Incidence and Potential Risk Factors of Catheter Associated Thrombosis in Solid Tumors

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-662073/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Incidence and Potential Risk Factors of Catheter Associated Thrombosis in Solid Tumors

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-662073/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Purpose

Central venous catheters (CVCs) have become common practice in oncology. Besides their benefits, as an invasive procedure, several complications are associated with them. Catheter associated thrombosis (CAT) is one of the most relevant due to their impact in quality of life and mortality, but the prothrombotic risk factors implied have been poorly assessed.

The aim of the study is to evaluate the incidence of upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) associated to catheter use in patients with solid tumors. Secondary endpoints are to describe the population using CVCs and to evaluate potential risk factors of CAT.

Methods

Patients diagnosed of solid tumors assisted at a tertiary level hospital between 2016 and 2019, and using CVCs were included.

Results

455 patients were enrolled. The incidence of CAT was 5.49% (25) in the whole population. 5.05% (23) was associated with PICC while 0.44% (2) was due to PORT use. Among the factors included in the univariate and multivariate regression models, age ≥50 years and PORT use were identified as protective factors related to the development of CAT.

Conclusion

CVCs remains a safe approach for the delivering of treatments in patients with solid tumors. Age ≤50 and use of PICC are risk factors for developing CAT. Larger prospective studies are needed to identify additional risk factors of CAT.

Critical Care & Emergency Medicine

Oncology

Catheter

Thrombosis

Cancer

Intravascular device

Central venous catheters (CVCs) are widely used in oncology for the administration of chemotherapy, blood products or parenteral nutrition. Their use reduces the need for frequent peripheral venipunctures for blood sampling. Evidence from the literature indicates that besides its benefits, using these devices carries some complications such as thrombosis, infection, or migration, among others.

One of the most diagnosed complications is catheter – associated thrombosis (CAT). Several risk factors associated with CAT have been identified: underlying malignancy (finding different incidences depending on the primary tumor), patients’ comorbidities (abnormal renal function, obesity, coagulopathies), treatment – related [1] (use of blood transfusions, erythropoiesis or granulopoiesis-stimulating agents, chemotherapy, directed therapies and combinations), type of catheter [2, 3] and the material [4] they are made of.

There is no unique definition of CAT. The most accepted is the formation of the clot in the vein where the catheter is placed [5]. Other proposed definitions are the formation of a clot on the tip of the catheter, the formation of a fibrin sleeve, the occlusion of the lumen or a superficial thrombosis of the vein used. While the latter definitions imply a less severe complications, the first one may develop pulmonary embolism or superior cava vein syndrome among others[6, 7].

In daily practice, the CVCs most used for cancer patients are peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and totally implantable venous access ports (PORTs). Insertion of PORTs requires surgery, which is sometimes associated with major complications such as pneumothorax or hemorrhage following arterial malpuncture. PICCs are generally more accessible due to the possibility of insertion by trained nurses [8, 9] and lower cost, although literature addressing comparison between the two devices is scarce. A systematic review [3] evaluating differences between PICCs and other CVCs devices in general population, found no high-quality studies, only two with medium quality, and the results showed an increased incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in patients using PICCs, with decreased risk for catheter occlusion. Chopra et al [2] also found in their systematic review and meta – analysis an elevated risk of DVP when PICCs are used compared with other CVCs in the general population, especially when placed in patients with critical illness or cancer. Following this line, some studies have compared PICCs and PORTs in cancer patients and have found that PICCs are associated with an elevated risk of complications [10, 11], especially thrombosis but also occlusion, infection or mechanical problems, with no differences in cost [10].

Therefore, we conducted a retrospective single – centre cohort to describe CAT incidence in patients with solid tumors and the potential risk factors implicated.

The aim of this study is to evaluate the incidence of upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) associated to catheter use in patients with solid tumors. Secondary endpoints of our research are to describe the population treated using implantable devices and to explore risk factors of catheter associated thrombosis.

Patients with solid tumors attended at Elche’s General Hospital and PICC or PORT carriers were included between January 1st, 2016 and December 31st, 2019. Variables included are summarized in ‘Appendix 1’.

