Is There a Role for Thromboprophylaxis in Sickle Cell Patients with Central Venous Access Devices?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction: Chronic transfusion is a therapeutic modality in the prevention and treatment of end-organ damage in sickle cell disease (SCD) patients. Central venous access devices (CVAD) are commonly used in many SCD patients due to poor venous access. However, CVAD is a known risk factor for venous thromboembolism (VTE) (Evans et al, 2010), with right atrial thrombi prevalence estimated between 5.4 and 12.5% (Shah et al., 2004; Gilon et al., 1998). Although SCD is a prothrombotic state (Wun et al, 2013), it is not known whether this risk factor interacts with CVADs in a synergistic manner to increase the overall risk of VTE. No study has specifically addressed the role of thromboprophylaxis for CVAD-related VTEs in SCD, and as such the practice of prophylactic anticoagulation and/or antiplatelet therapy for CVAD is heterogeneous. We therefore conducted a quality improvement study to investigate whether thromboprophylaxis is a protective factor for new catheter-related thrombi (CRT). Methods: By cross-referencing imaging, thrombosis clinic, and sickle cell clinic databases, we identified adult SCD patients (≥ 18) of all genotypes followed within the Toronto General Hospital SCD center between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2017 who had a CVAD intended for long-term use (≥3 months). CRT was defined as a VTE that developed while the CVAD was in place. Patients with no VTE during CVAD placement were assigned to the comparator group. Patients who were on anticoagulation for any alternative reason prior to CVAD insertion were excluded. The presence, type, and intensity of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis at the time of CRT or line insertion were recorded. Patient, catheter, and treatment-related risk factors of VTE were extracted from electronic patient records. Fisher-exact and chi-square tests were conducted to explore possible associations between categorical co-variates, and thromboprophylaxis use. Linear regression was performed for continuous variables; while binary logistic regression was conducted to examine the potential association between thromboprophylaxis use and CRT, while adjusting for sex, genotype, hydroxyurea use, and concomitant thrombosis risk factors. Results: We identified 52 unique patients from 3 databases. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 25 patients were retained as stated in Figure 1-CONSORT Flow Diagram. Patient characteristics are summarized in Table 1-Patient Demographics and Characteristics. Events were distributed as follows: 3 deep venous thrombi, 1 superficial venous thrombus, 1 pulmonary emboli, 2 right atrial thrombi, and 2 thrombi from other sites. Patients with CRT incurred significant sequelae, including open heart surgery to remove the clot in the two patients with right atrial thrombi. Univariate analysis illustrated association between the development of a CRT and the use of thromboprophylaxis, type of thromboprophylaxis, and dose intensity (p=0.011, p=0.011 and p=0.017, respectively). HU use showed a trend towards lower risk for CRT (OR 0.129, p=0.061). However, CRT was not associated with gender, genotype, type, site of insertion, year of insertion, duration of insertion, indication for CVAD, BMI, or ferritin. Association between CVAD thromboprophylaxis and CRT remained significant despite adjusting for sex, genotype, HU and concomitant thrombosis risk factors in binary logistic regression (p=0.032). Patients who received pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis for CVAD were 30.9 times less likely to have a CRT. Due to the limited sample size, not all variables could be included in the logistic regression. Conclusion: The presence of a CVAD is a significant risk factor for VTE in SCD patients. The retrospective study demonstrated that CRTs are associated with the absence of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis for CVADs. In addition, the potential role of HU in reducing thromboembolic risk in SCD patients with CVADs, requires further exploration. Finally, in the event that a CVAD is unavoidable we recommend consideration of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, in order to reduce patient morbidity and health-care associated costs. Disclosures Forté: Novartis: Honoraria.
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 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
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 ».