Treatment of catheter-related thrombosis in patients with hematologic malignancies: A Venous thromboEmbolism Network U.S. retrospective cohort study

Prevalence of PICC-related thrombosis in patients with hematological malignancies: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To estimate the prevalence of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC)-related venous thrombosis in patients with hematological malignancies.

METHODS

A systematic review of observational studies that evaluated the occurrence of PICC-related venous thrombosis in children, adults, and older people with hematological malignancies was conducted. Searches were carried out on June 12th, 2023 on PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, and LILACS, and to gray literature on Google Scholar, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. Eligibility criteria were applied independently by two reviewers, first on the titles and abstracts on the Rayyan platform and then on the full text of eligible studies. Risk of bias was assessed by the JBI checklist. Data were summarized descriptively, and the meta-analysis was carried out using the MetaXL 5.3 software. The review followed JBI guidelines and PRISMA for reporting.

RESULTS

In the 40 studies included, prevalence of PICC-related venous thrombosis was 9% in general, 9% in adults, and 6% in children with hematological malignancies. Most studies only evaluated cases of symptomatic thrombosis (n = 25; 64%).

CONCLUSION

Patients with hematological malignancies using PICC have an estimated prevalence of PICC-related venous thrombosis of 9%, and this rate may be underestimated due to the consideration of mostly symptomatic cases.

Central venous access device terminologies, complications, and reason for removal in oncology: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Lack of agreed terminology and definitions in healthcare compromises communication, patient safety, optimal management of adverse events, and research progress. The purpose of this scoping review was to understand the terminologies used to describe central venous access devices (CVADs), associated complications and reasons for premature removal in people undergoing cancer treatment. It also sought to identify the definitional sources for complications and premature removal reasons. The objective was to map language and descriptions used and to explore opportunities for standardisation.

METHODS

A systematic search of MedLine, PubMed, Cochrane, CINAHL Complete and Embase databases was performed. Eligibility criteria included, but were not limited to, adult patients with cancer, and studies published between 2017 and 2022. Articles were screened and data extracted in Covidence. Data charting included study characteristics and detailed information on CVADs including terminologies and definitional sources for complications and premature removal reasons. Descriptive statistics, tables and bar graphs were used to summarise charted data.

RESULTS

From a total of 2363 potentially eligible studies, 292 were included in the review. Most were observational studies (n = 174/60%). A total of 213 unique descriptors were used to refer to CVADs, with all reasons for premature CVAD removal defined in 84 (44%) of the 193 studies only, and complications defined in 56 (57%) of the 292 studies. Where available, definitions were author-derived and/or from national resources and/or other published studies.

CONCLUSION

Substantial variation in CVAD terminology and a lack of standard definitions for associated complications and premature removal reasons was identified. This scoping review demonstrates the need to standardise CVAD nomenclature to enhance communication between healthcare professionals as patients undergoing cancer treatment transition between acute and long-term care, to enhance patient safety and rigor of research protocols, and improve the capacity for data sharing.

Management of catheter-related upper extremity deep vein thrombosis in patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with cancer commonly require a central venous catheter, which is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Despite the frequent occurrence, the optimal anticoagulation management and outcomes for patients with cancer and catheter-related upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) are unclear.

OBJECTIVE

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the rates of recurrent VTE and bleeding in patients with cancer and catheter-related upper extremity DVT.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and CENTRAL from inception to June 2, 2023. The primary efficacy outcome was recurrent VTE, and the primary safety outcome was major bleeding. The incidence rates (with 95% CI) of outcomes were pooled using random effects model.

RESULTS

We included 29 studies (N = 2,836), among which 5 were prospective. The duration of follow-up and anticoagulation varied considerably. The main long-term anticoagulant used was low molecular weight heparin, followed by direct oral anticoagulants. The pooled 3-month recurrent VTE rate from 14 studies (N = 1,128) was 0.56% (95% CI, 0.10%-3.01%; I2 = 0%). The pooled 3-month major bleeding rate from 10 studies (N = 834) was 2.34% (95% CI, 1.14%-4.76%; I2 = 0%). We were unable to pool event rates beyond 3 months, given high heterogeneity. All studies had serious risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated a relatively low rate of recurrent VTE and moderate rate of major bleeding events within the first 3 months in patients with cancer and catheter-related upper extremity DVT. However, there was significant heterogeneity in the management and reporting after 3 months.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the incidence of post-thrombotic syndrome, recurrent thromboembolism, and bleeding after upper extremity vein thrombosis

BACKGROUND

Data on complications after upper extremity vein thrombosis (UEVT) are limited and heterogeneous.