PICC were implanted by trained nurses within the Oncology Department, while PORTs were implanted by trained physicians from the ICU Department. Polyurethane was the material used. The diameters used for PICC were 4F and 5F depending on the caliber of the vein. The correct placement at the inferior third of the superior cava vein was checked by electrocardiography. The definition used for catheter associated thrombosis was the diagnose by image of the clot in the vessel where the catheter was placed.

A first analysis of missing data was performed. In addition, we conducted an analysis with logical, range and consistency tests to rule out errors in the variables collected.

We conducted a descriptive analysis stratifying by type of device. Proportions were used for the analysis of categorical data, while mean and standard deviation were calculated to describe quantitative variables. To detect differences in basal characteristics between groups, χ², Fisher`s exact and t – student tests were used as indicated. For the exploratory analysis of the potential risk factors, a logistic regression model was performed. Any clinical factors with a p value < 0.05 in the univariate analysis were included in the multivariate regression model. Statistical analysis was done using STATA version 14 (StataCorp LLC. Texas, USA).

The present research has been developed according to the Declaration of Helsinki (Fortaleza, Brasil, October 2013) and the Spanish Organic Law of Personal Data Protection (Ley Orgánica 3/2018, de 5 de diciembre, BOE 2018; 294, 6 de diciembre: 119788–119857).

A total of 455 patients were included, 292 PICCs and 163 PORTs. 64.18% (292) patients were women, while 35.82% (163) were men. Localized disease represented 50.77% (231) of cases, for the 48.57% (221) of advanced disease (3 patients missing). A full descriptive analysis of the total cohort is summarized in ‘Table 1’.

Table 1

Descriptive analysis by group of catheter used.
	Catheter
	PICC	Port – a - Cath
Edad (Md, SD)	58.5 (12.9)	61.3 (11.8)
Sex
Male	96 (21.1%)	83 (18.24%)
Female	196 (43.08%)	80 (17.58%)
Use of catheter
Citotoxic Chemotherapy	222 (48.79%)	142 (31.21%)
Directed Therapy	5 (1.1%)	2 (0.44%)
Combination Chemotherapy – Directed Therapy	39 (8.57%)	13 (2.86%)
Nutrition	7 (1.54%)	0
Missing	19 (4.18%)	6 (1.32%)
Smoking habit
Yes	97 (21.32%)	72 (15.82%)
No	190 (41.76%)	90 (19.78%)
Missing	5 (1.1%)	1 (0.22%)
BMI (kg/m²)
Underweight (< 18.5)	7 (1.54%)	4 (0.88%)
Normal weight (18.5–24.9)	105 (23.08%)	56 (12.31%)
Overweight (25–29.9)	80 (17.58%)	64 (14.07%)
Obese (30–39.9)	65 (14.29%)	29 (6.37%)
Severe obesity (≥ 40)	6 (1.32%)	2 (0.44%)
Missing	29 (6.37%)	8 (1.76%)
Previous thrombotic event
Yes	15 (3.3%)	10 (2.2%)
No	276 (60.66%)	153 (33.63%)
Missing	1 (0.22%)	0
Previous anticoagulation
Yes	26 (5.71%)	21 (4.62%)
No	265 (58.24%)	142 (31.21%)
Missing	1 (0.22)	0
Type of anticoagulation
Acenocumarol	3 (6.38%)	3 (6.38%)
Warfarin	1 (2.13%)	0
Low – Molecular – Weight Heparin (LMWH)	19 (40.43%)	15 (31.91%)
Direct – Action Oral Anticoagulation	2 (4.26%)	2 (4.26%)
Missing	1 (2.13%)	1 (2.13%)
Previous antiagreggation
Yes	16 (3.52%)	15 (3.3%)
No	275 (60.44%)	148 (32.53%)
Missing	1 (0.22%)	0
Stage of disease
Localized	167 (36.7%)	64 (14.07%)
Advanced	122 (26.81%)	99 (21.76%)
Missing	3 (0.66%)	0
Performance status (ECOG)
ECOG 1	83 (18.4%)	26 (5.71%)
ECOG 2	161 (35.38%)	113 (24.84%)
ECOG 3	13 (2.86%)	3 (0.66%)
ECOG 4	1 (0.22%)	0
Missing	3 (0.66%)	2 (0.44%)
Concurrent use of GSCF
Yes	110 (24.18%)	60 (13.19%)
No	176 (38.68%)	98 (21.54%)
Missing	6 (1.32%)	5 (1.1%)
Concurrent radiotherapy
Yes	122 (26.81%)	25 (5.49%)
No	163 (35.82%)	135 (29.67%)
Missing	7 (1.54%)	3 (0.66%)
Concurrent hormonal therapy
Yes	82 (18.02%)	8 (1.76%)
No	202 (44.4%)	149 (32.75%)
Missing	8 (1.76%)	6 (1.32%)
Second cancer
Yes	24 (5.27%)	14 (3.08%)
No	253 (55.6%)	140 (30.77%)
Missing	15 (3.3%)	9 (1.98%)

