This article was presented at ASH 2008. General poster session.
Risk factors for catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) in cancer patients: a patient-level data (IPD) meta-analysis of clinical trials and prospective studies
Version of Record online: 27 JAN 2011
© 2011 International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis
Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis
Volume 9, Issue 2, pages 312–319, February 2011
How to Cite
SABER, W., MOUA, T., WILLIAMS, E. C., VERSO, M., AGNELLI, G., COUBAN, S., YOUNG, A., DE CICCO, M., BIFFI, R., van ROODEN, C. J., HUISMAN, M. V., FAGNANI, D., CIMMINIELLO, C., MOIA, M., MAGAGNOLI, M., POVOSKI, S. P., MALAK, S. F. and LEE, A. Y. (2011), Risk factors for catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) in cancer patients: a patient-level data (IPD) meta-analysis of clinical trials and prospective studies. Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis, 9: 312–319. doi: 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2010.04126.x
- Issue online: 27 JAN 2011
- Version of Record online: 27 JAN 2011
- Accepted manuscript online: 29 OCT 2010 05:52AM EST
- Received 11 August 2010, accepted 11 October 2010
- catheter-related thrombosis;
- risk factors;
Background: Knowledge of independent, baseline risk factors for catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) may help select adult cancer patients who are at high risk to receive thromboprophylaxis. Objectives: We conducted a meta-analysis of individual patient-level data to identify these baseline risk factors. Patients/Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, DARE and the Grey literature databases were searched in all languages from 1995 to 2008. Prospective studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were eligible. Studies were included if original patient-level data were provided by the investigators and if CRT was objectively confirmed with valid imaging. Multivariate logistic regression analysis of 17 prespecified baseline characteristics was conducted. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. Results: A total sample of 5636 subjects from five RCTs and seven prospective studies was included in the analysis. Among these subjects, 425 CRT events were observed. In multivariate logistic regression, the use of implanted ports as compared with peripherally implanted central venous catheters (PICCs), decreased CRT risk (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.23–0.80), whereas past history of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.05–3.92), subclavian venipuncture insertion technique (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.07–4.34) and improper catheter tip location (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.22–3.02), increased CRT risk. Conclusions: CRT risk is increased with use of PICCs, previous history of DVT, subclavian venipuncture insertion technique and improper positioning of the catheter tip. These factors may be useful for risk stratifying patients to select those for thromboprophylaxis. Prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.