Catheter
Central venous catheters and upper extremity deep vein thrombosis in medical inpatients: the Medical Inpatients and Thrombosis (MITH) Study
J P Winters 1, P W Callas 1, M Cushman 1, A B Repp 1, N A Zakai 1
PMID: 26340226. DOI: 10.1111/jth.13131
Abstract
Background: Upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) is an increasingly recognized complication in medical inpatients, with few data available regarding the incidence, risk factors and association with central venous catheter (CVC) use.
Methods: Between 2002 and 2009 all cases of hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism (VTE) at a university hospital were frequency matched 1 : 2 to non-cases without VTE by admission year and medical service. Records were abstracted to identify, characterize and assess risk factors for UEDVT. Weighted logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) for UEDVT associated with use of a CVC, adjusting for known VTE risk factors.
Results: Two hundred and ninety-nine cases of VTE complicated 64 034 admissions to medical services (4.6 per 1000 admissions). UEDVT constituted 51% (91/180) of all deep vein thrombosis (DVT), for an incidence of 1.4 per 1000 admissions (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8-1.7). There were 247 CVCs placed per 1000 admissions (95% CI, 203-292). The use of a CVC was associated with a 14.0-fold increased risk of UEDVT (95% CI, 5.9-33.2), but was not associated with a significantly increased risk of PE (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.8-2.1). Peripherally inserted central catheters had a higher OR for UEDVT (OR, 13.0; 95% CI, 6.1-27.6) than centrally inserted central venous catheters (CICC) (OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 1.7-6.8).
Conclusion: UEDVT is a relevant complication affecting medical inpatients, accounting for half of hospital-acquired DVTs. Use of CVCs was strongly associated with risk of UEDVT.
Reference:
J Thromb Haemost. 2015 Dec;13(12):2155-60. doi: 10.1111/jth.13131. Epub 2015 Oct 27.
Risk of venous thromboembolism associated with totally implantable venous access ports in cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Meng Jiang 1, Chang-Li Li 2, Chun-Qiu Pan 3, Xin-Wu Cui 1, Christoph F Dietrich 4
PMID: 32479699. DOI: 10.1111/jth.14930
Abstract
Background: Totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAPs) for chemotherapy are associated with venous thromboembolism (VTE). We aimed to quantify the incidence of TIVAP-associated VTE and compare it with external central venous catheters (CVCs) in cancer patients through a meta-analysis.
Methods: Studies reporting on VTE risk associated with TIVAP were retrieved from medical literature databases. In publications without a comparison group, the pooled incidence of TIVAP-related VTE was calculated. For studies comparing TIVAPs with external CVCs, odds ratios (ORs) were calculated to assess the risk of VTE.
Results: In total, 80 studies (11 with a comparison group and 69 without) including 39 148 patients were retrieved. In the noncomparison studies, the overall symptomatic VTE incidence was 2.76% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.24-3.28), and 0.08 (95 CI: 0.06-0.10) per 1000 catheter-days. This risk was highest when TIVAPs were inserted via the upper-extremity vein (3.54%, 95% CI: 2.94-4.76). Our meta-analysis of the case-control studies showed that TIVAPs were associated with a decreased risk of VTE compared with peripherally inserted central catheters (OR = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.09-0.43), and a trend for lower VTE risk compared with Hickman catheters (OR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.37-1.50). Meta-regression models suggested that regional difference may significantly impact on the incidence of VTE associated with TIVAPs.
Conclusions: Current evidence suggests that the cancer patients with TIVAP are less likely to develop VTE compared with external CVCs. This should be considered when choosing the indwelling intravenous device for chemotherapy. However, more attention should be paid when choosing upper-extremity veins as the insertion site.
Reference:
J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Sep;18(9):2253-2273. doi: 10.1111/jth.14930.Epub 2020 Jul 15.