Regional thrombolysis with urokinase for central venous catheter-related thrombosis in patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy with autologous blood stem cell rescue

[Translation into French and republication of: "Central venous catheter associated upper extremity deep vein thrombosis in cancer patients: Diagnosis and therapeutic management"]

Catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) is a relatively frequent and potentially fatal complication arising in patients with cancer who require a central catheter placement for intravenous treatment. In everyday practice, CRT remains a challenge for management; despite its frequency and its negative clinical impact, few data are available concerning diagnosis and treatment of CRT. In particular, no diagnostic studies or clinical trials have been published that included exclusively patients with cancer and a central venous catheter (CVC). For this reason, many questions regarding optimal management of CRT remain unanswered. Due to the paucity of high-grade evidence regarding CRT in cancer patients, guidelines are derived from upper extremity DVT studies for diagnosis, and from those for lower limb DVT for treatment. This article addresses the issues of diagnosis and management of CRT through a review of the available literature and makes a number of proposals based on the available evidence. In symptomatic patients, venous ultrasound is the most appropriate choice for first-line diagnostic imaging of CRT because it is noninvasive, and its diagnostic performance is high (which is not the case in asymptomatic patients). In the absence of direct comparative clinical trials, we suggest treating patients with CRT with a therapeutic dose of either a LMWH or a direct oral factor Xa inhibitor, with or without a loading dose. These anticoagulants should be given for a total of at least 3 months, including at least 1 month after catheter removal following initiation of therapy.

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.

Central venous catheter associated upper extremity deep vein thrombosis in cancer patients: Diagnosis and therapeutic management

Catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) is a relatively frequent and potentially fatal complication arising in patients with cancer who require a central catheter placement for intravenous treatment. In everyday practice, CRT remains a challenge for management; despite its frequency and its negative clinical impact, few data are available concerning diagnosis and treatment of CRT. In particular, no diagnostic studies or clinical trials have been published that included exclusively patients with cancer and a central venous catheter (CVC). For this reason, many questions regarding optimal management of CRT remain unanswered. Due to the paucity of high-grade evidence regarding CRT in cancer patients, guidelines are derived from upper extremity DVT studies for diagnosis, and from those for lower limb DVT for treatment. This article addresses the issues of diagnosis and management of CRT through a review of the available literature and makes a number of proposals based on the available evidence. In symptomatic patients, venous ultrasound is the most appropriate choice for first-line diagnostic imaging of CRT because it is noninvasive, and its diagnostic performance is high (which is not the case in asymptomatic patients). In the absence of direct comparative clinical trials, we suggest treating patients with CRT with a therapeutic dose of either a LMWH or a direct oral factor Xa inhibitor, with or without a loading dose. These anticoagulants should be given for a total of at least three months, including at least one month after catheter removal following initiation of therapy.

Prevention and treatment of catheter-related venous thrombosis in long-term parenteral nutrition: A SINuC position statement

The implementation of long-term parenteral nutrition (PN) often requires the placement of central venous access, a procedure that carries a considerable risk of catheter-related venous thrombosis (CRT). The occurrence of CRT represents a major event in the natural history of patients in PN since it can lead to central venous access loss and PN failure. Despite the importance of this topic in clinical nutrition, the prevention and treatment of CRT in PN represents one of the "gray areas" of the literature of the presence of few randomized controlled clinical trials and the generally low level of evidence of published scientific papers. Through a narrative review of the literature and a Delphi consensus, the Italian Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (SINuC) aimed to collect some practical recommendations regarding the current state-of-the-art in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of CRT in patients undergoing long-term PN.

Catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) in patients with solid tumors: a narrative review and clinical guidance for daily care

Central venous access devices (CVADs) including central venous catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are essential in the treatment of cancer. Catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) is the most frequent non-infectious complication associated with the use of central lines. The development of CRT may cause to delays in oncologic treatment and increase morbidity leading to potentially life-threatening complications. Several local and systemic risk factors are associated with the development of CRT and should be taken into account to prevent CRT by standardizing appropriate catheter placement and maintenance. The use of primary pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in order to avoid CRT is not routinely recommended, although it can be considered in selected cases. Recommendations for the management of established CRT are based on the extrapolation of anticoagulation for lower limb venous thrombosis. The present review summarizes the current evidence and recommendations for the prevention and management of CRT and identifies areas that require further research.

