No effect of nadroparin prophylaxis in the prevention of central venous catheter (CVC)-associated thrombosis in bone marrow transplant recipients

Venous thromboembolism in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: A narrative review

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) and its treatment has significant effects on morbidity and non-relapse mortality. There is a complex interplay on balancing the risk for thrombosis and bleeding in these patients, making treatment decisions particularly challenging. Despite this, there are currently no validated risk assessment models or guidelines to aid clinical decision making on thromboprophylaxis and VTE treatment in this population of patients. Herein, we review the many risk factors for VTE in HSCT patients, categorized into patient, disease, catheter, treatment, laboratory, and transplant-related variables. This review also discusses current thromboprophylaxis and VTE management strategies in HSCT patients, with scope into the development of risk assessment models that allow for identification of high-risk subgroups who may benefit from targeted intervention.

Catheter-Related Thrombosis in Patients with Lymphoma or Myeloma Undergoing Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation

Catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) occurs frequently during autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) and data regarding the incidence, risk factors, and management are understudied. We evaluated 789 consecutive patients with lymphoma and myeloma that underwent AHCT over 10 years (2006 to 2016) and detected the incidence of CRT was 6.3%; only 32% of CRT were symptomatic. The majority occurred within 100 days of AHCT (86%) and median time from tunneled line placement to CRT was 44 days (range, 11 to 89 days). Outcomes of these 50 patients with CRT were compared with age- and disease-matched AHCT control subjects to identify risk factors. History of prior venous thromboembolism (VTE) (20.9% versus 7.0%, P = .02) was the only significant risk factor. Treatment with low-molecular-weight heparin was tolerated with rare minor bleeding (4%), although CRT recurrence or extension (10%) and subsequent VTE (12%) were common. CRT did not impact on nonrelapse mortality or risk of relapse; 2-year progression-free survival was 55% in CRT cases versus 54% in control subjects (P = .42). CRT appears to be common in patients with lymphoma and myeloma undergoing AHCT and significantly contributes to morbidity. Further study to determine mitigating strategies and modify risk factors for CRT is warranted.

Acute phase after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation

The transplantation of allogeneic or autologous haematopoietic stem cells is an established treatment for many malignant and non-malignant diseases of the bone marrow. Intensive cytoreductive regimens administered before transplantation induce prolonged and severe cytopenia of all haematopoietic lineages. Thrombocytopenia leads to an increased risk of bleeding, which may be further aggravated by consumption of plasmatic factors as a result of tumour lysis or after antibody administration. At the same time, patients after transplantation are also at increased risk of thrombotic complications. Endothelial damage induced by radio-and chemotherapy, indwelling catheters, prolonged immobilization and a high incidence of systemic infection all contribute to the frequent occurrence of thromboembolic events in this population.

This review discusses the incidence and risk factors for haemorrhagic and thrombotic complications after stem cell transplantation. Special emphasis is given to complications occurring specifically in the context of transplantation such as diffuse alveolar haemorrhage, haemorrhagic cystitis, veno-occlusive disease, and transplant associated microangiopathy.

Venous Thromboembolism after Allogeneic Pediatric Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: A Single-Center Study

Objective:

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in children who undergo hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) has high morbidity. The aim of this study is to assess the incidence of VTE in allogeneic pediatric HSCT recipients and the contribution of pretransplant prothrombotic risk factors to thrombosis.

Materials and Methods:

We retrospectively evaluated 92 patients between April 2010 and November 2012 undergoing allogeneic HSCT who had completed 100 days post-HSCT. Before HSCT, coagulation profiles; acquired and inherited prothrombotic risk factors including FV G1691A (factor V Leiden), prothrombin G20210A, methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) C677T, and MTHFR A1298C mutations; and serum homocysteine and lipoprotein (a), plasma antithrombin III, protein C, and protein S levels were obtained from all patients.

Results:

In the screening of thrombophilia, 8 patients (9%) were heterozygous for factor V Leiden, 5 (6%) were homozygous for MTHFR 677TT, 12 (14%) were homozygous for MTHFR 1298CC, and 2 (2%) were heterozygous for prothrombin G20210A mutation. We observed VTE in 5 patients (5.4%); a prothrombotic risk factor was found in 3 out of these 5 patients, while 4 out of 5 patients had central venous catheters. It was determined there was no significant relationship between VTE and inherited prothrombotic risk factors.

