Risk factors, management and primary prevention of thrombotic complications related to the use of central venous catheters

VASA ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 41 (5) ◽  
pp. 319-332 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linnemann ◽  
Lindhoff-Last

An adequate vascular access is of importance for the treatment of patients with cancer and complex illnesses in the intensive, perioperative or palliative care setting. Deep vein thrombosis and thrombotic occlusion are the most common complications attributed to central venous catheters in short-term and, especially, in long-term use. In this review we will focus on the risk factors, management and prevention strategies of catheter-related thrombosis and occlusion. Due to the lack of randomised controlled trials, there is still controversy about the optimal treatment of catheter-related thrombotic complications, and therapy has been widely adopted using the evidence concerning lower extremity deep vein thrombosis. Given the increasing use of central venous catheters in patients that require long-term intravenous therapy, the problem of upper extremity deep venous thrombosis can be expected to increase in the future. We provide data for establishing a more uniform strategy for preventing, diagnosing and treating catheter-related thrombotic complications.

Blood ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 112 (11) ◽  
pp. 1814-1814
Author(s):  
Shoshana Revel-Vilk ◽  
Joanne Yacobovich ◽  
Hannah Tamary ◽  
Gal Goldstein ◽  
Isaac Yaniv ◽  
...  

Abstract The use of central venous lines (CVLs) has greatly improved the quality of care in children with cancer, yet these catheters may cause serious mechanical, infectious and thrombotic complications, both deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and catheter occlusion. The aim of this prospective study is to ascertain the incidence of thrombotic complications and their risk factors. A registry was started in June 2006 for all children undergoing CVL insertion for treatment of cancer in the three largest pediatric cancer centers in Israel. After informed consent was signed, a registration form, that included questions regarding demographic-, clinical- and CVL-related data, and family history of thrombosis, was completed. Blood samples for baseline thrombophilia work-up, i.e. protein C, protein S, anti-thrombin, APCR, Factor V Leiden, Prothrombin gene mutation and MTHFR, were collected with separate consent. The following events were reported to the registry: immediate post insertion complications, venous thrombosis confirmed by imaging, occlusion of the CVL, i.e. inability to infuse and/or withdraw blood, requiring medical or surgical intervention, and CVL infections. The maintenance of CVLs and management of CVL occlusion and infection remained in accordance with institutional protocols. Responsible oncologists decided whether a dysfunctional or an infected CVL was to be removed or replaced, and whether radiographic evaluation for thrombotic complications was indicated. Patients were enrolled until December 2007, and data analysis was completed in June 2008. A total of 414 CVLs, i.e. peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) (45%), Hickman catheters (25%) and Port-a-Caths (30%), were inserted into 262 children for a total of 71,241 catheter-days. Fourteen events of venous thrombosis occurred in 13 children (4.9%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.6% to 8.3%), including 10 events of CVL-related DVT. The occurrence of CVL-related DVT was significantly higher for PICCs, 4.5%, compared to other types of CVLs, 0.9% (p=0.02, odds ratio (OR) 5.4 (95% CI 1.13 to 25.8)). CVL-related DVT was not associated with age at diagnosis, side of insertion (right vs. left), vessel cannulated, type of cancer (acute lymphoblastic leukemia vs. others), ethnic origin or family history of thrombosis. Occlusion of the CVL occurred at least once in 90 children (34%, 95% CI 29% to 40%). Children with family history of thrombosis were more likely to have CVL occlusion, 62.5%, compared to children without family history of thrombosis, 30.4% (P=0.01, OR 3.8 (95% CI 1.3 to 10.8)). Occlusion was reported in 102 CVLs (24%, 95% CI 20% to 28%). The occurrence of occlusion was higher for Port-a-Caths, 42%, and Hickman catheters, 35%, compared to PICCs, 23% (P<0.01, OR 6.64 (95% CI 2.98 to 14.8) and 4.62 (95% CI 1.84 to 11.6), respectively). CVL-related DVT was not associated with occlusion. Until now, thrombophilia screening has been completed in 85 children (32%), 21 of whom had a positive screen (25%, 95% CI 16% to 35%). A positive thrombophilia screen was found more frequently in children of Arabic origin, 43%, compared to children of Jewish origin, 13% (P=0.006), but was not associated with CVL-related DVT or occlusion. Also, in a subgroup analysis of the children with thrombophilia testing (n=85), children with a family history of thrombosis were more likely to have occlusion compared to children without a family history of thrombosis, 100% vs. 37%, respectively (P=0.01, Bonferroni post-oc correction). Our prospective study shows that insertion of PICCs significantly increases the risk for symptomatic CVL-related thrombosis; other risk factors were not found to be significant. The lower rate of PICC occlusions might be explained by their use for shorter time periods. Interestingly, a positive family history of thrombosis rather than a positive thrombophilia screen was found to be a risk factor for CVL occlusion; perhaps the standard thrombophilia screening is not sensitive enough to detect inherited risk of thrombosis associated with CVLs. The long-term effect of CVL occlusion as a predictor for under-diagnosed CVL-related thrombosis will be determined by following our cohort for development of post-thrombotic syndrome.