Prospective Audit to Study urokinaSe use to restore Patency in Occluded centRal venous caTheters in haematology and oncology patients (PASSPORT 2)

BACKGROUND

Central venous catheter dysfunction may be associated with intraluminal clots, drug precipitates and lipid residues or extra luminal causes such as fibroblastic sleeve, tip malposition, pinch-off syndrome and venous thrombosis at the tip of central venous catheter. Failure to restore patency after addressing these causes, empirical treatment with thrombolytic agents should be considered. Urokinase is used widely as a thrombolytic agent but very few outcome studies have been published.

METHODS

A multicentre group conducted a prospective audit of management of central venous catheter dysfunction after exclusion of common causes using in centre standardised doses of urokinase from September 2017 to February 2018 in haematology and oncology units. Data of catheter blood flow were collected anonymously following administration of 5000- to 25,000-IU urokinase in dysfunctional central venous catheter.

RESULTS

A total of 117 patients were recruited from eight centres, 54 females and 63 males, median age was 60 (46-68). In total, 53% presented as partial withdrawal occlusion and 47% total occlusion. In partial withdrawal occlusion, patency was restored in 80% of interventions, in 82% of interventions using push lock and in 76% using dwell lock. In total occlusion, patency was restored in 88% of the interventions. The central venous catheter clearance rate was dose dependent; patency was restored in 83% of central venous catheter with 5000 IU, 89% with 10,000 IU and 92% with high dose of 25,000 IU. No adverse events were recorded.

CONCLUSION

In this study, treatment of dysfunctional central venous catheter using standardised urokinase doses was safe and effective in restoring patency when no other mechanical causes could account for central venous catheter dysfunction.

Reconsidering the GAVeCeLT Consensus on catheter-related thrombosis, 13 years later

Catheter-related thrombosis represents one of the most common complications following central venous access insertion. Despite the amount of available studies, many aspects surrounding catheter-related thrombosis remain controversial. Thirteen years ago, the Italian Study Group for Long Term Central Venous Access (GAVeCeLT) developed a nationwide Consensus in order to clarify some key aspects on this topic. Despite most of them still remain valid, however, knowledge around catheter-related thrombosis has greatly evolved over the last decade, with a natural evolution in terms of catheter technologies, insertion techniques, and management bundles. Aims of this editorial are to readdress conclusions of the 2007 GAVeCeLT Consensus in the light of the new relevant evidences that have been added in the last 13 years and to analyze some unsolved issues that still remain debated.

Etiology and Management of Upper-Extremity Catheter-Related Thrombosis in Cancer Patients

Central venous access devices are a critical instrument in the treatment and supportive care delivery for oncology patients. Catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) is a common complication of central venous access devices in oncology patients. Risk factors for CRT include patient-, device-, and treatment-related risk factors. Treatment of CRT is indicated to reduce symptoms, prevent catheter malfunction, prevent recurrent DVT or thromboembolic pulmonary embolism, and minimize the risk of post-thrombotic syndrome. Minimal prospective data exist on the prevention and treatment of catheter-related thromboses in cancer patients. As such recommendations largely are derived from data in the lower-extremity DVT and PE studies in cancer and non-cancer patients. Based on the available literature, primary pharmacologic prophylaxis against CRT is not recommended in cancer patients. Treatment options for CRT include catheter removal, anticoagulation, catheter-directed thrombolysis, or surgical thrombectomy. Current evidence-based guidelines recommend LMWH as the anticoagulant of choice. However, recent data showing efficacy and safety of DOACs in cancer-related VTE may be extrapolated to treatment of CRT in cancer patients. In patients with CRT, catheter removal should be pursued if continued vascular access is no longer needed, the catheter is dysfunctional, a catheter-associated infection is present, or if CRT symptoms do not resolve with anticoagulation alone. Catheter-directed thrombolysis is reserved for rare severe cases of CRT. Herein we discuss the pathophysiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and general management of CRT in cancer patients.

Management of cancer-associated upper extremity deep vein thrombosis with and without venous catheters at a tertiary care center

INTRODUCTION

Data on management of upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) in patients with cancer is limited. The objective of this study was to determine risk factors for UEDVT and the rates of recurrence and bleeding in a real-world setting.

METHODS

Retrospective review of consecutive patients assessed for cancer-associated UEDVT. Outcome measures were recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), and major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB). Risk factors for recurrent VTE and bleeding were assessed.