Conclusion:

VTE after HSCT seems to be a low-frequency event that may be due to low-dose, low-molecular-weight heparin prophylaxis, and the role of inherited prothrombotic risk factors cannot be entirely excluded without a prospective study.

Systemic Anticoagulant Prophylaxis for Central Catheter–Associated Venous Thrombosis in Cancer Patients

Objective:

To review the literature regarding the incidence of thrombosis in cancer patients with central venous catheters (CVCs) and weigh the evidence supporting thromboprophylaxis in this patient population.

Data Sources:

Clinical literature was identified by searching MEDLINE (1966–February 2007) using the key search terms malignancy, cancer, catheters, prophylaxis, thrombosis, and central venous catheters.

Study Selection and Data Extraction:

An evaluation of retrospective and prospective clinical trials that studied the use of systemic anticoagulants (eg, warfarin, heparin, and low-molecular-weight heparin [LMWH]) to prevent thrombosis with CVCs was performed. Different patient populations, including those manifesting with solid tumor or hematologic malignancy and those undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant, were evaluated for this review.

Data Synthesis:

Thrombosis associated with CVCs is a common complication in cancer patients. Most CVC thrombosis will occur within 30 days after placement, with a majority within 8 days. The incidence may depend on the type of CVC and location of the catheter tip. Despite recommendations against the use of systemic anticoagulation for prophylaxis against CVC thrombosis, a potential role continues to be explored in selected settings. Several variables are noted between published clinical trials, making any comparisons difficult to determine whether any benefit exists. Generally, the use of mini-dose warfarin, LMWH, or low-dose unfractionated heparin did not consistently reach significance in reporting a reduction in CVC thrombosis.

Conclusions:

Available data do not support the routine use of anticoagulants for thromboprophylaxis to prevent CVC-related thrombosis. However, several inconsistencies can be found in the studies done to date. More studies are needed to identify subsets of cancer patients who are at higher risk of developing CVC thrombosis and may benefit from prophylactic systemic anticoagulation.

Incidence and risk factors for central venous catheter-related thrombosis in hematological patients

Catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) is a serious complication in hematological patients, but the risk factors for its occurrence are not well established. The study objectives were to estimate the incidence of CRT and to identify the risk factors for developing CRT in hematological patients. In a prospective setting, 104 consecutive patients with 200 insertions of central venous catheters were enrolled into the study. The patients were screened for CRT by compression Doppler ultrasound every 10–14 days. Additionally, ultrasonography was performed in the case of clinical symptoms suggesting CRT. Over the course of 6,098 catheter days of follow-up, the incidence of CRT was 13.5 %. In 18/27 cases (66.6 %), radiological evidence of CRT was preceded by clinical symptoms. However, in 9/27 (33.3 %), CRT was clinically asymptomatic. The median times to symptomatic and asymptomatic CRT were 17 (range 1–49) and 8 (range 1–16) catheter days, respectively. In univariate analysis, the risk factors for CRT were exit-site infection (ESI) (P < 0.001), two or more prior chemotherapy lines (P = 0.015), catheter-related blood stream infection (P < 0.001), and Coagulase-negative staphylococci infection (P = 0.002). In multivariate analysis, ESI (OR 5.0; 95 % CI 1.6–6.3; P = 0.006) and two or more prior chemotherapy lines (OR 3.57; 95 % CI 1.27–10.11; P = 0.015) remained significantly associated with the risk of CRT. The results of our study provide information regarding the characteristic features of the patients who are at high risk of thrombosis, for whom Doppler ultrasound screening should be considered.

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.

Thrombotic obstruction of the central venous catheter in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

This is an integrative literature review with the aim of summarizing the prevention measures and treatment of thrombotic obstruction of long-term semi-implanted central venous catheters, in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. The sample consisted of seven studies, being two randomized controlled clinical trials, three cohort studies and two case series. Regarding the prevention measures, one single study demonstrated effectiveness, which was a cohort study on the oral use of warfarin. In relation to the treatment measures, three studies evidenced effectiveness, one highlighted the efficacy of streptokinase or urokinase, one demonstrated the benefit of using low-molecular-weight heparin and the other treated the obstruction with heparin or urokinase. Catheter patency research shows a restricted evolution that does not follow the evolution of transplantations, mainly regarding nursing care.

