Thromboembolic events during neoadjuvant chemotherapy in muscle invasive bladder cancer – any correlation to the central venous access? A clinical practice article

Patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer have a generally known 5-year overall survival of approximately 58% with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). During the last decades, addition of Cisplatinum-based NAC in fit patients prior to radical cystectomy (RC), has significantly improved OS, compared to RC only. However, some published studies following NAC addition, describe an intermediate risk increase of thromboembolic events (TEEs). Placement of central venous access (CVA) before NAC has also been suggested as being a potential risk factor for thrombosis. We present a combination of images and cases from the Northern Swedish health region where three patients developed venous TEE after CVA placement for NAC-administration and found that the time until curable RC was prolonged circa one month each, with an addition of one RC cancelled. These are serious events and to our knowledge, there are no current guidelines on prevention of TEE before RC. The aim with this report was to provide examples of these events and conclude that further prospective trials are warranted on prevention and future guidelines regarding venous anticoagulant treatment for TEE that occur pre-RC in NAC-patients.

‘Pinholes in my arms’: The vicious cycle of vascular access

Background: Vascular access devices (VADs) are essential for delivery of intravenous therapies. There are notable gaps in the literature regarding a focus on patient experience and meaning-making related to living with a VAD, specifically a central venous access device (CVAD). Aims: To explore how patients make sense of living with a CVAD. Methods: This study followed an interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) approach. Purposive sampling was used to identify 11 cancer patients who had a CVAD in situ. One-to-one semi-structured interviews were performed. Interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed and analysed by the lead author. Findings: Four superordinate themes were identified: the self under attack; being rescued/being robbed; protection of others/protection of self; bewilderment and dismay at lack of staff competence. Conclusion: Having a CVAD affects the psychological, social, and personal self and impacts on self-esteem and self-image. Despite this, CVADs are accepted by patients and are eventually ‘embodied’ by them.

Sex-related differences regarding cephalic vein lead access for CIEDs implantation

Background Minimally invasive and safe central venous access is imperative for lead insertion of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). The purpose of this trial was to explore and compare the usability of the cephalic vein (CV) between both sexes. Methods and results This single-center prospective study included 102 consecutive patients in a period of six months. Pre-procedural contrast-enhanced venographic images of the upper arm were performed in all included patients. Our attention was focused on comparing several morpho-anatomical CV characteristics such as venous diameter, presence of valves and angle of entrance of the CV into the subclavian vein (SV). Study results concerning the CV morpho-anatomical differences were more favorable regarding the female patient group, with significant differences in CV diameter (p-0.030). There was also a difference in favor of the female group regarding the favorable CV angle of entrance into the SV, found in the 61.7% versus 54.4% in the male patient group. The comparison of usability of the CV and CVC technique was explored by comparing the number of leads inserted through the CV in both sexes. Two leads were implanted in 11.7% in the female group versus 5.8% in the male group, and 0 leads through the CV in 38.2% of the female patients versus 50% of male group. Conclusion Female patients have more favorable cephalic vein morpho-anatomical futures and better usability for lead placement than male patients.

Risk factors for unsuccessful removal of central venous access ports implanted in the forearm of adult oncologic patients

Purpose To evaluate the risk factors for unsuccessful removal of a central venous access port (CV port) implanted in the forearm of adult oncologic patients. Materials and methods This study included 97 adult oncologic patients (51 males, 46 females; age range, 30–88 years; mean age, 63.7 years) in whom removal of a CV port implanted in the forearm was attempted at our hospital between January 2015 and May 2021. Gender, age at removal, body mass index, and diagnosis were examined as patient characteristics; and indwelling period, indwelling side, and indication for removal were examined as factors associated with removal of a CV port. These variables were compared between successful and unsuccessful cases using univariate analysis. Then, multivariate analysis was performed to identify independent risk factors for unsuccessful removal of a CV port using variables with a significant difference in the univariate analysis. A receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curve was drawn for significant risk factors in the multivariate analysis and the Youden index was used to determine the optimum cut-off value for predicting unsuccessful removal of a CV port. Results Removal of CV ports was successful in 79 cases (81.4%), but unsuccessful in 18 cases (18.6%) due to fixation of the catheter to the vessel wall. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the indwelling period (odds ratio 1.048; 95% confidence interval 1.026–1.070; P < 0.0001) was a significant independent risk factor for unsuccessful removal of a CV port. ROC analysis showed that the cut-off value for successful removal was 41 months, and 54% of cases with an indwelling period > 60 months had unsuccessful removal. Conclusion The indwelling period is an independent risk factor for unsuccessful removal of a CV port implanted in the forearm of adult oncologic patients, with a cut-off of 41 months.