Author(s):  
Miguel García-Boyano ◽  
José Manuel Caballero-Caballero ◽  
Marta García Fernández de Villalta ◽  
Mar Gutiérrez Alvariño ◽  
María Jesús Blanco Bañares ◽  
...  

Blood ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 101 (8) ◽  
pp. 3049-3051 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron P. Hong ◽  
Deborah J. Cook ◽  
Christopher S. Sigouin ◽  
Theodore E. Warkentin

Abstract Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a transient antibody-mediated hypercoagulability state strongly associated with lower-limb deep-vein thrombosis (DVT). Whether HIT is additionally associated with upper-limb DVT—either with or without central venous catheter (CVC) use—is unknown. We therefore studied 260 patients with antibody-positive HIT to determine the influence of CVC use on frequency and localization of upper-extremity DVT in comparison with 2 non-HIT control populations (postoperative orthopedic surgery and intensive-care unit patients). Compared with the control populations, both upper- and lower-extremity DVTs were found to be associated with HIT. Upper-extremity DVTs occurred more frequently in HIT patients with a CVC (14 of 145 [9.7%]) versus none of 115 (0%) patients without a CVC (P = .000 35). All upper-extremity DVTs occurred at the CVC site (right, 12; left, 2; kappa = 1.0; P = .011). We conclude that a localizing vascular injury (CVC use) and a systemic hypercoagulability disorder (HIT) interact to explain upper-extremity DVT complicating HIT.