Central Venous Catheter-related Complications in Patients with Hematological Malignancies: A Retrospective Analysis of Risk Factors and Prophylactic Measures

We retrospectively analyzed the incidence of thrombotic and infectious complications in relation with the use of central venous catheters (CVCs), in a series of patients with hematological malignancies and low platelet and leucocyte counts.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

126 patients with hematological malignancies were analyzed. A total of 207 CVCs were implanted: 137 centrally (CICCs) and 70 peripherally (PICCs). The median duration of the CVCs was 19 days for a total of 4051 catheter-days. Antithrombotic prophylaxis was unfractionated heparin (UFH), 2,500 IU daily by 24 h continuous infusion in 169 CVCs, low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), 3,800 IU daily by single bolus intravenous injection (i.v.) in 21 and warfarin in one. No prophylaxis was given in 16 CVCs. Thrombotic complications developed in 15.5% of the CVCs (7.9 events/1000 catheter days), and the frequency of infectious complications was 10.6% (5.2 events/1000 catheter days). On multivariate analysis thromboses were more frequent and earlier with PICCs than CICCs (p = 0.0001), and in patients on UFH (16.6%) than in LMWH prophylaxis (4.7%), but the last difference was not statistically significant. In conclusions the incidence of thrombotic complications in our series was comparable to that observed in non-thrombocytopenic patients and was significantly higher in those carrying PICC than CICC (p = 0.0001). There were fewer thrombotic events in the patients receiving i.v. LMWH prophylaxis than in those receiving i.v. UFH. The use of anticoagulants was safe and not associated with hemorrhages.

Management of occlusion and thrombosis associated with long-term indwelling central venous catheters

Long-term central venous catheters (CVCs) are important instruments in the care of patients with chronic illnesses, but catheter occlusions and catheter-related thromboses are common complications that can result from their use. In this Review, we summarise management of these complications. Mechanical CVC occlusions need cause-specific treatment, whereas thrombotic occlusions usually resolve with thrombolytic treatment, such as alteplase. Prophylaxis with thrombolytic flushes might prevent CVC infections and catheter-related thromboses, but confirmatory studies and cost-effectiveness analysis of this approach are needed. Risk factors for catheter-related thromboses include previous catheter infections, malposition of the catheter tip, and prothrombotic states. Catheter-related thromboses can lead to catheter infection, pulmonary embolism, and post-thrombotic syndrome. Catheter-related thromboses are usually diagnosed by Doppler ultrasonography or venography and treated with anticoagulation therapy for 6 weeks to a year, dependent on the extent of the thrombus, response to initial therapy, and whether thrombophilic factors persist. Prevention of catheter-related thromboses includes proper positioning of the CVC and prevention of infections; anticoagulation prophylaxis is not currently recommended.

Current perspective of venous thrombosis in the upper extremity

Venous thrombosis of the upper extremity is a rare disease. Therefore, not as much is known about risk factors, treatment and the risk of recurrence as for venous thrombosis of the leg. Only central venous catheters and strenuous exercise are commonly known risk factors for an upper extremity venous thrombosis. In this review an overview of the different risk factors, possible treatments and the complications for patients with a venous thrombosis of the upper extremity is given.

Thrombotic and infectious complications of central venous catheters in patients with hematological malignancies

Central venous catheters (CVCs) have considerably improved the management of patients with hematological malignancies, by facilitating chemotherapy, supportive therapy and blood sampling. Complications of insertion of CVCs include mechanical (arterial puncture, pneumothorax), thrombotic and infectious complications. CVC-related thrombosis and infections are frequently occurring complications and may cause significant morbidity in patients with hematological malignancies. CVC-related thrombosis and infections are related and can therefore not be seen as separate entities. The incidence of symptomatic CVC-related thrombosis had been reported to vary between 1.2 and 13.0% of patients with hematological malignancy. The incidence of CVC-related bloodstream infections varies between 0.0 and 20.8%. There is need for a specific approach regarding diagnosis and treatment of CVC-related thrombosis and infection with specific attention to the preservation of the catheter. Since data on CVC-related infections and thrombosis in hematological patients have been obtained mainly from retrospective studies of small sample size, prospective, randomized studies of prophylactic measures concerning CVC-related thrombosis and infection are warranted.