Key issues of patient safety during anticancer drug treatment in a day hospital and outpatient setting

Background. In the context of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the vector of healthcare development is aimed at minimizing contacts among citizens, which is especially important for cancer patients, given the immunosuppression caused by cytostatics.The objective of the review is to present the development prospects of hospital-substituting technologies for drug antitumor treatment. Two main components are considered that allow effective and safe infusion of anticancer drugs in a day hospital: central venous access devices and infusion pumps, various types of these devices, their safety and experience of use today are described.Materials and methods. We searched for available literature published in PubMed, Medline, eLIBRARY, Cochrane Library, CyberLeninka, Global.health, etc. 42 sources were found and analyzed, published from 2002 to 2021.Results. Outpatient anticancer drug treatment is a real alternative to hospital stay, based on many years of world experience. The qualifications level of medical personnel involved in the treatment process should allow early monitoring of various adverse events development. With the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, it is important to ensure the continuity of the treatment process while minimizing risks to the patient.Conclusion. With a careful approach and adequate infrastructure availability, drug treatment in a day hospital can reduce the burden on round-the-clock stay hospital and positively affect the patients’ quality of life and their compliance with treatment.

Use of Thromboprophylaxis for Central Venous Access Devices in Patients with Sickle Cell Disease: A Survey of Canadian Providers

Background: Sickle cell disease (SCD) induces a chronic prothrombotic state, with a cumulative incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) reported to be 11% by age 40. Central venous access devices (CVAD) are commonly used for chronic transfusions and iron chelation in this patient population.The presence of a CVAD is an additional risk factor for venous thromboembolism (VTE), with a catheter related thrombosis rate of 24%. Despite this high risk of VTE, the role of thromboprophylaxis in this setting is uncertain due to a lack of high quality data. Methods: A survey was administered in March 2021 to physicians caring for adult sickle cell disease patients via the Canadian Haemoglobinopathy Association (CanHaem), covering nine SCD comprehensive care centers in Canada. One reminder email was distributed after 3 weeks to encourage participation. Questions were directed at characterizing the practice size, number of patients with CVADs, and the role of thromboprophylaxis for CVADs. Physicians were also surveyed about their willingness to enroll their SCD patients with CVADs in a randomized trial of thromboprophylaxis versus placebo. Items were generated and selected based on face and content validity. Results are reported in medians and percentages, where applicable. Results: Responses were collected from 14 physicians who care for a median of 100 (IQR 185) adult sickle cell disease patients in practices across Canada. Physicians reported approximately 5% of their patients currently require a CVAD, and physicians estimated no CVAD patients are lost to follow up. Respondents use a variety of CVADs, including port-a-caths (75%), followed by PICC lines (58%), tunneled (25%) and non-tunneled CVCs (25%) (Figure 1). Duration of venous access was reported to be &lt;1 month (17%), 1-3 months (8%), 3-6 months (0%), 6-12 months (8%), and &gt;12 months (67%). Fifty percent of respondents indicated they do not use thromboprophylaxis for CVADs. Responses varied with respect to choice and dose of antiplatelet or anticoagulant in cases where thromboprophylaxis is used (Figure 2). Forty-two percent of physicians indicated they were not very confident or not at all confident in choice of prophylaxis. Past history of VTE was the most cited factor influencing the choice to use thromboprophylaxis. Physicians were generally in favour of enrolling patients in an RCT using thromboprophylaxis for CVADs. The exception was that 69% answered "No" when asked about enrolling patients with a prior history of VTE who are not currently on anticoagulation. One-hundred percent of physicians agreed that an RCT would improve their confidence in decision-making around thromboprophylaxis in their patients with CVADs. Conclusions: While there is evidence for an increased risk of VTE for SCD patients with CVADs, our results suggest there remains clinical equipoise with respect to the use of thromboprophylaxis. Thromboprophylaxis options were variable when physicians chose to use them, as there is no evidence to support specific antithrombotic regimens. All physicians surveyed are supportive of an RCT to clarify this management approach, and many would enroll their patients. As a result of this survey, a Canadian multicenter pilot RCT addressing this question is currently underway. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Forte: Pfizer: Research Funding; Canadian Hematology Society: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria. Verhovsek: Vertex: Consultancy. Kuo: Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Bioverativ: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Apellis: Consultancy. OffLabel Disclosure: This survey explored the use of LMWH, direct oral anticoagulants, warfarin and ASA for prophylaxis among patients with sickle cell disease using a central venous access device.