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

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.

Debourdeau P ，Farge D ，Beckers M ，Baglin C ，Bauersachs RM ，Brenner B ，Brilhante D ，Falanga A ，Gerotzafias GT ，Haim N ，Kakkar AK ，Khorana AA ，Lecumberri R ，Mandala M ，Marty M ，Monreal M ，Mousa SA ，Noble S ，Pabinger I ，Prandoni P ，Prins MH ，Qari MH ，Streiff MB ，Syrigos K ，Büller HR ，Bounameaux H ... -  《-》

International clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

 Guidelines addressing the management of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients are heterogeneous and their implementation has been suboptimal worldwide. To establish a common international consensus addressing practical, clinically relevant questions in this setting. An international consensus working group of experts was set up to develop guidelines according to an evidence-based medicine approach, using the GRADE system. For the initial treatment of established VTE: low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is recommended [1B]; fondaparinux and unfractionated heparin (UFH) can be also used [2D]; thrombolysis may only be considered on a case-by-case basis [Best clinical practice (Guidance)]; vena cava filters (VCF) may be considered if contraindication to anticoagulation or pulmonary embolism recurrence under optimal anticoagulation; periodic reassessment of contraindications to anticoagulation is recommended and anticoagulation should be resumed when safe; VCF are not recommended for primary VTE prophylaxis in cancer patients [Guidance]. For the early maintenance (10 days to 3 months) and long-term (beyond 3 months) treatment of established VTE, LMWH for a minimum of 3 months is preferred over vitamin K antagonists (VKA) [1A]; idraparinux is not recommended [2C]; after 3-6 months, LMWH or VKA continuation should be based on individual evaluation of the benefit-risk ratio, tolerability, patient preference and cancer activity [Guidance]. For the treatment of VTE recurrence in cancer patients under anticoagulation, three options can be considered: (i) switch from VKA to LMWH when treated with VKA; (ii) increase in LMWH dose when treated with LMWH, and (iii) VCF insertion [Guidance]. For the prophylaxis of postoperative VTE in surgical cancer patients, use of LMWH o.d. or low dose of UFH t.i.d. is recommended; pharmacological prophylaxis should be started 12-2 h preoperatively and continued for at least 7-10 days; there are no data allowing conclusion that one type of LMWH is superior to another [1A]; there is no evidence to support fondaparinux as an alternative to LMWH [2C]; use of the highest prophylactic dose of LMWH is recommended [1A]; extended prophylaxis (4 weeks) after major laparotomy may be indicated in cancer patients with a high risk of VTE and low risk of bleeding [2B]; the use of LMWH for VTE prevention in cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery may be recommended as for laparotomy [Guidance]; mechanical methods are not recommended as monotherapy except when pharmacological methods are contraindicated [2C]. For the prophylaxis of VTE in hospitalized medical patients with cancer and reduced mobility, we recommend prophylaxis with LMWH, UFH or fondaparinux [1B]; for children and adults with acute lymphocytic leukemia treated with l-asparaginase, depending on local policy and patient characteristics, prophylaxis may be considered in some patients [Guidance]; in patients receiving chemotherapy, prophylaxis is not recommended routinely [1B]; primary pharmacological prophylaxis of VTE may be indicated in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic [1B] or lung [2B] cancer treated with chemotherapy and having a low risk of bleeding; in patients treated with thalidomide or lenalidomide combined with steroids and/or chemotherapy, VTE prophylaxis is recommended; in this setting, VKA at low or therapeutic doses, LMWH at prophylactic doses and low-dose aspirin have shown similar effects; however, the efficacy of these regimens remains unclear [2C]. Special situations include brain tumors, severe renal failure (CrCl<30 mL min(-1) ), thrombocytopenia and pregnancy. Guidances are provided in these contexts. Dissemination and implementation of good clinical practice for the management of VTE, the second cause of death in cancer patients, is a major public health priority.

Farge D ，Debourdeau P ，Beckers M ，Baglin C ，Bauersachs RM ，Brenner B ，Brilhante D ，Falanga A ，Gerotzafias GT ，Haim N ，Kakkar AK ，Khorana AA ，Lecumberri R ，Mandala M ，Marty M ，Monreal M ，Mousa SA ，Noble S ，Pabinger I ，Prandoni P ，Prins MH ，Qari MH ，Streiff MB ，Syrigos K ，Bounameaux H ，Büller HR ... -  《-》

Infections increase the risk of central venous catheter-related thrombosis in adult acute myeloid leukemia.