Prevention of central venous catheter-associated thrombosis: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Anticoagulant prophylaxis in patients with central venous catheters is controversial. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of anticoagulant prophylaxis in patients with central venous catheters.

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched up to May 2006, supplemented by manual searches of conference proceedings and bibliographies.

RESULTS

Fifteen trials were included. Unfractionated heparin infusion, oral fixed low-dose vitamin K antagonist, and subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin were evaluated. For all catheter-associated deep vein thrombosis (symptomatic and asymptomatic combined), the summary relative risks ranged from 0.31 to 0.73 (all achieved statistical significance). For symptomatic deep vein thrombosis, the summary relative risks ranged from 0.28 to 0.72, but did not achieve statistical significance for any individual regimen.

CONCLUSION

Anticoagulant prophylaxis is effective for preventing all catheter-associated deep vein thrombosis in patients with central venous catheters. The effectiveness for preventing symptomatic venous thromboembolism, including pulmonary embolism, remains uncertain.

Low-dose aspirin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in breast cancer patients treated with infusional chemotherapy after insertion of central vein catheter

BACKGROUND

We previously demonstrated a high incidence (7.7%) of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in breast cancer patients treated with infusional chemotherapy after insertion of central vein catheters (CVC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of low-dose aspirin for the prevention of VTE.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a monocentric prospective study, patients with stage II-IV breast cancer, who underwent CVC insertion for continuous infusional chemotherapy, were assigned to receive low-dose aspirin (100 mg daily). Treatment was started after CVC implantation and continued until the last day of chemotherapy. Patients were assessed for safety and for the incidence of symptomatic deep venous thrombosis (DVT) confirmed by color-Doppler ultrasonography.

RESULTS

Between April 2000 and March 2004, 188 consecutive patients were included in the study. Median age was 48 years (range 22-83), 31 patients (16%) had concomitant hypertension, and 14 patients (7.4%) were smokers. Median duration of treatment with aspirin was 3.6 months (range 0.4-5.7). A DVT confirmed by color-Doppler ultrasonography was observed in four patients (2.1%; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-5.35%). Side effects included mild epistaxis (three patients, 1.5%) and mild gastric pain (two patients, 1%). No major bleeding complication or International Normal Ratio alteration occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of low-dose aspirin is safe and seems to correlate with a low risk of DVT in breast cancer patients treated with infusional chemotherapy. Further randomized studies comparing low-dose aspirin with other anticoagulative agents are warranted.

Therapy Insight: venous-catheter-related thrombosis in cancer patients

Central venous catheters (CVCs) have improved the management of patients with cancer substantially, by facilitating chemotherapy and supportive therapy. The use of CVCs is associated with complications such as infection and upper-limb deep vein thrombosis (UL-DVT). The incidence of clinically overt UL-DVT related to the use of CVCs ranges between 2% and 4%. In the most recent study, the incidence of CVC-related thrombosis, as screened by venography, was approximately 18% in the absence of prophylaxis. In cancer patients with CVC-related UL-DVT, the incidence of clinically overt pulmonary embolism was between 15% and 25%, and the incidence of autopsy-proven pulmonary embolism was up to 50%. Pathogenic factors for CVC-related thrombosis include vessel injury caused by the CVC insertion procedure, venous stasis because of the indwelling CVC, and hypercoagulability associated with cancer. Recent studies have not confirmed a benefit for prophylaxis with antithrombotic agents for CVC-related thrombosis. The recommended treatment for CVC-related thrombosis is based on long-term anticoagulant therapy, with or without catheter removal.

