scholarly journals Clinical Course and Complications of Catheter and Non-Catheter-Related Upper Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis in Patients with Cancer

2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (8) ◽  
pp. 1234-1240 ◽  
Author(s):  
Asem Mansour ◽  
Salwa S. Saadeh ◽  
Nayef Abdel-Razeq ◽  
Omar Khozouz ◽  
Mahmoud Abunasser ◽  
...  

Patients with cancer have an increased risk of venous thromboembolism. Upper extremity venous system is a peculiar site, and little is known about the clinical course in patients with cancer. Electronic medical records were searched for patients with cancer with a diagnosis of upper extremity venous thrombosis. Individual patient data were reviewed. Eighty-seven patients were identified, and the median age was 52.4. The most common underlying malignancies were breast (23.0%), colorectal (18.4%), and gastroesophageal (18.4%). Median time from cancer diagnosis to upper extremity venous thromboembolism (UEDVT) was 3.44 months. Subclavian vein was the most common involved site (56.3%) and 54.0% patients had a central venous catheter; 50.6% of patients developed a complication; pulmonary embolism (PE) in 9.2%, superior vena cava (SVC) syndrome in 14.9%, and 26.4% had postthrombotic syndrome. In patients with isolated single vein thrombosis, complications were higher in the subset with internal jugular vein involvement compared to other sites (68.2% vs 52.2%) as were complications in patients with non-catheter-related thrombosis compared to patients with a central venous catheter in place (55% vs 27.7%). Median overall survival from time of cancer and UEDVT diagnoses was 29.6 and 13.25 months, respectively. In conclusion, UEDVT is an uncommon event. Around 50% developed a complication including PE, SVC or postthrombotic syndromes. Larger studies are needed to better identify risks associated with thrombosis and the best therapeutic approach and duration in this unique subset of patients with cancer.

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


2015 ◽  
Vol 135 (2) ◽  
pp. 298-302 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aurélien Delluc ◽  
Grégoire Le Gal ◽  
Dimitrios Scarvelis ◽  
Marc Carrier

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 5-6
Author(s):  
Julie Jaffray ◽  
Lisa Baumann Kreuziger ◽  
Brian Branchford ◽  
Arash Mahajerin ◽  
Choo Phei A Wee ◽  
...  