RESULTS

Mean duration of follow-up was 7.2 months. Two hundred cases were identified; 69% were associated with a central line. Non-line associated UEDVT occurred more frequently in the setting of breast cancer, lung cancer and documented local mass effect. The incidence of recurrent VTE was 18.5%, of which 14 (37.8%) were ipsilateral UEDVT. The risk of recurrence is higher with male gender (HR 2.0, 95% CI; 1.0-4.0). Major and CRNMB occurred in 1% and 11.5%, respectively. Concurrent use of an antiplatelet agent was associated with a higher risk of CRNMB compared to anticoagulant therapy alone (HR 3.9, 95% CI; 1.4-10.7).

CONCLUSIONS

Presence of a venous catheter was the primary risk factor for UEDVT, however, extrinsic compression by local tumour may be just as important for some cancer types. Furthermore, the majority of recurrent events did not occur in the same upper limb suggesting that UEDVT may be predictive of increased thrombotic risk rather than just a local effect of catheters.

Urokinase Lock or Flush Solution for Prevention of Bloodstream Infections Associated with Central Venous Catheters for Chemotherapy: A Meta-Analysis of Prospective Randomized Trials

Background

Intravascular devices (IVDs) carry significant risk of device-associated bloodstream infection (BSI). Catheter thrombosis increases the likelihood of microbial colonization of the catheter and BSI. Urokinase has been studied for the prevention of BSI associated with IVDs. We undertook a systematic review to determine the efficacy of urokinase-heparin lock or flush solution compared with heparin alone in preventing IVD-associated BSI.

Methods

Computerized databases were searched for relevant publications in English from January 1966 to 1 January 2007. We identified randomized controlled trials comparing a urokinase-heparin lock or flush solution with heparin alone for prevention of BSI associated with long-term IVDs. Summary effect sizes were calculated with assessment of heterogeneity.

Results

Five randomized, controlled trials involving a total of 991 patients being treated with IVDs met the inclusion criteria; all five studies were conducted among patients with cancer; three of these studies were undertaken in children and two in adults. The summary risk ratio with a urokinase-heparin lock solution for IVD-associated BSI was 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60–0.98; p=0.01). Results of the test for heterogeneity were not statistically significant (p=0.53).

Conclusions

Use of a urokinase lock solution in high-risk patient populations being treated with long-term central IVDs may reduce the risk of BSI. However, there are few randomized trials and methodologic limitations of these preclude more robust recommendations regarding the use of urokinase to prevent BSI. Further adequately powered studies should seek to evaluate the efficacy of urokinase and optimize dosage and instillation regimen.

How I treat central venous access device-related upper extremity deep vein thrombosis

Central venous access device (CVAD)-related thrombosis (CRT) is a common complication among patients requiring central venous access as part of their medical care. Complications of CRT include pulmonary embolism, recurrent deep venous thrombosis, loss of central venous access, and postthrombotic syndrome. Patient-, device-, and treatment-related factors can influence the risk of CRT. Despite numerous randomized controlled trials, the clinical benefit of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis for the prevention of CRT remains to be established. Therefore, minimizing patient exposure to known risk factors is the best available approach to prevent CRT. Venous duplex is recommended for the diagnosis of CRT. Anticoagulation for at least 3 months or the duration of the indwelling CVAD is recommended for treatment of CRT. Thrombolysis should be considered for patients at low risk for bleeding who have limb-threatening thrombosis or whose symptoms fail to resolve with adequate anticoagulation. CVAD removal should be consider for patients with bacteremia, persistent symptoms despite anticoagulation, and if the CVAD is no longer needed. Superior vena cava filters should be avoided. Prospective studies are needed to define the optimal management of patients with or at risk for CRT.

Reduced induction of anti-PF4/heparin antibody in RA patients after total knee arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia is caused by antibodies (Abs) specific to platelet factor 4 (PF4)/heparin complexes. In this study, we evaluated the rates of seroconversion of anti-PF4/heparin Ab between patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and with osteoarthritis (OA) who underwent total knee arthroplasty.

METHODS

The subjects of this randomized controlled trial were 124 patients who underwent total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and received edoxaban with or without a foot pump as thromboprophylaxis. We measured anti-PF4/heparin Abs before and 10 days after surgery, as well as preoperative PF4, using commercially available ELISAs. We also used the database of J-PSVT, a hospital-based, prospective cohort study designed to document the effectiveness of thromboprophylactic agents during arthroplasty.

