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

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

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

Related collections

Most cited references 20

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Risk of venous thromboembolism associated with peripherally inserted central catheters: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Vineet Chopra, Sarah Anand, Andy Hickner … (2013)

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism. However, the size of this risk relative to that associated with other central venous catheters (CVCs) is unknown. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the risk of venous thromboembolism associated with PICCs versus that associated with other CVCs. We searched several databases, including Medline, Embase, Biosis, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Conference Papers Index, and Scopus. Additional studies were identified through hand searches of bibliographies and internet searches, and we contacted study authors to obtain unpublished data. All human studies published in full text, abstract, or poster form were eligible for inclusion. All studies were of adult patients aged at least 18 years who underwent insertion of a PICC. Studies were assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa risk of bias scale. In studies without a comparison group, the pooled frequency of venous thromboembolism was calculated for patients receiving PICCs. In studies comparing PICCs with other CVCs, summary odds ratios (ORs) were calculated with a random effects meta-analysis. Of the 533 citations identified, 64 studies (12 with a comparison group and 52 without) including 29 503 patients met the eligibility criteria. In the non-comparison studies, the weighted frequency of PICC-related deep vein thrombosis was highest in patients who were critically ill (13·91%, 95% CI 7·68-20·14) and those with cancer (6·67%, 4·69-8·64). Our meta-analysis of 11 studies comparing the risk of deep vein thrombosis related to PICCs with that related to CVCs showed that PICCs were associated with an increased risk of deep vein thrombosis (OR 2·55, 1·54-4·23, p<0·0001) but not pulmonary embolism (no events). With the baseline PICC-related deep vein thrombosis rate of 2·7% and pooled OR of 2·55, the number needed to harm relative to CVCs was 26 (95% CI 13-71). PICCs are associated with a higher risk of deep vein thrombosis than are CVCs, especially in patients who are critically ill or those with a malignancy. The decision to insert PICCs should be guided by weighing of the risk of thrombosis against the benefit provided by these devices. None. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0 comments Cited 171 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

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

P Debourdeau, D Farge, M Beckers … (2013)

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. To establish common international Good Clinical Practices Guidelines (GCPG) for the management of CRT in cancer patients. An international working group of experts was set up to develop GCPG according to an evidence-based medicine approach, using the GRADE system. 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]. 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. © 2012 International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis.

0 comments Cited 74 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis: a prospective registry of 592 patients.

Hylton V Joffe, Nils Kucher, Victor F Tapson … (2004)

Upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) occurs spontaneously or sometimes develops as a complication of pacemaker use, long-term use of a central venous catheter (CVC), or cancer. To improve our understanding of UEDVT, we compared the demographics, symptoms, risk factors, prophylaxis, and initial management of 324 (6%) patients with central venous catheter (CVC)-associated UEDVT, 268 (5%) patients with non-CVC-associated UEDVT, and 4796 (89%) patients with lower-extremity DVT from a prospective US multicenter DVT registry. The non-CVC-associated UEDVT patients were younger (59.2+/-18.2 versus 64.2+/-16.9 years old; P<0.0001), less often white (65% versus 73%; P<0.01), leaner (body mass index [BMI] 26.8+/-7.1 versus 28.5+/-7.3 kg/m2; P<0.001), and more likely to smoke (19% versus 13%; P=0.02) than the lower-extremity DVT patients. By way of propensity analysis and multivariable logistic regression analysis, we determined that an indwelling CVC was the strongest independent predictor of UEDVT (odds ratio [OR], 7.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.8 to 9.2). An age of <67 years, a BMI of <25 kg/m2, and hospitalization were the independent predictors of non-CVC-associated UEDVT. Most (68%) UEDVT patients were evaluated while they were inpatients. Only 20% of the 378 UEDVT patients who did not have an obvious contraindication to anticoagulation received prophylaxis at the time of diagnosis. UEDVT risk factors differ from the conventional risk factors for lower-extremity DVT. Our findings identify deficiencies in our current understanding and the prophylaxis of UEDVT and generate hypotheses for future research efforts.

0 comments Cited 62 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Damon E. Houghton: (View ORCID Profile)

Henny Heisler Billett: (View ORCID Profile)

Oluwatomiloba Onadeko: (View ORCID Profile)

Tzu-Fei Wang: (View ORCID Profile)

Thein H. Oo: (View ORCID Profile)

Michael B. Streiff: (View ORCID Profile)

Lisa Baumann Kreuziger: (View ORCID Profile)

Journal

Title: Blood Advances

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

ISSN (Print): 2473-9529

ISSN (Electronic): 2473-9537

Publication date Created: July 27 2021

Publication date (Print): July 27 2021

Publication date (Electronic): July 15 2021

Volume: 5

Issue: 14

Pages: 2807-2812

Affiliations

[1 ]Division of Vascular Medicine, Department of Cardiovascular Diseases and Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN;

[2 ]Division of Hematology, Departments of Oncology and Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY;

[3 ]Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA;

[4 ]Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA;

[5 ]Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO;

[6 ]Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa at The Ottawa Hospital and Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada;

[7 ]University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX;

[8 ]Division of Quantitative Health Sciences, Department of Pediatrics, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI;

[9 ]Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL;

[10 ]Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD;

[11 ]Montefiore Medical Center, New York, NY; and

[12 ]Versiti, Milwaukee, WI

Article

DOI: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2021004698

PubMed ID: 34264267

SO-VID: 6914fb87-9629-4ff8-b4e6-1a457a1bcc7e

History

Data availability:

Comments

Comment on this article

Cited by 6

See all cited by

Most referenced authors 285

See all reference authors