Central venous catheters (CVC) related thrombosis (CRT) represents a well known complication in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) receiving intensive chemotherapy but the efficacy of antithrombotic prophylaxis still remains controversial. We analyzed 71 consecutive AML patients whose CVC was inserted before each chemotherapy cycle for an overall number of 106 CVC placements. In 47/106 insertions, a prophylaxis with 100 IU/kg/day low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) was administered for 7 days after CVC insertion and additional 7 after CVC removal. This unconventional dose of LMWH, although higher than usual, appeared adequate for a short-course approach. LMWH was delivered regardless of the platelet (PLT) count once provided that it should have been maintained above 20 x 10(9)/L by transfusions. Of 106 insertions, we observed 19 (18%) episodes of CRT, 58 (54%) of sepsis and 50 (47%) infections of CVC-exit site with no difference between LMWH and no-LMWH group. Occurrence of CRT was significantly associated with CVC-exit site infections (14/19, p=0.01) and sepsis (16/19, p=0.005) with no difference between LMWH and no-LMWH group. In multivariate analysis, both CVC-exit site infections and sepsis were confirmed to be independent risk factors for CRT development. Our retrospective study, although based on a small sample size, suggests that the occurrence of CVC-exit site infections and neutropenic sepsis following chemotherapy significantly increases the risk of CRT in AML, independently from the use of LMWH prophylaxis.

Del Principe MI ，Buccisano F ，Maurillo L ，Venditti D ，Cefalo M ，Sarlo C ，Di Caprio L ，Di Veroli A ，Nasso D ，Ceresoli E ，Postorino M ，Di Piazza F ，Colandrea G ，Conti F ，Del Poeta G ，Amadori S ，Venditti A ... -  《-》

Identification of risk factors for catheter-related thrombosis in patients with totally implantable venous access ports in the forearm.

Goltz JP ，Schmid JS ，Ritter CO ，Knödler P ，Petritsch B ，Kirchner J ，Hahn D ，Kickuth R ... -  《-》

Low molecular weight heparin for prevention of central venous catheter-related thrombosis in children.

The prevalence of children diagnosed with thrombotic events has been increasing in the last decades. The most common thrombosis risk factor in neonates, infants and children is the placement of a central venous catheter (CVC). It is unknown if anticoagulation prophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) decreases CVC-related thrombosis in children. This is an update of the Cochrane Review published in 2014. To determine the effect of LMWH prophylaxis on the incidence of CVC-related thrombosis and major and minor bleeding complications in children. Further objectives were to determine the effect of LMWH on occlusion of CVCs, number of days of CVC patency, episodes of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), other side effects of LMWH (allergic reactions, abnormal coagulation profile, heparin-induced thrombocytopaenia and osteoporosis) and mortality during therapy. The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 7 May 2019. We undertook reference checking of identified trials to identify additional studies. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials comparing LMWH to no prophylaxis (placebo or no treatment), or low-dose unfractionated heparin (UFH) either as continuous infusion or flushes (low-dose UFH aims to ensure the patency of the central line but has no systemic anticoagulation activity), given to prevent CVC-related thrombotic events in children. We selected studies conducted in children aged 0 to 18 years. Two review authors independently identified eligible studies, which were assessed for study methodology including bias, and extracted unadjusted data where available. In the data analysis step, all outcomes were analysed as binary or dichotomous outcomes. The effects of interventions were summarised with risk ratios (RR) and their respective 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. One additional study was included for this update bringing the total to two included studies (with 1135 participants). Both studies were open-label RCTs comparing LMWH with low-dose UFH to prevent CVC-related thrombosis in children. We identified no studies comparing LMWH with placebo or no treatment. Meta-analysis found insufficient evidence of an effect of LMWH prophylaxis in reducing the incidence of CVC-related thrombosis in children with CVC, compared to low-dose UFH (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.75; 2 studies; 787 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study (158 participants) reported symptomatic and asymptomatic CVC-related thrombosis separately and detected no evidence of a difference between LMWH and low-dose UFH (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.93; low-certainty evidence; RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.45 to 3.08; low-certainty evidence; for symptomatic and asymptomatic participants respectively). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether LMWH impacts the risk of major bleeding (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.67; 2 studies; 813 participants; low-certainty evidence); or minor bleeding. One study reported minor bleeding in 53.3% of participants in the LMWH arm and in 44.7% of participants in the low-dose UFH arm (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.58; 1 study; 158 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and the other study reported no minor bleeding in either group (RR: not estimable). Mortality during the study period was reported in one study, where two deaths occurred during the study period. Both were unrelated to thrombotic events and occurred in the low-dose UFH arm. The second study did not report mortality during therapy per arm but showed similar 5-year overall survival (low-certainty evidence). No additional adverse effects were reported. Other pre-specified outcomes (including CVC occlusion, patency and CRBSI) were not reported. Pooling data from two RCTs did not provide evidence to support the use of prophylactic LWMH for preventing CVC-related thrombosis in children (low-certainty evidence). Evidence was also insufficient to confirm or exclude a difference in the incidence of major and minor bleeding complications in the LMWH prophylaxis group compared to low-dose UFH (low and very low certainty respectively). No evidence of a clear difference in overall mortality was seen. Studies did not report on the outcomes catheter occlusion, days of catheter patency, episodes of CRBSI and other side effects of LMWH (allergic reactions, abnormal coagulation profile, heparin-induced thrombocytopaenia and osteoporosis). The certainty of the evidence was downgraded due to risk of bias of the included studies, imprecision and inconsistency, preventing conclusions in regards to the efficacy of LMWH prophylaxis to prevent CVC-related thrombosis in children.

Pelland-Marcotte MC ，Amiri N ，Avila ML ，Brandão LR ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》