RESULTS

The rates of seroconversion to anti-PF4/heparin Ab were lower in RA patients (4.0 %) than in OA patients (25.5 %). The anti-PF4/heparin IgG optical density (OD) values did not differ before and after surgery in RA patients. In contrast, there was a significant increase in anti-PF4/heparin IgG OD values in OA patients after TKA. In the J-PSVT data, the postoperative seroconversion rates of anti-PF4/heparin Ab were lower in RA patients (10.4 %) than in OA patients (21.8 %) who received fondaparinux. The titers of anti-CCP Ab were significantly lower in RA patients with postoperative ant-PF4/heparin Ab compared with those without postoperative ant-PF4/heparin Ab There was no significant difference in preoperative PF4 levels between RA patients and OA patients. The heparin-binding affinity of the circulating PF4 was similar between RA patients and OA patients; however, the IgG fractions isolated from the sera of RA patients contained PF4 more frequently (69.2 %) than those from OA patients (10.2 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results showed a reduced likelihood of postoperative anti-PF/heparin Ab production in RA patients compared with OA patients. This suggests that the mechanisms underlying the anti-PF4 immune response in RA patients differ from the mechanisms of the anti-PF4/heparin immune response seen in OA patients after joint replacement.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN 18090286. Registered 8 July 2016.

Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter-associated Deep Vein Thrombosis: A Narrative Review

BACKGROUND

Although common, little is known about factors associated with peripherally inserted central catheter-related deep vein thrombosis (PICC-DVT). To better guide clinicians, we performed a comprehensive literature review to summarize best practices for this condition.

METHODS

A systematic search of the literature for studies reporting epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of PICC-DVT was conducted. Algorithms for diagnosis and management were compiled using available evidence.

RESULTS

The incidence of PICC-DVT varied between 2% and 75% according to study population, testing modality and threshold for diagnosis. Studies evaluating the diagnostic utility of clinical symptoms suggested that these were neither sensitive nor specific for PICC-DVT; conversely, ultrasonography had excellent sensitivity and specificity and is recommended as the initial diagnostic test. Although more specific, contrast venography should be reserved for cases with high clinical probability and negative ultrasound findings. Centrally positioned, otherwise functional and clinically necessary PICCs need not be removed despite concomitant DVT. Anticoagulation with low-molecular-weight heparin or warfarin for at least 3 months represents the mainstay of treatment. The role of pharmacologic prophylaxis and screening for PICC-DVT in the absence of clinical symptoms is unclear at this time.

CONCLUSIONS

PICC-DVT is common, costly and morbid. Available evidence provides guidance for diagnosis, treatment and prevention of this condition.

Venous access catheter-related thrombosis in patients with cancer

Patients with cancer are at high risk for developing venous thromboembolism (VTE), and the presence of a central venous catheter (CVC) further increases this risk. CVC-related VTE has serious implications related to the loss of vascular access, development of pulmonary embolism, recurrent VTE, infections and post-thrombotic syndrome. The pathogenesis of CVC-related VTE is complex and multifactorial, with risk factors associated with the catheter, the vessel selected for insertion and the underlying cancer as well as the anti-cancer therapy. Clinical presentation of CVC-related VTEs is often non-specific, and ultrasonography is the most commonly used radiological diagnostic test. Management of CVC-related VTE in patients with cancer requires a balance between the need for venous access, the risk of VTE recurrence and the risk of bleeding from treatment-induced thrombocytopenia. Effective VTE prophylaxis methods have yet to be defined. Ongoing studies are evaluating the role of newer oral antithrombotic agents and alternative interventional strategies for the prevention and treatment of CVC-related VTE in patients with cancer.

International clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prophylaxis of thrombosis associated with central venous catheters in patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Although long-term indwelling central venous catheters (CVCs) may lead to pulmonary embolism (PE) and loss of the CVC, there is lack of consensus on management of CVC-related thrombosis (CRT) in cancer patients and heterogeneity in clinical practices worldwide.

OBJECTIVES

To establish common international Good Clinical Practices Guidelines (GCPG) for the management of CRT in cancer patients.

METHODS

An international working group of experts was set up to develop GCPG according to an evidence-based medicine approach, using the GRADE system.