The basal characteristics of the population were unbalanced for age, sex, use of catheter, smoking habit, cancer stage, concomitant radiotherapy, and concomitant hormonotherapy. The most represented cancers were breast cancer (24.84%), gastrointestinal (9.67%), lung (8.35%) and genitourinary (8.35%) for the PICCs’ group, and gastrointestinal (27.47%) and breast cancers (4.18%) for the PORTs’ group. Detailed information on the distribution by cancer location according to the type of device implanted is described in ‘Figure 1’ and ‘Figure 2’.

Thromboembolic events were observed in 5.49% (25) of all patients. 5.05% (23) was associated with PICC while 0.44% (2) was due to PORT use. Low Molecular Weight Heparin (LMWH) was the first option to treat a thromboembolic event.

Regarding other complications of the use of central devices, 0.66% (3) of PICC presented with a dislodgement during their use. No dislodgement issues were observed with the use of PORTs. Infectious complications were observed in 2.2% (10) of the whole cohort, being more frequent with PICC (1.54% (7)) than with PORTs (0.66% (3)). The most frequently isolated microorganism was staphylococcus epidermidis (33.3%). Staphyloccocus aureus meticilin resistant (16,7%), meticilin sensible (16.67%), haemolyticus (16.67%) and hominis (16.67%) were other microorganisms documented. No other complications derived from the use of PICCs or PORTs were documented.

The mean duration of use was 4.76 months (SD 3.75) for PICC and 19.45 months (SD 20.3) for PORTs. End of antineoplastic treatment was the most frequent reason to remove them (31.43%). Own initiative (0.88%), thrombosis (0.66%), migration (0.66%), infection (0.44%), unrelated fever (0.44%), phlebitis (0.44%) and painful point of access (0.44%) were other causes of removal, whereas the majority of patients retain the catheters at the time of the present analysis.

Logistic regression model of potential risk factors is displayed in ‘Table 2’. Both in the univariate and multivariate analyses age ≥ 50 and PORT were observed to have less risk of developing a thromboembolic event.

Table 2

Univariate and multivariate regression models of risk factors.
	Univariable analysis		Multivariable analysis
	Odds ratio	p	Odds ratio	p
Age
< 50	1 (reference)		1 (reference)
≥ 50	0.29	0.004	0.21	0.006
Type of catheter
PICC	1 (reference)		1 (reference)
Port – a – Cath	0.14	0.009	0.068	0.012
Sex
Female	1 (reference)
Male	0.86	0.726
Use of catheter
Citotoxic chemotherapy	1 (reference)
Directed therapy	3.02	0.317
Combination	1.51	0.468
Nutrition	1
Smoking habit
No	1 (reference)
Yes	1.31	0.512
BMI (kg/m²)
< 25	1 (reference)
≥ 25	0.685	0.370
Creatinine
Cr < 1	1 (reference)
Cr ≥ 1	0.54	0.405
Fibrinogen
< 500	1 (reference)
≥ 500	0.87	0.778
Leucocites
< 11 000	1 (reference)
≥ 11 000	0.351	0.312
Platelets
< 450 000	1 (reference)
≥ 450 000	1.03	0.969
Stage of disease
Localized	1 (reference)
Advanced	0.68	0.351
Performance status (ECOG)
ECOG < 2	1 (reference)
ECOG ≥ 2	0.77	0.674
Use of GCSF
No	1 (reference)
Yes	1.38	0.441
Appendix 1 – Variables included.

