer per 1000; 95% CI 35 fewer to 15 more; moderate certainty of evidence) and mortality at 24 months (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.01; RD 8 fewer per 1000; 95% CI 31 fewer to 8 more; moderate certainty of evidence). Heparin therapy reduces the risk of symptomatic VTE (RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.68; RD 30 fewer per 1000; 95% CI 36 fewer to 22 fewer; high certainty of evidence), while it increases in the risks of major bleeding (RR 1.30; 95% 0.94 to 1.79; RD 4 more per 1000; 95% CI 1 fewer to 11 more; moderate certainty of evidence) and minor bleeding (RR 1.70; 95% 1.13 to 2.55; RD 17 more per 1000; 95% CI 3 more to 37 more; high certainty of evidence). Results failed to confirm or to exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of heparin on thrombocytopenia (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.27; RD 33 fewer per 1000; 95% CI 66 fewer to 28 more; moderate certainty of evidence); quality of life (moderate certainty of evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Heparin appears to have no effect on mortality at 12 months and 24 months. It reduces symptomatic VTE and likely increases major and minor bleeding. Future research should further investigate the survival benefit of different types of anticoagulants in patients with different types and stages of cancer. The decision for a patient with cancer to start heparin therapy should balance the benefits and downsides, and should integrate the patient's values and preferences.Editorial note:This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence, as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

UK practice in the prevention of central venous catheter-associated thrombosis in adults on home parenteral nutrition

BACKGROUND

Maintaining central access is imperative for the delivery of home parenteral nutrition (HPN) in those with intestinal failure. Methods to reduce central venous catheter infection are well recognised; however, the prevention of line thrombosis is less well studied.

METHODS

This paper reviews the current evidence and reports a survey of current practice within the UK. Using an electronic survey, respondents were asked to detail their use of anticoagulation in different patient groups and the type of anticoagulation used.

RESULTS

41 replies were received from 31 centres. Only one responder used low-dose warfarin routinely; 80% however anticoagulated those with a previous line thrombosis and 65% anticoagulated those that had any deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolus. The most commonly used anticoagulant was dose-adjusted warfarin aiming for an international normalised ratio of 2-3.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence from the current literature in both HPN and the wider field is that there is no clear evidence that anticoagulation is either beneficial or harmful in the prevention of line thrombosis. This survey suggested that practice is varied across the UK likely reflecting the lack of evidence within the current literature.

International clinical practice guidelines including guidance for direct oral anticoagulants in the treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the second leading cause of death in patients with cancer. These patients are at an increased risk of developing VTE and are more likely to have a recurrence of VTE and bleeding while taking anticoagulants. Management of VTE in patients with cancer is a major therapeutic challenge and remains suboptimal worldwide. In 2013, the International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer (ITAC-CME), established to reduce the global burden of VTE in patients with cancer, published international guidelines for the treatment and prophylaxis of VTE and central venous catheter-associated thrombosis. The rapid global adoption of direct oral anticoagulants for management of VTE in patients with cancer is an emerging treatment trend that needs to be addressed based on the current level of evidence. In this Review, we provide an update of the ITAC-CME consensus recommendations based on a systematic review of the literature ranked according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation scale. These guidelines aim to address in-hospital and outpatient cancer-associated VTE in specific subgroups of patients with cancer.

Venous Access Devices: Clinical Rounds

Nursing management of venous access devices (VADs) requires knowledge of current evidence, as well as knowledge of when evidence is limited. Do you know which practices we do based on evidence and those that we do based on institutional history or preference? This article will present complex VAD infection and occlusion complications and some of the controversies associated with them. Important strategies for identifying these complications, troubleshooting, and evaluating the evidence related to lack of blood return, malposition, infection, access and maintenance protocols, and scope of practice issues are presented.

Anticoagulants for the prevention and treatment of catheter-related thrombosis in adults and children on parenteral nutrition: a systematic review and critical appraisal

BACKGROUND

Patients on parenteral nutrition require a central venous access and are at risk of catheter-related thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and vena cava syndrome. Parenteral nutrition guidelines suggest anticoagulation for the primary prevention of catheter-related thrombosis during long-term parenteral nutrition. We conducted a systematic review of the efficacy, safety and feasibility of anticoagulant use for preventing and treating catheter-related thrombosis during parenteral nutrition.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched for interventional and observational studies on adults and children receiving systemic anticoagulants during either short- or long-term parenteral nutrition delivered via central venous access. Primary outcomes were: objectively-confirmed catheter-related thrombosis, pulmonary embolism and bleeding. Secondary outcomes were: heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, prevalence of anticoagulation, and quality of International Normalised Ratio management in vitamin K antagonist-treated patients.

RESULTS

We identified 1,199 studies, of which 23 were included. Seven interventional studies of short-term parenteral nutrition (adult population, n=5) were classified as low-quality: in those, intravenous unfractionated heparin did not prevent catheter-related thrombosis if compared to saline. No interventional studies were conducted in patients on long-term parenteral nutrition. Observational data were sparse, rarely focusing on anticoagulation, and overall of low quality. The reported use of anticoagulants was between 22 and 66% in recent multicentre cohorts.

DISCUSSION

The amount and quality of data in this area are very suboptimal: most studies are outdated and involved heterogeneous populations. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to allow conclusions to be reached regarding the efficacy and safety of anticoagulants in this setting.

Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland: Safe vascular access 2016

Safe vascular access is integral to anaesthetic and critical care practice, but procedures are a frequent source of patient adverse events. Ensuring safe and effective approaches to vascular catheter insertion should be a priority for all practitioners. New technology such as ultrasound and other imaging has increased the number of tools available. This guidance was created using review of current practice and literature, as well as expert opinion. The result is a consensus document which provides practical advice on the safe insertion and removal of vascular access devices.

New Insights in the Pathogenesis of Autoimmune Hemolytic Anemia

Autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA) is caused by the increased destruction of red blood cells (RBCs) by anti-RBC autoantibodies with or without complement activation. RBC destruction may occur both by a direct lysis through the sequential activation of the final components of the complement cascade (membrane attack complex), or by antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC). The pathogenic role of autoantibodies depends on their class (the most frequent are IgG and IgM), subclass, thermal amplitude (warm and cold forms),as well as affinity and efficiency in activating complement. Several cytokines and cytotoxic mechanisms (CD8+ T and natural killer cells) are further involved in RBC destruction. Moreover, activated macrophages carrying Fc receptors may recognize and phagocyte erythrocytes opsonized by autoantibodies and complement. Direct complement-mediated lysis takes place mainly in the circulations and liver, whereas ADCC, cytotoxicity, and phagocytosis occur preferentially in the spleen and lymphoid organs. The degree of intravascular hemolysis is 10-fold greater than extravascular one. Finally, the efficacy of the erythroblastic compensatory response can greatly influence the clinical picture of AIHA. The interplay and relative burden of all these pathogenic mechanisms give reason for the great clinical heterogeneity of AIHAs, from fully compensated to rapidly evolving fatal cases.

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).