RESULTS

For the treatment of established CRT in cancer patients, we found no prospective randomized studies, two non-randomized prospective studies and one retrospective study examining the efficacy and safety of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) plus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). One retrospective study evaluated the benefit of CVC removal and two small retrospective studies were on thrombolytic drugs. For the treatment of symptomatic CRT, anticoagulant treatment (AC) is recommended for a minimum of 3 months; in this setting, LMWHs are suggested. VKAs can also be used, in the absence of direct comparisons of these two types of anticoagulants in this setting [Guidance]. The CVC can be kept in place if it is functional, well-positioned and non-infected and there is good resolution under close surveillance; whether the CVC is kept or removed, no standard approach in terms of AC duration has been established [Guidance]. For the prophylaxis of CRT in cancer patients, we found six randomized studies investigating the efficacy and safety of VKA vs. placebo or no treatment, one on the efficacy and safety of unfractionnated heparin, six on the value of LMWH, one double-blind randomized and one non randomized study on thrombolytic drugs and six meta-analyses of AC and CVC thromboprophylaxis. Type of catheter (open-ended like the Hickman(®) catheter vs. closed-ended catheter with a valve like the Groshong(®) catheter), its position (above, below or at the junction of the superior vena cava and the right atrium) and method of placement may influence the onset of CRT on the basis of six retrospective trials, four prospective non-randomized trials, three randomized trials and one meta-analysis. In light of these data: use of AC for routine prophylaxis of CRT is not recommended [1A]; a CVC should be inserted on the right side, in the jugular vein, and distal extremity of the CVC should be located at the junction of the superior vena cava and the right atrium [1A].

CONCLUSION

Dissemination and implementation of these international GCPG for the prevention and treatment of CRT in cancer patients at each national level is a major public health priority, needing worldwide collaboration.

Interventions for restoring patency of occluded central venous catheter lumens

BACKGROUND

Central venous catheters (CVCs) facilitate the administration of intravenous drugs, fluids, blood products and parenteral nutrition to patients with either chronic disease or critical illness. Despite a pivotal role within medical management, a common complication associated with CVC use is occlusion of the CVC lumen(s). CVC occlusion can interrupt and cause serious delays in administration of treatment interventions.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review was to assess the efficacy and safety of different interventions used to restore patency of occluded CVC lumens, in adults and children.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 9); OvidSP MEDLINE (1950 to September 2011); OvidSP EMBASE (1980 to September 2011) and NHS Evidence CINAHL (1982 to September 2011). We also searched clinical trial registers, handsearched reference lists, contacted pharmaceutical companies and authors of publications that met the inclusion criteria to identify trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomized controlled trials which investigated the efficacy of an intervention (chemical, surgical or drug) used to restore patency to an occluded CVC lumen, in either adults or children.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently assessed those studies that met the inclusion criteria for quality and extracted the relevant data using a standardized form.

MAIN RESULTS

No studies were found that investigated the efficacy and safety of either chemical or surgical interventions.Seven studies (eight papers) with a total of 632 participants were identified from the search. They investigated different comparisons, strengths of thrombolytic or anticoagulant drug interventions for treating CVC lumen occlusion thought to be caused by a thrombus.There was low quality evidence from a meta-analysis of two studies suggesting that urokinase (various strengths) was more effective than placebo for restoring patency to occluded CVC lumens in adults and children with underlying medical conditions (relative risk (RR) 2.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.47 to 2.95), with a number needed to treat of 4 (95% CI 2 to 8). There was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on the safety of urokinase.The overall quality of the evidence provided by these studies was low to very low due to one or more domains being assessed as either at 'unclear risk of bias' or 'high risk of bias'. Furthermore, the total number of participants in these studies was small and consequently may lead to spurious results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is inadequate evidence to draw strong conclusions on the efficacy or safety of the drug interventions included in this review. There is some low quality evidence from a meta-analysis of two studies investigating urokinase (various strengths) and some very low evidence from two single studies investigating alteplase 2 mg/2 mL that suggest that these two drug interventions may be effective in treating withdrawal or total occlusion of CVC lumens caused by thrombosis. Further high quality, sufficiently powered research is still required to look at the efficacy and safety of urokinase, alteplase and other chemical, surgical and drug interventions for treating CVC lumen occlusion. Research studies which exclusively include child participants are especially warranted.

Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines

BACKGROUND

This article addresses the treatment of VTE disease.

METHODS

We generated strong (Grade 1) and weak (Grade 2) recommendations based on high-quality (Grade A), moderate-quality (Grade B), and low-quality (Grade C) evidence.