Introduction: Appropriate timing of central venous Catheter (CVC) removal in children after the diagnosis of a CVC-related thrombosis (CRT) is poorly characterized. Due to the risk of embolization, ASH guidelines recommend initiating anticoagulation before CVC removal, but without a specified treatment period before CVC removal. An abstract from the 2019 ASH meeting did not find an increase in embolization rates when comparing anticoagulation treatment &lt; or &gt;48 hours prior to removal (Houghton et al, Blood 2019) in adult cancer patients with upper extremity CRT. This current study aimed to use data within the multi-institutional Children's Hospital-Acquired Thrombosis (CHAT) Consortium Registry to evaluate the incidence of symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) after CVC removal. Methods: The CHAT Registry is a retrospective cohort study which consists of detailed data from children aged 0-21 years with a hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism (HA-VTE) from eight U.S. centers. Eligible participants were those with a CRT. Participants were excluded if the diagnosis of thrombosis was &gt;/= 3 days after CVC removal or if the CRT was due to a failed attempt at inserting a CVC. CHAT included details on demographics, medical history, CVC insertion and removal dates, anticoagulation start and stop dates and secondary outcomes, such as PE were extracted for analysis. Participants were divided into three groups, those in which (1) CVC removal occurred without anticoagulation initiation, (2) CVC removal occurred &lt;48 hours after starting anticoagulation, and (3) CVC removal occurred ≥48 hours after starting anticoagulation (Figure 1). Results: A total of 687 CRT events from 663 participants were included. The median age at hospital admission was 1.4 years (IQR 0.1, 11.3) The majority of participants were male, 57% (378), 54% were non-Hispanic (359) and 46% were White (307). The most common past medical history for all participants with a CRT was congenital heart disease (22%, n=148) followed by cancer (11%, n=71), metabolic or mitochondrial disorder (3%, n=22) and inflammatory bowel disease (3%, n=21). For 76 CRT events the CVC was not removed during the participant's hospitalization or the removal date was unknown, therefore these events were excluded from further analysis. Anticoagulation was not initiated for 72 CRT events and for these events the median time from VTE diagnosis to CVC removal was one day (range 0-5.5). For the events that received anticoagulation there were 311 with CVC removal &lt;48 hours and 228 events with CVC removal ≥48 hours (Table 1). Most of the CRT events with CVC removal &lt;48 hours were in the lower extremity (52%, n=161) compared to CRT events with CVC removal ≥48 hours, which were mostly in the upper extremity (56%, n=127). A peripherally inserted central catheter was the most common CVC type regardless of group, followed by a temporary femoral line (Table 1). For all 611 CRT events in which the CVC was removed, there was only one case of PE (0.16%), which occurred &lt;48 hours after CVC removal and initiation of anticoagulation (Figure 1). Conclusions: While current guidelines suggest anticoagulation before removal of CVCs in the setting of CRT to prevent embolization and PE, removal appears safe regardless of duration of anticoagulation before CVC removal in this pediatric cohort. These findings support need to substantiate the findings our CHAT consortium's ongoing prospective cohort study, but while waiting for these results, potential PEs should not weigh heavily in providers clinical decision making on timing of CVC removal. Disclosures Jaffray: CSL Behring: Research Funding; Octapharma: Other: Unrestricted funds for physician education. Baumann Kreuziger:CSL Behring: Consultancy; Quercegen pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Mahajerin:Spark Therapeutics, Alexion, Genentech, Inc.: Speakers Bureau. Croteau:Hemophilia Federation of America: Honoraria; National Hemophilia Foundation: Honoraria; Sigilon Therapeutics: Consultancy; ATHN: Research Funding; Spark Therapeutics: Research Funding; CSL-Behring: Consultancy; Novo Nordisk: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Young:BioMarin, Freeline, Genentech/Roche, Grifols, Kedrion, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi Genzyme, Spark, Takeda, and UniQure: Honoraria; Bayer, CSL Behring, Freeline, UniQure: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche, Grifols, and Takeda: Research Funding. Goldenberg:Academic Research Organization CPC Clinical Research: Consultancy; Daiici Sankyo: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Chiesi: Consultancy; Roshan Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy.


2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (29) ◽  
pp. 4889-4894 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael B. Streiff

Purpose Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication of cancer and its therapy. The purpose of this article is to review the diagnosis and initial treatment of VTE in the patient with cancer. Methods I conducted a survey of the English-language literature on topics relevant to the diagnosis and initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. Results Patients with cancer are at increased risk for VTE because of the presence of multiple risk factors for thrombotic disease. The most common signs and symptoms of VTE as well as the utility of clinical prediction rules and D-dimer testing in the diagnosis of VTE in the patient with cancer are reviewed. Duplex ultrasound and computer tomography angiography are the primary objective diagnostic modalities for VTE. Low molecular weight heparin is the preferred initial therapy for VTE. Until further data emerge, thrombolysis and vena cava filters should be reserved for patients in whom anticoagulation is insufficient or contraindicated. Outpatient management is feasible for carefully selected patients with cancer with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and low-risk pulmonary embolism. Anticoagulation is the preferred initial therapy for cancer patients with central venous catheter–associated DVT, calf DVT, and unsuspected VTE. Conclusion Optimal initial management of VTE in patients with cancer entails maintaining a high index of suspicion for thrombotic disease, confirming diagnostic suspicions with objective testing and evidence-based use of anticoagulation, and adjunctive therapeutic modalities (thrombolysis, vena cava interruption, venous stenting). Further investigation of initial diagnostic and treatment strategies for VTE focusing on patients with cancer are warranted.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document