Central venous line-related thrombosis in children

Central venous lines are used in critically ill children and in children with chronic conditions for the administration of intravenous therapy, such as fluids, medications, total parenteral nutrition and blood products. Although the use of central venous lines has greatly improved the quality of care in these children, these catheters may cause serious mechanical, infectious and thrombotic complications. The reported frequency of catheter thrombosis in children is low as 5% in studies including only symptomatic cases and high as 50% in studies where patients are systematically screened for catheter-related thrombosis. The risk factors for catheter-related thrombosis in children are associated with the methods used for catheter insertion and with individual patient characteristics, underlying diagnosis and treatment. The management of catheter-related thrombosis is largely dependent on the requirement of the catheter. If no longer required or nonfunctioning the catheter should be removed. If access is still required and the catheter is functioning, treatment with anticoagulation is recommended in the absence of contraindications. The management of radiographically detected asymptomatic thrombosis in children is less clear. Clinical studies of prophylaxis for catheter-related thrombosis are inconclusive and no definitive recommendations for prophylaxis in adults or in children with central venous thrombosis can be made. Properly designed studies are needed to assess the role of prophylactic anticoagulation for preventing catheter-related thrombosis.

Prophylaxis of central venous catheter-related thrombosis with minidose warfarin in patients treated with high-dose chemotherapy and peripheral-blood stem-cell transplantation: retrospective analysis of 228 cancer patients

Patients with a central venous catheter (CVC) undergoing high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) followed by peripheral-blood stem-cell transplantation (PBSCT) for malignancies are at high risk of thrombosis, but the use of anti-coagulant prophylaxis remains debatable in this setting of patients. We analyzed the efficacy and the safety of minidose warfarin in 228 patients in whom CVCs had been placed and who had received 292 HDC courses of therapy. The catheters remained in place for a mean of 173 (range 40-298) days. All patients received prophylactic oral warfarin in the fixed dose of 1 mg/day starting on the day of CVC insertion. Prophylaxis was interrupted during aplasia when platelet counts fell below 50,000/dL. There were no toxic deaths related to the prophylaxis. Overall there were 4 thrombotic events. Three occurrences were directly related to the catheter, while the remaining event was a deep saphenous-vein thrombosis. A number of potential predictive factors were analyzed for their impact on thrombotic events without finding any significant correlation. Four episodes of bleeding occurred, with each of these individuals having a normal INR but a platelet count below 50,000/dL. Minidose warfarin is effective and safe to use for preventing thrombotic events in this setting of patients.

Enoxaparin for the Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism Associated With Central Vein Catheter: A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Study in Cancer Patients

Purpose

The extent of venous thromboembolism (VTE) associated with central vein catheters (CVC) in cancer patients remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the low molecular weight heparin, enoxaparin, in the prevention of VTE.

Patients and Methods

In a multicenter, double-blind study, consecutive cancer patients scheduled for CVC insertion were randomly assigned to receive either subcutaneous enoxaparin 40 mg once a day or placebo. Treatment was started 2 hours before CVC insertion and continued for 6 weeks. The primary end points of the study were deep vein thrombosis (DVT), confirmed by venography of the CVC limb performed 6 weeks after randomization, or clinically overt pulmonary embolism, confirmed by objective testing during the study drug administration. Patients were assessed for bleeding complications.

Results

Three hundred eighty-five patients were randomized, of which 321 (83.4%) underwent venography. A venography was adequate for adjudication in 155 patients in each treatment group. A DVT was observed in 22 patients (14.1%) treated with enoxaparin and in 28 patients (18.0%) treated with placebo, corresponding to a relative risk of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.47 to 1.31). No major bleeding occurred. Five patients (2.6%) in the enoxaparin group and two patients (1.0%) in the placebo group died during the treatment period.

Conclusion

In this study, no difference in the rate of CVC-related VTE was detected between patients receiving enoxaparin and patients receiving placebo. The dose of enoxaparin used in this study proved to be safe. Clinical trials evaluating higher enoxaparin doses could optimize the efficacy of this agent for this indication.

Safety of low-dose low-molecular-weight-heparins in thrombocytopenic stem cell transplantation patients: a case series and review of the literature