METHODS

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the pooled proportions of venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence, bleeding, and post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) in patients with UEVT. A systematic literature review was conducted of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases from January 2000 to April 2023 in accordance with the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) guidelines. All studies included patients with UEVT and were published in English. Meta-analyses of VTE recurrence, bleeding, and of PTS after UEVT were performed to compute pooled estimates and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses of cancer-associated UEVT and catheter-associated venous thrombosis were conducted. Patients with Paget-Schroetter syndrome or effort thrombosis were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 55 studies with 15,694 patients were included. The pooled proportions for VTE recurrence, major bleeding, and PTS were 4.8% (95% CI, 3.8%-6.2%), 3.0% (95% CI, 2.2%-4.0%), and 23.8% (95% CI, 17.0%-32.3%), respectively. The pooled proportion of VTE recurrence was 2.7% (95% CI, 1.6%-4.6%) for patients treated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), 1.7% (95% CI, 0.8%-3.7%) for patients treated with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), and 4.4% (95% CI, 1.5%-11.8%) for vitamin K antagonists (VKAs; P = .36). The pooled proportion was 6.3% (95% CI, 4.3%-9.1%) for cancer patients compared with 3.1% (95% CI, 2.1%-4.6%) for patients without cancer (P = .01). The pooled proportion of major bleeding for patients treated with DOACs, LMWH, and VKAs, was 2.1% (95% CI, 0.9%-5.1%), 3.2% (95% CI, 1.4%-7.2%), and 3.4% (95% CI, 1.4%-8.4%), respectively (P = .72). The pooled proportion of PTS for patients treated with DOACs, LMWH, and VKAs was 11.8% (95% CI, 6.5%-20.6%), 27.9% (95% CI, 20.9%-36.2%), and 24.5% (95% CI, 17.6%-33.1%), respectively (P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

The results from this study suggest that UEVT is associated with significant rates of PTS and VTE recurrence. Treatment with DOACs might be associated with lower PTS rates than treatment with other anticoagulants.

Quantifying COVID-19 policy impacts on subjective well-being during the early phase of the pandemic: A cross-sectional analysis of United States survey data from March to August 2020

To stop the spread of COVID-19, a number of public health policies and restrictions were implemented during the pre-vaccination phase of the pandemic. This study provides a quantitative assessment of how these policies impacted subjective well-being (SWB) in the United States over a 6-month period spanning March to August 2020. We study two specific research objectives. First, we aim to quantify the impacts of COVID-19 public health policies at different levels of stringency on SWB. Second, we train and implement a conditional inference tree model for predicting individual SWB based both on socio-demographic characteristics and policies then in place. Our results indicate that policies such as enforcing strict stay-at-home requirements and closing workplaces were negatively associated with SWB, and that an individual's socio-demographic characteristics, including income status, job, and gender, conditionally interact with policies such as workplace closure in a predictive model of SWB. Therefore, although such policies may have positive health implications, they also have secondary environmental and social implications that need to be taken into account in any cost-benefit analysis of such policies for future pandemic preparedness. Our proposed methodology suggests a way to quantify such impacts through the lens of SWB, and to further advance the science of pandemic preparedness from a public health perspective.

Unmet clinical needs in the prevention and treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis, is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. Based on accumulating evidence, the prophylaxis and treatment of cancer-associated VTE have been changed over the years. Recently, the introduction in clinical practice of the direct oral anticoagulants has radically changed the management of cancer-associated VTE for their easier use and non-inferior efficacy-safety profile compared to low-molecular-weight heparins. However, the heterogeneity of the cancer population in terms of site, type and stage of the malignancy, the presence of comorbidities, and the variability in cancer treatment and prognosis represent major challenges in the management of VTE in patients with cancer. In the present review, we will discuss clinical questions that represent unsolved issues in the setting of cancer-associated VTE and provide an overview on recent evidence on this topic: primary prophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients treated with chemotherapy and in cancer surgical patients, need of long-term anticoagulation in cancer patients, treatment of VTE in cancer patients at increased bleeding risk and in special categories such as incidental VTE, splanchnic vein thrombosis or catheter-related thrombosis.

EHA Guidelines on Management of Antithrombotic Treatments in Thrombocytopenic Patients With Cancer

In cancer patients, thrombocytopenia can result from bone marrow infiltration or from anticancer medications and represents an important limitation for the use of antithrombotic treatments, including anticoagulant, antiplatelet, and fibrinolytic agents. These drugs are often required for prevention or treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis or for cardioembolic prevention in atrial fibrillation in an increasingly older cancer population. Data indicate that cancer remains an independent risk factor for thrombosis even in case of thrombocytopenia, since mild-to-moderate thrombocytopenia does not protect against arterial or venous thrombosis. In addition, cancer patients are at increased risk of antithrombotic drug-associated bleeding, further complicated by thrombocytopenia and acquired hemostatic defects. Furthermore, some anticancer treatments are associated with increased thrombotic risk and may generate interactions affecting the effectiveness or safety of antithrombotic drugs. In this complex scenario, the European Hematology Association in collaboration with the European Society of Cardiology has produced this scientific document to provide a clinical practice guideline to help clinicians in the management of patients with cancer and thrombocytopenia. The Guidelines focus on adult patients with active cancer and a clear indication for anticoagulation, single or dual antiplatelet therapy, their combination, or reperfusion therapy, who have concurrent thrombocytopenia because of either malignancy or anticancer medications. The level of evidence and the strength of the recommendations were discussed according to a Delphi procedure and graded according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.