RESULTS

For acute DVT or pulmonary embolism (PE), we recommend initial parenteral anticoagulant therapy (Grade 1B) or anticoagulation with rivaroxaban. We suggest low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or fondaparinux over IV unfractionated heparin (Grade 2C) or subcutaneous unfractionated heparin (Grade 2B). We suggest thrombolytic therapy for PE with hypotension (Grade 2C). For proximal DVT or PE, we recommend treatment of 3 months over shorter periods (Grade 1B). For a first proximal DVT or PE that is provoked by surgery or by a nonsurgical transient risk factor, we recommend 3 months of therapy (Grade 1B; Grade 2B if provoked by a nonsurgical risk factor and low or moderate bleeding risk); that is unprovoked, we suggest extended therapy if bleeding risk is low or moderate (Grade 2B) and recommend 3 months of therapy if bleeding risk is high (Grade 1B); and that is associated with active cancer, we recommend extended therapy (Grade 1B; Grade 2B if high bleeding risk) and suggest LMWH over vitamin K antagonists (Grade 2B). We suggest vitamin K antagonists or LMWH over dabigatran or rivaroxaban (Grade 2B). We suggest compression stockings to prevent the postthrombotic syndrome (Grade 2B). For extensive superficial vein thrombosis, we suggest prophylactic-dose fondaparinux or LMWH over no anticoagulation (Grade 2B), and suggest fondaparinux over LMWH (Grade 2C).

CONCLUSION

Strong recommendations apply to most patients, whereas weak recommendations are sensitive to differences among patients, including their preferences.

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.

Safety and effectiveness of central venous catheterization in patients with cancer: prospective observational study

This study investigated the safety and effectiveness of each type of central venous catheters (CVC) in patients with cancer. We prospectively enrolled patients with cancer who underwent catheterization involving a subclavian venous catheter (SVC), peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICC), or chemo-port (CP) in our department. From March 2007 to March 2009, 116 patients underwent 179 episodes of catheterization. A SVC was inserted most frequently (46.4%). Fifty-four complications occurred (30.1%): infection in 23 cases, malpositioning or migration of the tip in 18 cases, thrombosis in eight cases, and bleeding in five cases. Malpositioning or migration of the tip occurred more frequently with a PICC (P<0.001); infection occurred more often with a tunneled catheter (P=0.028) and was observed more often in young patients (P=0.023). The catheter life span was longer for patients with solid cancer (P=0.002) than for those with hematologic cancer, with a CP (P<0.001) than a PICC or SVC, and for an indwelling catheter with image guidance (P=0.014) than a blind procedure. In conclusion, CP is an effective tool for long term use and the fixation of tip is important for the management of PICC.

Metastatic carcinoma of unknown primary presenting as jugular venous thrombosis

Jugular venous thrombosis is unusual and is associated with central venous catheterisation, intravenous drug abuse and head and neck sepsis. It is rarely associated with malignancy. We report a case of metastatic carcinoma of unknown primary in a forty year old female which presented with jugular venous thrombosis. The discussion includes investigation and treatment options for this condition.

Treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer: Guidelines of the Italian Society for Haemostasis and Thrombosis (SISET)

BACKGROUND

The treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients remains controversial.

PURPOSE

The Italian Society for Thrombosis and Haemostasis (SISET) commissioned a project to develop clinical practice guidelines for the therapy of VTE in patients with malignancies.

METHODS

Key questions about the treatment of VTE in patients with malignancies were formulated by a multidisciplinary working group consisting of experts in clinical medicine and research. After a systematic review and discussion of the literature, recommendations were formulated and graded according to the supporting evidence. For those questions for which the literature search did not yield any definitive answer (absence of evidence evidence of low quality, and contradictory evidence), a formal consensus method was used to issue clinical recommendations.

RESULTS

The results of the available literature on VTE treatment in cancer patients were reviewed and clinical recommendations were drafted.

CONCLUSION

We describe the results of a systematic literature review and an explicit approach to consensus techniques which resulted in recommendations for the key therapeutic issues in cancer patients with VTE.

