Is antithrombotic prophylaxis required in cancer patients with central venous catheters? Yes for special patient groups

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.

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.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in people with cancer with a CVC.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 12, 2012), MEDLINE Ovid (January 1966 to February 2013), and EMBASE Ovid (1980 to February 2013). We handsearched conference proceedings, checked references of included studies, used the 'related citations' feature within PubMed, and searched clinicaltrials.gov for ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of any dose of unfractionated heparin (UFH), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), vitamin K antagonists (VKA), or fondaparinux with no intervention or placebo or comparing the effects of two different anticoagulants in people with cancer and a CVC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Teams of two review authors independently used a standardized form to extract data in duplicate. They resolved any disagreements by discussion. They extracted data on risk of bias, participants, interventions, and outcomes. Outcomes of interest included mortality, symptomatic deep venous thrombosis (DVT), asymptomatic DVT, major bleeding, minor bleeding, infection, and thrombocytopenia. Where possible, we conducted meta-analyses using the random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 9559 identified citations, we included 12 RCTs (17 publications) reporting follow-up data on 2823 participants. Two of the RCTs included children. Of the 10 RCTs including 2564 adults, one compared prophylactic dose heparin with low-dose VKA. Three RCTs compared VKA with no VKA and four RCTs compared heparin with no heparin. Two additional trials had three separate arms comparing heparin, VKA, and no intervention. Prophylactic-dose heparin, compared with no heparin, was associated with a statistically significant reduction in symptomatic DVT (risk ratio (RR) 0.48; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.86; moderate-quality evidence). However, results did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of heparin on mortality (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.26; moderate-quality evidence), major bleeding (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.03 to 7.84; low-quality evidence), infection (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.54 to 1.85; moderate-quality evidence); thrombocytopenia (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.33; moderate-quality evidence), or minor bleeding (RR 1.35; 95% CI: 0.62 to 2.92). Low-dose VKAs, compared with no VKAs, were associated with a statistically significant reduction in asymptomatic DVT (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.62). Results did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of VKAs on mortality (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.22; low-quality evidence), symptomatic DVT (RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.21 to 1.22; low-quality evidence), major bleeding (RR 7.60; 95% CI 0.94 to 61.49; very-low-quality evidence), or minor bleeding (RR 3.14; 95% CI 0.14 to 71.51). The use of heparin, compared with VKA was associated with a statistically significant increase in thrombocytopenia (RR 3.73; 95% CI 2.26 to 6.16; low-quality evidence) and asymptomatic DVT (RR 1.74; 95% CI 1.20 to 2.52). However, results did not show or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect on any of the other outcomes of interest (very-low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with no anticoagulation, we found a statistically significant reduction of symptomatic DVT with heparin and asymptomatic DVT with VKA. Heparin was associated with a higher risk of thrombocytopenia and asymptomatic DVT when compared with VKA. However, the findings did not rule out other clinically important benefits and harms. People with cancer with CVCs considering anticoagulation should balance the possible benefit of reduced thromboembolic complications with the possible harms and burden of anticoagulants.

Thromboembolic and bleeding complications in acute leukemia

The risk of both thromboembolic and bleeding complications is high in acute leukemia. This double hazard has a significant negative impact on the morbidity and mortality of patients with this disease. The clinical manifestations of both complications show special features specific to the form of acute leukemia. Recognition of these characteristics is important in the diagnosis and management of acute leukemia. In this article, several additional issues are addressed, including the features of bleeding and thrombosis in acute promyelocytic leukemia, the current understanding of the leukostasis syndrome and the iatrogenic complications including catheter-associated thrombosis, and the adverse effects of therapeutic agents used in acute leukemia. As regards the bleeding complications, thrombocytopenia is a major cause. Corrective measures, including recent guidelines on platelet transfusions, are provided.

Anticoagulation for patients with cancer and central venous catheters

BACKGROUND

Central venous catheter (CVC) placement increases the risk of thrombosis in cancer patients. Thrombosis often necessitates the removal of the CVC, resulting in treatment delays and thrombosis related morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation in cancer patients with a CVC.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 1 2010), MEDLINE (January 1966 to February 2010; accessed via OVID), EMBASE (January 1980 to February 2010; accessed via OVID) and ISI the Web of Science (1975 to February 2010). We handsearched conference proceedings, checked references of included studies and used the "related article" feature within PubMed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any dose of unfractionated heparin (UFH), low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), vitamin K antagonists (VKA), or fondaparinux to no intervention or placebo or comparing two different anticoagulants in cancer patients with a CVC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data from each included study and resolved their disagreements by discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 8187 identified citations, we included 12 RCTs enrolling 3611 patients and assessing either prophylactic dose heparin or low dose VKAs. Prophylactic dose heparin was not associated with a statistically significant effect on death (relative risk (RR) = 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.53 to 1.37), symptomatic deep venous thrombosis (DVT) (RR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.28 to 1.05) asymptomatic DVT (RR = 0.81; 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.02), major bleeding (RR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.10 to 4.78), thrombocytopenia (RR = 0.85; 95% CI: 0.49 to 1.46), or infection (RR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.49 to 1.68). Similarly, low dose VKAs were not associated with a statistically significant effect on death (RR = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.15), symptomatic DVT (RR = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.35 to 1.11) or major bleeding (RR = 6.93; 95% CI: 0.86 to 56.08). However, they were associated with a statistically significant reduction in asymptomatic DVT (RR = 0.42; 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.61). Studies comparing heparin to VKA found no effects on any of the outcomes of interest.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no statistically significant effect of heparin or VKA on the outcomes of interest. However, the findings did not rule out clinically important benefits and harms. Patients with cancer with CVCs considering anticoagulation should balance the possible benefit of reduced thromboembolic complications with the possible harms and burden of anticoagulants.