A Single Center Retrospective Cohort Study Comparing Different Anticoagulants for the Treatment of Catheter-Related Thrombosis of the Upper Extremities in Women With Gynecologic and Breast Cancer

Background

Catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) of the upper extremities is a frequent complication among cancer patients that carry a central venous catheter (CVC) and may lead to pulmonary embolism (PE) and loss of CVC function. Despite its clinical impact, no anticoagulant treatment scheme has been rigorously evaluated in these patients. In addition, there is no proven evidence that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are efficacious and safe in this setting because cancer patients with CRT of the upper extremities were not included in the clinical trials that led to the approval of DOACs for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE).

Methods

We performed a single center retrospective cohort study on women with gynecologic or breast cancer treated with either low-molecular-weight heparin, fondaparinux, or DOACs for CRT of the upper extremities. Only patients who received anticoagulation at the proper therapeutic dose and for at least 3 months were included in the analysis. Effectiveness was evaluated in terms of preservation of line function, residual thrombosis, and recurrence of VTE (including PE). Safety was evaluated in terms of death, major bleeding (MB), and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB).

Results

We identified 74 women who fulfilled the criteria to be included in the analysis. Of these, 31 (41.9%) had been treated with fondaparinux, 21 (28.4%) with enoxaparin, and 22 (29.7%) with the DOAC edoxaban. We found no differences between patients treated with the three different therapeutic approaches, in terms of preservation of line function, incidence of residual thrombosis, and VTE recurrence (including PE). Safety was similar as well, with no MBs recorded in any treatment group.

Conclusion

These results, although retrospective and based on a relatively small sample size, indicate that, in women with gynecologic or breast cancer, CRT of the upper extremities may be treated with similar effectiveness and safety with fondaparinux, enoxaparin, and edoxaban. Further studies are needed to substantiate these findings.

A prospective cohort study of catheter-related thrombosis in cancer patients treated with 1 month of anticoagulation after catheter removal

The duration of anticoagulation in patients with catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) is not standardized. This is a multiinstitutional prospective pilot study in patients with cancer and upper extremity CRT. Patients received therapeutic enoxaparin for 1 month after catheter removal. Incidence of recurrent thrombosis, hemorrhage, and postthrombotic syndrome (PTS) using the modified Villalta scale, and functional limitation using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire were assessed at months 1, 3, and 6 after catheter removal. Clopper-Pearson exact 95% confidence intervals (CI), Pearson correlations, and Skillings-Mack, and Wilcoxon signed ranks tests were done. Twenty-seven patients from three institutions were enrolled. Feasibility outcomes were not met. Seventy percent (n = 19) of the cohort had hematologic malignancies. Excluding two patients who were still on enoxaparin at study withdrawal, the median total duration of therapeutic enoxaparin was 32 [interquartile range (IQR) 30-52] days in the remaining 25 patients. During the 6 months after catheter removal, the incidence of recurrent thrombosis was 0% (n = 0/20, 95% CI 0-17%) and major hemorrhage was 5% (n = 1/20, 95% CI 0.13-25%). One patient (5%, 95% CI 0.13-25%) had PTS in the affected arm at any visit, and none had severe PTS. Higher PTS scores were associated with higher DASH scores. DASH scores at month 6 were significantly lower compared with month 1 (P = 0.0066). No deaths occurred. A multicenter pilot study of treatment with anticoagulation for 1 month after catheter removal did not meet feasibility outcomes but we found no recurrent thrombosis and a low incidence of PTS.

Risk of pulmonary emboli after removal of an upper extremity central catheter associated with a deep vein thrombosis

Standard treatment of catheter-associated upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UE-DVT) is anticoagulation, although catheters are often removed for this indication. The optimal time for catheter removal and whether the act and/or timing of catheter removal is associated with pulmonary embolism (PE) remain unknown. A retrospective cohort study was performed at 8 participating institutions through the Venous thromboEmbolism Network US. Patients with hematologic malignancies and central venous catheter (CVC)-associated UE-DVT were included from 1 January 2010 through 31 December 2016. The primary outcome was objectively confirmed PE within 7 days of UE-DVT diagnosis in anticoagulated patients comparing early (≤48 hours) vs delayed (>48 hours) catheter removal. A total of 626 patients were included, among whom 480 were treated with anticoagulation. Among anticoagulated patients, 255 underwent early CVC removal, while 225 had delayed or no CVC removal; 146 patients received no anticoagulation, among whom 116 underwent CVC removal alone. PE within 7 days occurred in 2 patients (0.78%) with early removal compared with 1 patient (0.44%) with delayed or no CVC removal (P > .9). PE or any cause of death within 7 days occurred in 3 patients in both the early removal (1.18%) and delayed/no removal (1.33%) groups (P > .9). In patients treated with CVC removal only (no anticoagulation), there were no PEs but 3 deaths within 7 days. In patients with hematological malignancy and CVC-associated UE-DVT, early removal of CVCs was not associated with an increased risk of PE compared with delayed or no removal.