Article

Risk of venous thromboembolism associated with peripherally inserted central catheters: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Patient Safety Enhancement Program and Hospital Outcomes Program of Excellence (HOPE) of the Ann Arbor Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. Electronic address: .
The Lancet (Impact Factor: 39.21). 05/2013; DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60592-9
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism. However, the size of this risk relative to that associated with other central venous catheters (CVCs) is unknown. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the risk of venous thromboembolism associated with PICCs versus that associated with other CVCs. METHODS: We searched several databases, including Medline, Embase, Biosis, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Conference Papers Index, and Scopus. Additional studies were identified through hand searches of bibliographies and internet searches, and we contacted study authors to obtain unpublished data. All human studies published in full text, abstract, or poster form were eligible for inclusion. All studies were of adult patients aged at least 18 years who underwent insertion of a PICC. Studies were assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa risk of bias scale. In studies without a comparison group, the pooled frequency of venous thromboembolism was calculated for patients receiving PICCs. In studies comparing PICCs with other CVCs, summary odds ratios (ORs) were calculated with a random effects meta-analysis. FINDINGS: Of the 533 citations identified, 64 studies (12 with a comparison group and 52 without) including 29 503 patients met the eligibility criteria. In the non-comparison studies, the weighted frequency of PICC-related deep vein thrombosis was highest in patients who were critically ill (13·91%, 95% CI 7·68-20·14) and those with cancer (6·67%, 4·69-8·64). Our meta-analysis of 11 studies comparing the risk of deep vein thrombosis related to PICCs with that related to CVCs showed that PICCs were associated with an increased risk of deep vein thrombosis (OR 2·55, 1·54-4·23, p<0·0001) but not pulmonary embolism (no events). With the baseline PICC-related deep vein thrombosis rate of 2·7% and pooled OR of 2·55, the number needed to harm relative to CVCs was 26 (95% CI 13-71). INTERPRETATION: PICCs are associated with a higher risk of deep vein thrombosis than are CVCs, especially in patients who are critically ill or those with a malignancy. The decision to insert PICCs should be guided by weighing of the risk of thrombosis against the benefit provided by these devices. FUNDING: None.

Full-text

Available from: Vineet Chopra, Jun 02, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
221 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate the risk factors associated with an increased risk of symptomatic peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICC)-related venous thrombosis. Retrospective analyses identified 2313 patients who received PICCs from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2013. All 11 patients with symptomatic PICC-related venous thrombosis (thrombosis group) and 148 who did not have thromboses (non-thrombosis group) were selected randomly. The medical information of 159 patients (age, body mass index (BMI), diagnosis, smoking history, nutritional risk score, platelet count, leucocyte count as well as levels of D-dimer, fibrinogen, and degradation products of fibrin) were collected. Logistic regression analysis was undertaken to determine the risk factors for thrombosis. Of 2313 patients, 11 (0.47%) were found to have symptomatic PICC-related venous thrombosis by color Doppler ultrasound. Being bedridden for a long time (odds ratio [(OR]), 17.774; P=0.0017), D-dimer >5 mg/L (36.651; 0.0025) and suffering from one comorbidity (8.39; 0.0265) or more comorbidities (13.705; 0.0083) were the major risk factors for PICC-catheter related venous thrombosis by stepwise logistic regression analysis. Among 159 patients, the prevalence of PICC-associated venous thrombosis in those with ≥1 risk factor was 10.34% (12/116), in those with ≥2 risk factors was 20.41% (10/49), and in those with >3 risk factors was 26.67% (4/15). Being bedridden >72 h, having increased levels of D-dimer (>5 mg/L) and suffering from comorbidities were independent risk factors of PICC-related venous thrombosis.
    International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine 01/2014; 7(12):5814-9. · 1.42 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are associated with upper extremity-deep vein thrombosis (DVT). However, patterns, risk factors and treatment associated with this event remain poorly defined. To determine patterns, risk factors and treatment related to PICC-DVT in hospitalized patients. Between 2012-2013, consecutive cases of ultrasound-confirmed, symptomatic PICC-DVT were identified. For each case, at least two contemporaneous controls were identified and matched by age and gender. Patient- and device-specific data were obtained through electronic-medical records. Using variables selected a priori, multivariable logistic regression models were fit to the outcome of PICC-DVT, comparing cases to controls. 909 adult hospitalized patients (268 cases, 641 controls) were included in the study. Indications for PICC placement included long-term intravenous antibiotic therapy (n=447; 49.1%), in-hospital venous access for blood draws or infusion of medications (n=342; 44.2%), and total parenteral nutrition (n=120; 6.7%). Patients with PICC-DVT were more likely to have a history of venous thromboembolism (OR 1.70, 95% CI=1.02-2.82) or have undergone surgery while the PICC was in situ (OR 2.17, 95%CI=1.17-4.01 for surgeries longer than two hours). Treatment for PICC-DVT varied and included heparin bridging, low molecular weight heparin only and device removal only; the average duration of treatment also varied across these groups. Compared to 4-Fr PICCs, 5- and 6-Fr PICCs were associated with greater risk of DVT (OR 2.74, 95%CI=0.75-10.09 and OR 7.40 95%CI=1.94-28.16, respectively). Patients who received both aspirin and statins were less likely to develop PICC-DVT than those that received neither treatment (OR 0.31, 95%CI=0.16-0.61). Receipt of pharmacological DVT prophylaxis during hospitalization showed a non-significant trend towards reduction in risk of PICC-DVT (OR=0.72, 95%CI=0.48-1.08). Several factors appear associated with PICC-DVT. While some of these characteristics may be non-modifiable, future studies that target potentially modifiable variables to prevent this adverse outcome would be welcomed. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
    Thrombosis Research 02/2015; 135(5). DOI:10.1016/j.thromres.2015.02.012 · 2.43 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In patients with acute leukemia (AL), coagulation disorders, which include both thrombotic and hemorrhagic events, are part of the clinical spectrum both at diagnosis and during its evolution. The incidence of these events has been reported by several authors in the range of 1-36 %. This heterogeneity appears to be related to the type of patients included, the study design, and patient-related factors as well as the treatment used. The pathophysiology of thrombosis in AL is complex and multifactorial and includes a myriad of factors that contribute to cancer procoagulant state: synthesis of procoagulant factors by circulating blasts, cellular microparticles, use of endovascular devices (catheters), type of chemotherapy used (L-asparaginase) to name a few. Currently, treatment relies in the use of heparin, followed by vitamin K antagonists for 3 to 6 months. However, randomized controlled studies are required in patients with AL and thrombosis to confirm its safety, duration, and effectiveness.
    Current Oncology Reports 05/2015; 17(5):444. DOI:10.1007/s11912-015-0444-2 · 2.87 Impact Factor