Few attempts have been made to examine the feasibility of safely administering low-molecular-weight-heparins (LMWHs) in the presence of concurrent thrombocytopenia. We retrospectively investigated the safety of low-dose LMWH in BMT patients, a population at risk of bleeding. In total, 26 patients received at least one dose of low-dose enoxaparin (ie <1 mg/kg/day) during thrombocytopenia. s.c. enoxaparin 40 mg once daily was given in 85% of the cohort. The mean number of platelet days <55 x 10(9) and <20 x 10(9)/l were 16.5 days (95% CI=8.04-24.96) and 4.14 days (95% CI=2.35-5.93), respectively. The mean number of low-dose enoxaparin administration days when platelet <55 x 10(9) and 20 x 10(9)/l were 9.89 days (95% CI=3.26-16.53) and 2.25 days (95% CI=0.57-3.93), respectively. Minor bleeding occurred in four patients (15%) whereas major episodes developed in two patients (8%). The latter two events occurred during the transition between full therapeutic (ie 1.5-2 mg/kg/day) and low-dose enoxaparin close to the onset of thrombocytopenia. The present case series, along with the discussed literature, descriptively suggests that low-dose enoxaparin may be safely administered at a platelet count in the range of 20 and 55 x 10(9)/l in BMT patients who weigh >55 kg.

Catheter tip position as a risk factor for thrombosis associated with the use of subcutaneous infusion ports

AIMS

The use of subcutaneous infusion ports has become standard practice to provide a long-term venous access in oncological patients. The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the different complications of infusion ports in our population and to identify predisposing factors.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of 437 patients who were followed at the Oncology/Haematology Department of our hospital. Of these patients, there were 370 (84.4%) with solid tumours and 58 (13.2%) with haematological disease. The position of the catheter tip was evaluated by reviewing the available chest radiographs or phlebographies.

MAIN RESULTS

Analysis of the records showed that 346 patients (79.17%) had no complications. The most common complications after implantation were thrombosis (8.46%), catheter dysfunction (4.8%) and infections (4.4%). Univariate and multivariate analysis showed that catheter tip positioning was the most important predisposing risk factor for thrombosis. Catheter tips positioned in the brachiocephalic vein or in the cranial part of the superior vena cava were associated with a high risk of thrombosis. Other significant risk factors were gender and initial diagnosis. Female patients and patients with lung cancer also had an elevated risk of developing a thrombosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to other reports, we noted a higher rate of thrombosis and port dysfunction. Since catheter tip position was a predisposing factor for developing a thrombosis, correct catheter position has to be ensured during placement. Prophylactic antithrombotic treatment might be beneficial in the event of failure to position the catheter correctly.

Prophylaxis of port system-associated thromboses in advanced oncology patients using heparin flushing

PURPOSE

Thromboses occur in connection with the use of venous port systems. Valid data on the instillation of heparin-based solutions in the lumen of the port system are lacking.

METHODS

One hundred and seventy-three patients with malignancy from 19 centres who had participated in an observation study of subcutaneous thromboprophylaxis with dalteparin-Na (Fragmin P/-Forte) were analysed with a view to flushing the port systems and investigating any related influence on the occurrence of catheter-associated thromboses.

RESULTS

All catheter-associated thromboses were seen in centres which used either no UFH, or UFH concentrations of up to 250 IU/ml (8/108; 7.4%). The rate of thrombosis rose to 10% (6/60) if no high-risk dose of dalteparin was applied subcutaneously. On the other hand, the rate of catheter-associated thromboses under the high-risk dose of dalteparin and/or a more highly concentrated instillation fluid, at 0.9% (1/113), was much lower. One haemorrhage from gastric ulcer occurred under the highest UFH concentration in the instillation fluid (2,500 IU UFH/ml).

CONCLUSION

The results indicate that a concentration between 500 IU UFH/ml and 1,000 IU UFH/ml in the instillation solution, at the same time as high-risk prophylaxis with subcutaneous dalteparin for prevention of catheter-associated thromboses, is effective in patients with manifest tumour disease. The instillation of LMWH-based solutions at a concentration of approx 500 anti-Xa units/ml should be discussed as a pending issue.

Central venous catheter related thrombosis in haematology patients and prediction of risk by screening with Doppler-ultrasound

Patients with a central venous catheter (CVC) who receive intensive chemotherapy or a stem cell transplantation for haematological disease are at risk for developing CVC-related thrombosis. To study the incidence of thrombosis, 105 consecutive patients underwent serial Doppler-ultrasound and we evaluated whether clinically manifest thrombosis could be predicted by screening with Doppler-ultrasound. Patients with subclavian or jugular inserted CVCs were clinically assessed each day for signs and symptoms of thrombosis. Additional Doppler-ultrasound screens were performed weekly by an independent physician in all patients until CVC removal. Doppler-ultrasound recordings were assessed by two blinded observers. In cases of clinically suspected thrombosis, the attending physicians followed routine diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. The overall cumulative incidence of CVC-related thrombosis was 28.6% (30 of 105 patients). Of the 30 patients with thrombosis, 26 had subclinical thrombosis by Doppler-ultrasound, nine of whom developed clinically manifest thrombosis later. Four patients had clinically manifest thrombosis without prior abnormal Doppler-ultrasound. In cases of subclinical thrombosis the risk of developing symptomatic disease increased sevenfold (34.6% vs. 5.1%). Doppler-ultrasound screening may be useful to identify those patients that are at high and low risk for clinically manifest CVC-related thrombosis.