Anticoagulation for patients with cancer and central venous catheters

BACKGROUND

Central venous catheter (CVC) placement increases the risk of thrombosis in cancer patients. Thrombosis often necessitates the removal of the CVC, resulting in treatment delays and thrombosis related morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation in cancer patients with a CVC.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 1 2010), MEDLINE (January 1966 to February 2010; accessed via OVID), EMBASE (January 1980 to February 2010; accessed via OVID) and ISI the Web of Science (1975 to February 2010). We handsearched conference proceedings, checked references of included studies and used the "related article" feature within PubMed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any dose of unfractionated heparin (UFH), low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), vitamin K antagonists (VKA), or fondaparinux to no intervention or placebo or comparing two different anticoagulants in cancer patients with a CVC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data from each included study and resolved their disagreements by discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 8187 identified citations, we included 12 RCTs enrolling 3611 patients and assessing either prophylactic dose heparin or low dose VKAs. Prophylactic dose heparin was not associated with a statistically significant effect on death (relative risk (RR) = 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.53 to 1.37), symptomatic deep venous thrombosis (DVT) (RR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.28 to 1.05) asymptomatic DVT (RR = 0.81; 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.02), major bleeding (RR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.10 to 4.78), thrombocytopenia (RR = 0.85; 95% CI: 0.49 to 1.46), or infection (RR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.49 to 1.68). Similarly, low dose VKAs were not associated with a statistically significant effect on death (RR = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.15), symptomatic DVT (RR = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.35 to 1.11) or major bleeding (RR = 6.93; 95% CI: 0.86 to 56.08). However, they were associated with a statistically significant reduction in asymptomatic DVT (RR = 0.42; 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.61). Studies comparing heparin to VKA found no effects on any of the outcomes of interest.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no statistically significant effect of heparin or VKA on the outcomes of interest. However, the findings did not rule out clinically important benefits and harms. Patients with cancer with CVCs considering anticoagulation should balance the possible benefit of reduced thromboembolic complications with the possible harms and burden of anticoagulants.

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.

Anticoagulation for thrombosis prophylaxis in cancer patients with central venous catheters

BACKGROUND

Central venous catheter (CVC) placement increases the risk of thrombosis in cancer patients. Thrombosis often necessitates the removal of the CVC, resulting in treatment delays and thrombosis related morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation in reducing venous thromboembolic (VTE) events in cancer patients with CVC.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A comprehensive search for studies of anticoagulation in cancer patients up to January 2006 was conducted in the following databases: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials ( CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and ISI the Web of Science.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing unfractionated heparin (UFH), low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), vitamin K antagonists (VKA), fondaparinux or ximelagatran to no intervention or placebo in cancer patients with a CVC or comparing two different anticoagulants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data was extracted on methodological quality, patients, interventions and outcomes including all cause mortality (primary outcome), premature CVC removal, catheter-related infections, CVC site and non CVC site deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), major and minor bleeding and thrombocytopenia.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 3986 identified citations nine RCTs were included in the meta-analysis including one published as an abstract and one focusing on paediatric patients not included in the meta-analysis. None of these RCTs tested fondaparinux or ximelagatran. The use of heparin in cancer patients with CVC was associated with a trend towards a reduction in symptomatic DVT (Relative Risk (RR) = 0.43; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.18 to 1.06), but the data did not show any statistically significant effect on mortality (RR = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.40 to 1.36), infection (RR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.36 to 2.28), major bleeding (RR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.10 to 4.78) or thrombocytopenia (RR = 0.85; 95% CI: 0.49 to 1.46). The effect warfarin on symptomatic DVT was not statistically significant (RR = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.30 to 1.27). When studies assessing different types of anticoagulants were pooled, symptomatic DVT rates were significantly reduced (RR = 0.56; 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.92).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Cancer patients with CVC considering anticoagulation, should consider the possible benefit of reduced incidence of thromboembolic complications with the burden and harms of anticoagulation. Future studies should be adequately powered and evaluate the effects of newer anticoagulants such as fondaparinux and ximelagatran in cancer patients with CVC.

Thrombosis-related complications and mortality in cancer patients with central venous devices: an observational study on the effect of antithrombotic prophylaxis

BACKGROUND

Recent guidelines do not recommend antithrombotic prophylaxis (AP) to prevent catheter-related thrombosis in cancer patients with a central line.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study assessed the management of central lines in cancer patients, current attitude towards AP, catheter-related and systemic venous thromboses, and survival.

RESULTS

Of 1410 patients enrolled, 1390 were seen at least once in the 6-month median follow-up. Continuous AP, mainly low-dose warfarin, was given to 451 (32.4%); they were older, with a more frequent history of venous thromboembolism (VTE), and more advanced cancer. There was no difference in catheter-related thrombosis in patients given AP or not (2.8% and 2.2%, odds ratio 1.29, 95% confidence interval 0.64-2.6). The median time to first catheter-related complication was 120 days. Systemic VTE including deep and superficial thromboses and pulmonary embolism, were less frequent with AP (4% versus 8.2%, P = 0.005). Mortality was also lower (25% versus 44%, P = 0.0001). Multiple logistic regression analysis found only advanced cancer and no AP significantly associated with mortality. No major bleeding was recorded with AP.

CONCLUSIONS

Current AP schedules do not appear to prevent catheter-related thrombosis. Systemic VTE and mortality, however, appeared lower after prophylaxis.