Despite incidence of UEDVT in cancer patients using implantable devices has been reported from 0.3–28.3% [12, 13], there is a lack of data regarding this population [3]. In our study the incidence of UEDVT was 5.49% in the overall population, being 5.05% and 0.44% for PICC and Port – a – Cath, respectively. All the detected UEDVT were symptomatic at the time of diagnosis. These results are in accordance to the published literature.

Regarding the baseline characteristics of our population, the younger age of the patients in the PICC group might have confounded the association between age and increased risk of CAT. Being aware of the limitations of our study, the higher rate of concurrent radiotherapy or hormonotherapy in the PICC group did not translate, as expected, into an increased risk of CAT. On the contrary, the lower proportion of non – smokers among PICC users could have diluted the effect of smoking as a risk factor for thrombosis.

Features related to the type and treatment of the disease have been identified as risk factors, such as lymphoma, metastatic disease and use of chemotherapy, radiotherapy or erythropoiesis – stimulating agents[14–18]. None of them reached statistical significance on our univariate or multivariate regression models. Due to a small sample size and to the inaccuracy it would have implied, we did not analyze the impact of each type of cancer on the primary endpoint. There were no differences in the type of treatment administered through the catheter. To our knowledge, this is the first study in exploring the relation between non – cytotoxic therapy and CAT.

Malposition, hospitalization, infection, body mass index > 25 and therapeutic dose anticoagulation also have been reported as increased risk factors to develop UEDVT in patients with cancer using PICC[15, 17–20]. This was not appreciated in our research. Of note, as a retrospective study, an ultrasound doppler to detect malposition was not performed regularly in the follow – up, as it is not a standard in daily practice.

There are several limitations with our study. It is a retrospective single – center study, so the results may not be applicable to other institutions. The retrospective character of the study difficulted the access to the complete information of the variables assessed. Due to the small sample size we were not able to evaluate the association with the type of cancer or chemotherapy scheme, as it would not have been assessable. The higher proportion of breast cancer in the PICC group, added to the lower age of this population, might have translated into confounding results. Finally, the diagnosis of asymptomatic UEDVT might have been underestimated because a regular ultrasound at the time of removal was not performed.

In conclusion, the use of PICC in patients with solid cancers implies an elevated risk of catheter associated thrombosis compared to Port – a – Cath. Overall, it remains a safe approach for delivering treatment to this population. There is an unmet need to identify the risk factors associated to it.

Conflict of Interest

None declared.

Funding. None.

Conflicts of interest/Competing interests. None.

Availability of data and material. Not applicable.

Code availability. Not applicable.

Authors' contributions. All authors affirm that they have contributed substantially to the design of the study, acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data, as well as the elaboration of the manuscript. All authors approve the present version to be published.

Ethics approval. Approval from Clinical Research Ethics Committee of General University Hospital of Elche.

Consent to participate. Approval from Clinical Research Ethics Committee of General University Hospital of Elche for exemption of the consent to participate due to the retrospective character of the study and the high death rate of the population included.

Consent for publication. Approval from Clinical Research Ethics Committee of General University Hospital of Elche.

1. Castaman G. Risk of thrombosis in cancer and the role of supportive care (transfusion, catheters, and growth factors). Thromb Res. 2016;140:S89-S92. doi:10.1016/S0049-3848(16)30105-0

2. Chopra V, Anand S, Hickner A, et al. Risk of venous thromboembolism associated with peripherally inserted central catheters: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2013;382(9889):311-325. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60592-9

3. Johansson E, Hammarskjöld F, Lundberg D, Arnlind MH. Advantages and disadvantages of peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) compared to other central venous lines: A systematic review of the literature. Acta Oncol (Madr). 2013;52(5):886-892. doi:10.3109/0284186X.2013.773072

4. Alfonso Alvarez-Rodríguez J, García-Suárez M, Fernández-García D, Méndez-Martínez C, Gómez-Salgado J. Analysis of peripheral central venous access ports at the forearm: An observational study. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2018;27(6):1-8. doi:10.1111/ecc.12929

5. Lee AYY, Kamphuisen PW. Epidemiology and prevention of catheter-related thrombosis in patients with cancer. J Thromb Haemost. 2012;10(8):1491-1499. doi:10.1111/j.1538-7836.2012.04817.x

