Catheter-Associated Thrombosis: Thromboprophylaxis or Not?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Long-term indwelling central venous catheters are commonlyusedincancerpatientsfortheadministrationof chemotherapy, parenteral nutrition, and blood products and for the facilitation of the drawing of blood. Despite their important role in the delivery of quality patient care, central venous catheters can be associated with morbidity. One of the most common complications is catheter-related venous thrombosis. The extent of thrombosis associated with a central vein catheter can involve the catheter tip (ball-valve clot), the length of the catheter (fibrin sheath), orthecatheterizedvesselintheupperlimb,withorwithout the central vasculature of the neck or mediastinum. 1 In the 1990s, with the increasing use of central venous catheters in cancer patients, there was a clinical impression that catheter thrombosis was a common occurrence, associated with considerable morbidity. The results of two randomized trials provided evidence to support the use of prophylactic antithrombotic agents to prevent catheterassociated thrombosis. In a trial conducted by Monreal et al, 2 patients with a long-term subclavian venous catheter were randomly assigned either to 2,500 U of dalteparin low molecular weight heparin subcutaneously once daily for 90 days or to no prophylaxis. Upper limb venography was performed at 90 days or sooner if symptoms appeared. The trial was stopped early, after upper extremity thrombosis developed in one (6%) of 16 patients treated with low molecularweightheparincomparedwitheight(62%)of13 control patients (P.002). Six of the 29 thrombotic events were symptomatic. There was no increased risk of bleeding associated with the low molecular weight heparin. Bern et al 3 randomly assigned cancer patients with indwelling central venous catheters to either 1 mg of warfarin for 90 days or no treatment. This dosage regimen was based on the demonstrated efficacy of postoperative prophylaxis with 1 mg of warfarin in patients undergoing gynecologic surgery. 4 Venography was performed at 90 days. Onehundredtwenty-onepatientswererandomlyassigned, but only 80 patients completed the trial. Fifteen (37.5%) of 40 control patients developed thrombosis compared with four (9.5%) of 42 patients on warfarin (P .001). Seventeenofthethromboticepisodesweresymptomatic.Inmost cases, the prothrombin time was not prolonged, and there was no increase in bleeding associated with warfarin. After the publication of these studies, although there was lack of consensus on whether patients with central vein catheters should routinely receive thromboprophylaxis, low-dose warfarin was used in some clinical practices. In some patients, the prothrombin time was prolonged excessively because of interactions with chemotherapy drugs. 5 This issue contains two well-conducted randomized controlledtrialsbyVersoetal 6 andCoubanetal 7 evaluating thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients with central venous catheters. Both of these trials were double blind and, hence, provide higher quality evidence than the earlier published randomized trials that were not double blind. The two trials in this issue used different approaches in the choice of outcome for their studies. Verso et al 6 used mandatory venography of the upper limb at 42 days, whether the patient had symptoms or not. The use of this screening technique for venous thrombosis was adopted from prophylactic studies in patients undergoing orthopedic surgery, 8 with venography of the lower limbs at 7 to 10 days after surgery as the standard outcome measure used in clinical trials evaluating antithrombotics in this setting. Asymptomatic thrombosis in the deep veins of the lower limbs is considered a reasonable surrogate for the development of symptomatic venous thromboembolism because 20% of thrombi in the calf veins extend to the proximal deep veins and 50% of patients with proximal deep vein thrombosis have associated pulmonary embolism. Unfortunately, the natural history of catheter-associated thrombosis is not nearly as well defined as postoperative
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».