Blood ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 106 (11) ◽  
pp. 584-584
Author(s):  
Frederick A. Spencer3 ◽  
Robert J. Goldberg ◽  
Darleen Lessard ◽  
Cathy Emery ◽  
Apar Bains ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Recent observations suggest that upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) has become more common over the last few decades. However the prevalence of this disorder within the community has not been established. The purpose of this study was to compare the occurrence rate, risk factor profile, management strategies, and hospital outcomes in patients with upper versus lower extremity DVT in a cohort of all Worcester residents diagnosed with venous thromboembolism (VTE) in 1999. Methods: The medical records of all residents from the Worcester, MA statistical metropolitan area (2000 census=478,000) diagnosed with ICD-9 codes consistent with possible DVT and/or pulmonary embolism at all 11 Worcester hospitals during the years 1999, 2001, and 2003 are being reviewed by trained data abstractors. Validation of each case of VTE is performed using prespecified criteria. Results: A total of 483 cases have been validated as acute DVT events - this represents all cases of DVT occurring in residents of the Worcester SMSA in 1999. For purposes of this analysis we have excluded 4 patients with both upper and lower extremity DVT. Upper extremity DVT was diagnosed in 68 (14.2%) of patients versus 411 (85.8%) cases of lower extremity DVT. Patients with upper extremity DVT were younger, more likely to be Hispanic, more likely to have renal disease and more likely to have had a recent central venous catheter, infection, surgery, ICU stay, or chemotherapy than patients with lower extremity DVT. They were less likely to have had a prior DVT or to have developed their current DVT as an outpatient. Although less likely to be treated with heparin, LMWH, or warfarin they were more likely to suffer major bleeding complications. Recurrence rates of VTE during hospitalization were very low in both groups. Conclusions: Patients with upper extremity DVT comprise a small but clinically important proportion of all patients with DVT in the community setting. Their risk profiles differs from patients with lower extremity DVT suggesting strategies for DVT prophylaxis and treatment for this group may need to be tailored. Characteristics of Patients with Upper versus Lower Extremity DVT Upper extremity (n=68) Lower extremity (n=417) P value *Recent = < 3 months Demographics Mean Age, yrs 59.3 66.5 <0.001 Male (%) 51.5 45 NS Race (%) <0.05 White 86.6 91.6 Black 1.5 3.2 Hispanic 9.0 2.0 VTE Setting (%) <0.001 Community 53.8 76.2 Hospital Acquired 46.2 23.8 Risk Factors (%) Recent Central Venous Catheter 61.8 11.9 <0.001 Recent Infection 48.5 32.4 <0.01 Recent Surgery 47.8 28.1 <0.001 Cancer 44.1 32.6 0.06 Recent Immobility 38.2 47.0 NS Recent chemotherapy 25 9.5 <0.001 Renal disease 23.5 1.7 <0.0001 Recent ICU discharge 23.5 15.1 0.07 Recent CHF 19.1 16.6 NS Previous DVT 3.0 18.7 <0.01 Anticoagulant prophylaxis (%) During hospital admission (n=125) 76.7 71.6 NS During recent prior hospital admission (n=188) 73.7 54.7 <0.05 During recent surgery (n=146) 62.5 55.3 NS Hospital therapy - treatment doses (%) Any heparin/LMWH 66.2 82 <0.01 Warfarin at discharge 53.1 71.2 <0.01 Hospital Outcomes (%) Length of stay (mean, d) 11.2 6.8 <0.01 Major bleeding 11.8 4.9 <0.05 Recurrent DVT 1.5 1.0 NS Recurrent PE 0 0.2 NS Hospital Mortality 4.5 4.1 NS


2005 ◽  
Vol 3 (11) ◽  
pp. 2409-2419 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. J. ROODEN ◽  
M. E. T. TESSELAAR ◽  
S. OSANTO ◽  
F. R. ROSENDAAL ◽  
M. V. HUISMAN

2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (10) ◽  
pp. 1062-1066 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlisa D. Gibson ◽  
Mai O. Colvin ◽  
Michael J. Park ◽  
Qingying Lai ◽  
Juan Lin ◽  
...  

Introduction: Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a recognized but preventable cause of morbidity and mortality in the medical intensive care unit (MICU). We examined the prevalence and risk factors for DVT in MICU patients who underwent diagnostic venous duplex ultrasonography (DUS) and the potential effect on clinical outcomes. Methods: This is a retrospective study examining prevalence of DVT in 678 consecutive patients admitted to a tertiary care level academic MICU from July 2014 to 2015. Patients who underwent diagnostic DUS were included. Potential conditions of interest were mechanical ventilation, hemodialysis, sepsis, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores, central venous catheters, prior DVT, and malignancy. Primary outcomes were pulmonary embolism, ICU length of stay, and mortality. Additionally, means of thromboprophylaxis was compared between the groups. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was utilized to determine predictors of DVT occurrence. Results: Of the 678 patients, 243 (36%) patients underwent DUS to evaluate for DVT. The prevalence of DVT was 16% (38) among tested patients, and a prior history of DVT was associated with DVT prevalence ( P < .01). Between cases and controls, there were no significant differences in central venous catheters, mechanical ventilation, hemodialysis, sepsis, SOFA scores, malignancy, and recent surgery. Patients receiving chemical prophylaxis had fewer DVTs compared to persons with no prophylaxis (14% vs 29%; P = .01) and persons with dual chemical and mechanical prophylaxis ( P = 0.1). Fourteen percent of patients tested had documented DVT while on chemoprophylaxis. There were no significant differences in ICU length of stay ( P = .35) or mortality ( P = .34). Conclusions: Despite the appropriate use of universal thromboprophylaxis, critically ill nonsurgical patients still demonstrated high rates of DVT. A history of DVT was the sole predictor for development of proximal DVT on DUS testing. Dual chemical and mechanical prophylaxis does not appear to be superior to single-chemical prophylaxis in DVT prevention in this population.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document