6. Baumann Kreuziger L, Jaffray J, Carrier M. Epidemiology, diagnosis, prevention and treatment of catheter-related thrombosis in children and adults. Thromb Res. 2017;157:64-71. doi:10.1016/j.thromres.2017.07.002

7. Geerts W. Central venous catheter-related thrombosis. Hematol (United States). 2014;2014(1):306-311. doi:10.1182/asheducation-2014.1.306

8. Meyer BM. Developing an alternative workflow model for peripherally inserted central catheter placement. J Infus Nurs. 2012;35(1):34-42. doi:10.1097/NAN.0b013e31823bc8fd

9. Moraza-Dulanto MI, Garate-Echenique L, Miranda-Serrano E, Armenteros-Yeguas V, Tomás-López MA, Benítez-Delgado B. Inserción eco-guiada de catéteres centrales de inserción periférica (PICC) en pacientes oncológicos y hematológicos: Éxito en la inserción, supervivencia y complicaciones. Enferm Clin. 2012;22(3):135-143. doi:10.1016/j.enfcli.2012.04.002

10. Patel GS, Jain K, Kumar R, et al. Comparison of peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) versus subcutaneously implanted port-chamber catheters by complication and cost for patients receiving chemotherapy for non-haematological malignancies. Support Care Cancer. 2014;22(1):121-128. doi:10.1007/s00520-013-1941-1

11. Taxbro K, Hammarskjöld F, Thelin B, et al. Clinical impact of peripherally inserted central catheters vs implanted port catheters in patients with cancer: an open-label, randomised, two-centre trial. Br J Anaesth. 2019;122(6):734-741. doi:10.1016/j.bja.2019.01.038

12. Verso M, Agnelli G. Venous thromboembolism associated with long-term use of central venous catheters in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(19):3665-3675. doi:10.1200/JCO.2003.08.008

13. Aw A, Carrier M, Koczerginski J, McDiarmid S, Tay J. Incidence and predictive factors of symptomatic thrombosis related to peripherally inserted central catheters in chemotherapy patients. Thromb Res. 2012;130(3):323-326. doi:10.1016/j.thromres.2012.02.048

14. Zhang X, Huang JJ, Xia Y, et al. High risk of deep vein thrombosis associated with peripherally inserted central catheters in lymphoma. Oncotarget. 2016;7(23):35404-35411. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.8639

15. Kang J, Sun W, Li H, Ma E, Wang K, Chen W. Peripherally inserted central catheter-related vein thrombosis in breast cancer patients. J Vasc Access. 2016;17(1):67-71. doi:10.5301/jva.5000457

16. Kang J, Chen W, Sun W, et al. Peripherally inserted central catheter-related complications in cancer patients: A prospective study of over 50,000 catheter days. J Vasc Access. 2017;18(2):153-157. doi:10.5301/jva.5000670

17. Bertoglio S, Faccini B, Lalli L, Cafiero F, Bruzzi P. Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) in cancer patients under chemotherapy: A prospective study on the incidence of complications and overall failures. J Surg Oncol. 2016;113(6):708-714. doi:10.1002/jso.24220

18. Ahn DH, Illum HB, Wang DH, Sharma A, Dowell JE. Upper Extremity Venous Thrombosis in Patients With Cancer With Peripherally Inserted Central Venous Catheters: A Retrospective Analysis of Risk Factors. J Oncol Pract. 2013;9(1):e8-e12. doi:10.1200/JOP.2012.000595

19. Zhang X, Huang J-J, Xia Y, et al. High risk of deep vein thrombosis associated with peripherally inserted central catheters in lymphoma. Oncotarget. 2016;7(23). doi:10.18632/oncotarget.8639

20. Kang J, Chen W, Sun W, et al. Peripherally inserted central catheter-related complications in cancer patients: a prospective study of over 50,000 catheter days. J Vasc Access. 2017;18(2):153-157. doi:10.5301/jva.5000670

Download PDF

Reviews received at journal
25 Jul, 2021
Reviewers invited by journal
25 Jul, 2021
Editor assigned by journal
28 Jun, 2021
First submitted to journal
26 Jun, 2021

You are reading this latest preprint version

Incidence and Potential Risk Factors of Catheter Associated Thrombosis in Solid Tumors

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Material & Methods

Results

Discussion

Declarations

References

Status:

Version 1