2008 SOR guidelines for the prevention and treatment of thrombosis associated with central venous catheters in patients with cancer: report from the working group

BACKGROUND

In view of the lack of recommendations on central venous catheter (CVC)-associated thrombosis in cancer patients, we established guidelines according to the well-standardized Standards, Options and Recommendations methodology.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A literature review (1990-2007) on CVC-associated thrombosis was carried out. The guidelines were developed on the basis of the corresponding levels of evidence derived from analysis of the 36 of 175 publications selected. They were then peer reviewed by 65 independent experts.

RESULTS

For the prevention of CVC-associated thrombosis, the distal tip of the CVC should be placed at the junction between the superior cava vein and right atrium; anticoagulants are not recommended. Treatment of CVC-associated thrombosis should be based on the prolonged use of low-molecular weight heparins. Maintenance of the catheter is justified if it is mandatory, functional, in the right position, and not infected, with a favorable clinical evolution under close monitoring; anticoagulant treatment should then be continued as long as the catheter is present.

CONCLUSIONS

Several rigorous studies do not support the use of anticoagulants for the prevention of CVC-associated thrombosis. Treatment of CVC-associated thrombosis relies on the same principles as those applied in the treatment of established thrombosis in cancer patients.

Antithrombotic therapy for venous thromboembolic disease: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition)

This chapter about treatment for venous thromboembolic disease is part of the American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition). Grade 1 recommendations are strong and indicate that the benefits do or do not outweigh risks, burden, and costs. Grade 2 suggests that individual patient values may lead to different choices (for a full understanding of the grading, see "Grades of Recommendation" chapter). Among the key recommendations in this chapter are the following: for patients with objectively confirmed deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE), we recommend anticoagulant therapy with subcutaneous (SC) low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), monitored IV, or SC unfractionated heparin (UFH), unmonitored weight-based SC UFH, or SC fondaparinux (all Grade 1A). For patients with a high clinical suspicion of DVT or PE, we recommend treatment with anticoagulants while awaiting the outcome of diagnostic tests (Grade 1C). For patients with confirmed PE, we recommend early evaluation of the risks to benefits of thrombolytic therapy (Grade 1C); for those with hemodynamic compromise, we recommend short-course thrombolytic therapy (Grade 1B); and for those with nonmassive PE, we recommend against the use of thrombolytic therapy (Grade 1B). In acute DVT or PE, we recommend initial treatment with LMWH, UFH or fondaparinux for at least 5 days rather than a shorter period (Grade 1C); and initiation of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) together with LMWH, UFH, or fondaparinux on the first treatment day, and discontinuation of these heparin preparations when the international normalized ratio (INR) is > or = 2.0 for at least 24 h (Grade 1A). For patients with DVT or PE secondary to a transient (reversible) risk factor, we recommend treatment with a VKA for 3 months over treatment for shorter periods (Grade 1A). For patients with unprovoked DVT or PE, we recommend treatment with a VKA for at least 3 months (Grade 1A), and that all patients are then evaluated for the risks to benefits of indefinite therapy (Grade 1C). We recommend indefinite anticoagulant therapy for patients with a first unprovoked proximal DVT or PE and a low risk of bleeding when this is consistent with the patient's preference (Grade 1A), and for most patients with a second unprovoked DVT (Grade 1A). We recommend that the dose of VKA be adjusted to maintain a target INR of 2.5 (INR range, 2.0 to 3.0) for all treatment durations (Grade 1A). We recommend at least 3 months of treatment with LMWH for patients with VTE and cancer (Grade 1A), followed by treatment with LMWH or VKA as long as the cancer is active (Grade 1C). For prevention of postthrombotic syndrome (PTS) after proximal DVT, we recommend use of an elastic compression stocking (Grade 1A). For DVT of the upper extremity, we recommend similar treatment as for DVT of the leg (Grade 1C). Selected patients with lower-extremity (Grade 2B) and upper-extremity (Grade 2C). DVT may be considered for thrombus removal, generally using catheter-based thrombolytic techniques. For extensive superficial vein thrombosis, we recommend treatment with prophylactic or intermediate doses of LMWH or intermediate doses of UFH for 4 weeks (Grade 1B).

Safety of catheter-directed thrombolysis for deep venous thrombosis in cancer patients

BACKGROUND

The current study was conducted to demonstrate that catheter-directed thrombolysis for upper and lower extremity deep vein thrombosis is equally safe in patients with and without cancer.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of consecutive patients with acute iliofemoral or brachiosubclavian deep vein thrombosis treated with catheter-directed thrombolysis was identified. Demographic characteristics and clinical outcomes were compared between patients with cancer and without cancer.