Venous thromboembolism associated with long-term use of central venous catheters in cancer patients

Long-term central venous catheters (CVCs) have considerably improved the management of cancer patients because they facilitate chemotherapy, transfusions, parenteral nutrition, and blood sampling. However, the use of long-term CVCs, especially for chemotherapy, has been associated with the occurrence of upper-limb deep venous thrombosis (UL-DVT). The incidence of clinically overt UL-DVT related to CVCs has been reported to vary between 0.3% and 28.3%. The incidence of CVC-related UL-DVT screened by venography reportedly varies between 27% and 66%. The incidence of clinically overt pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients with CVC-related UL-DVT ranges from 15% to 25%, but an autopsy-proven PE rate of up to 50% has been reported. Vessel injury caused by the procedure of CVC insertion, venous stasis caused by the indwelling CVC, and cancer-related hypercoagulability are the main pathogenetic factors for CVC-related venous thromboembolism (VTE). Several studies have assessed the benefit of the prophylaxis of UL-DVT after CVC insertion in cancer patients. According to the results of these studies, prophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin or a low fixed dose of warfarin has been recently proposed. However, the limitations of the experimental design of the prophylactic studies do not allow definitive recommendations. The recommended therapy for UL-DVT associated with CVC is based on anticoagulant therapy with or without catheter removal. This review focuses on the epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of VTE in cancer patients with long-term CVC.

Central line thrombosis in patients with cancer

Central venous catheters are used frequently to care for patients with cancer and often serve as long-term venous access. Catheter-related central venous thrombosis is a serious and common complication in these patients. The incidence of this event ranges from 2 to 40%. Potential risk factors are catheter position, size of the catheter, and perhaps site of insertion. The diagnosis of catheter-associated deep venous thrombosis may be difficult. Doppler ultrasound has a lower accuracy in this setting than it does in symptomatic lower extremity venous thrombosis. No clinical management studies have validated the practice of withholding anticoagulant therapy in patients with a negative Doppler ultrasound. The practice of prophylaxis with low-dose warfarin or low-molecular-weight heparin has been recommended, although results from recent studies have called this into question. Larger, prospective, randomized trials with a uniform population of patients or stratification of risk factors will be essential to address this issue further.

Factor V Leiden in central venous catheter-associated thrombosis

Subclavian vein thrombosis is a well-recognized complication following central venous catheter insertion and is associated with significant morbidity. The factor V Leiden mutation is an important risk factor for deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Whether this mutation also predisposes patients fitted with a central venous catheter to subclavian vein thrombosis is not known. The occurrence of central venous catheter-associated thrombosis was investigated in 277 consecutive patients receiving an allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. All patients received a tunnelled double or triple catheter positioned in the subclavian vein. Catheter-associated thrombosis was diagnosed on the basis of clinical signs of thrombosis, i.e. swelling and/or redness of the limb or venous engorgement and was confirmed with a colour-flow Doppler ultrasound. Thirteen patients were heterozygous for the factor V Leiden mutation. Seven of these patients had a subclavian vein thrombosis (54%), while this occurred in only 9% of the factor V Leiden-negative patients, corresponding with a relative risk of 7.7 (95% CI 3.3-17.9). Factor V Leiden is attributable for 17.3% of all thrombosis in patients with central venous catheters. The majority of patients with the factor V Leiden mutation with a central venous catheter will develop thrombosis. Patients with a factor V Leiden mutation should receive adequate thrombosis prophylaxis upon catheter introduction and the catheter should be removed immediately after the treatment. Based on this very high risk, we advise testing for factor V Leiden in all bone marrow transplantation patients receiving a central venous catheter.