RESULTS

Catheter-directed thrombolysis was used to treat 202 limbs in 178 patients (75 limbs in 61 cancer patients and 127 limbs in 117 patients without cancer). The mean treatment duration for patients with cancer (29.7 +/- 21.2 hours) and without cancer (28.8 +/- 22.2 hours) was similar (P = .7774). Catheter-directed thrombolysis achieved grade III clot lysis in a similar proportion of cancer patients (50 of 75 limbs, 66.7%) and patients without cancer (82 of 127 limbs, 64.6%; P = .7619). Grade II clot lysis also was achieved in equal numbers of patients with (20 of 75 limbs, 26.7%) and without cancer (34 of 127 limbs, 26.8%; P = .9872). Three cancer patients (4.9%) and four noncancer patients (3.4%) experienced major bleeding during catheter-directed thrombolysis (P = .6924). Pulmonary embolism occurred in 1.6% (1 of 61) of cancer patients and in 1.7% (2 of 117) of patients without cancer (P = .9999) during catheter-directed thrombolysis. Patients aged > or =70 years had an increased risk of major bleeding.

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous catheter-directed thrombolysis is equally safe for patients with and without cancer who have acute symptomatic deep vein thrombosis.

Catheter-Related Central Venous Thrombosis: The Development of a Nationwide Consensus Paper in Italy

Catheter-related central venous thrombosis is a serious complication in patients who need long-term venous access. Though scientific data and clinical experience are steadily increasing, many uncertainties still exist about several aspects of this complication, including etiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, management, and prevention of this complication. The GAVeCeLT (the Italian Study Group for Long Term Central Venous Access) promoted a nationwide consensus, and 12 experts reviewed systematically all the available literature. A preliminary document was presented and discussed during a specific Consensus Meeting, in front of a panel of more than 80 experts (representing different health professions and disciplines). This led to a prefinal document, which was presented to more than 800 health professionals. After peer review by an external board of experts, the final document was prepared. In this article, methodology and results of the consensus are presented.

Testing for Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia Antibodies

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) has a distinct clinical profile and unique pathogenesis. It is caused by platelet-activating IgG antibodies that recognize multimolecular complexes of platelet factor 4 (PF4) bound to heparin or certain other polyanions. Although an immune response to PF4/heparin associated with heparin treatment is very common, clinical HIT occurs only among the minority of patients whose antibodies are capable of strongly activating platelets. This explains why certain platelet activation assays and anti-PF4/polyanion immunoassays have high sensitivity for HIT and why diagnostic specificity is highest for those assays that preferentially detect pathogenic antibodies, such as the washed platelet activation assays or immunoassays that detect only IgG antibodies. Negative results obtained in a solid-phase PF4/polyanion immunoassay generally exclude HIT (high negative predictive value), especially in a setting of a low pretest probability. In addition, because the magnitude of a positive test result correlates with greater likelihood of HIT, a Bayesian diagnostic approach that combines pretest probability and the magnitude of a positive test result is recommended. Recent studies suggest that presence of anti-PF4/polyanion antibodies in certain clinical settings confers an adverse prognosis, even without clinically evident HIT. Whether such antibodies impart "forme fruste" HIT or are simply a surrogate marker for a non-HIT adverse risk factor such as inflammation is unresolved.

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.

Endovascular management of venous thrombotic diseases of the upper torso and extremities

Central venous thrombosis in the upper torso can be either primary, occurring as a result of longstanding extrinsic compression, or secondary, resulting from an acquired intrinsic occlusive disease or foreign body. As in lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT), anticoagulation therapy is the mainstay of therapy in upper torso and upper extremity DVT. However, in the presence of severely symptomatic acute thrombosis, pharmacologic and/or mechanical thrombolytic therapy represent the main invasive form of therapy for these conditions. After clearance of the acute thrombotic component, definitive management in patients with underlying anatomic abnormalities can be undertaken. Primary subclavian axillary vein thrombosis caused by extrinsic obstruction at the thoracic outlet is treated with thrombolytic therapy and anticoagulation followed by surgical decompression, whereas secondary causes of central venous obstruction and thrombosis are usually amenable to endovascular treatment with balloon angioplasty and stent placement. Postoperative interval anticoagulation is usually recommended. In addition to clinical follow-up, imaging follow-up with duplex sonography or conventional venography is usually recommended to assess the presence of restenosis and/or residual compression.