A Survey of Clinician Perspectives on the Management of Catheter-Related Upper Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis in Patients with Cancer
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Central venous catheters (CVCs) are commonly used in cancer patients to facilitate blood draws, administration of chemotherapy or other supportive care treatment. Catheter-related upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a major complication of CVCs, with studies reporting a rate of symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) of 7% over 3 months in patients with active cancer and a new CVC. Despite the frequent occurrence, the optimal management in patients with cancer and catheter-related upper extremity DVT is unclear, given the lack of high-quality data. Objective: We conducted a survey aiming to characterize practice patterns and perceptions of clinicians who treat patients with cancer and catheter-related upper extremity DVT. Methods: An online survey was distributed to international clinicians who manage patients with cancer and catheter-related upper extremity DVT. The survey explored the type and duration of anticoagulation, focusing on the management after the initial 3 months of anticoagulation, as well as treatment strategies upon catheter removal and interests in future clinical studies. Descriptive statistics was used to summarize survey responses. Results: The survey was generated on LimeSurvey ® in English and publicized by Twitter ® and email communications via multiple international organizations of hematologists, oncologists, and/or thrombosis specialists, including the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH), Thrombosis Canada, the Canadian Venous Thromboembolism Research Network (CanVECTOR), and more. As of July 30, 2023, 115 clinicians from 26 countries had completed the survey. The majority of the respondents specialized in thrombosis (N=72, 62.6%) and/or hematology (N=60, 52.2%), followed by internal medicine (N=38, 33.0%) and oncology (N=14, 12.2%) (multiple selection was permitted for this question). For the initial management of a patient without unresected gastrointestinal (GI) or genitourinary (GU) cancer, thrombocytopenia, or relevant drug-drug interactions, 75% of clinicians would prescribe a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) and 25% would give low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). On the other hand, in patients with unresected GI/GU cancer, the majority (N=105, 91.3%) of respondents chose to initiate LMWH. After the initial 3 months of anticoagulation, if the CVC remains in place in a patient with active cancer, the majority (N=112/114, 98.2%) of clinicians would continue anticoagulation, but with variable doses (57% and 43% chose therapeutic and prophylactic dosing, respectively). If the CVC remains in place but the cancer is in remission, fewer (70%) respondents would continue anticoagulation, and more would continue prophylactic as compared to therapeutic dosing (73% vs. 27%) in this setting. Practice variation further increases upon catheter removal, especially in the presence of active cancer (Figures 1 and 2). The majority of respondents (N=111, 96.5%) agree that there is a need for prospective studies to evaluate the management of patients with cancer and catheter-related upper extremity DVT, and over 91% (N=105) would consider enrolling their patients in a study to evaluate prophylactic dosing of anticoagulation for secondary prevention of VTE in patients with cancer and catheter-related upper extremity DVT. To help plan such a study, we evaluated respondents' perception on the maximal “tolerable” recurrent VTE rate between 3 and 6 months (as the main interest is in the management strategy after the initial 3 months), and 2% and 3% were the most common responses (41.2% and 31.6% of the respondents, respectively). Conclusions: Our survey demonstrates that current practice in managing patients with cancer and catheter-related upper extremity DVT is heterogenous, especially after the initial 3 months of anticoagulation and upon catheter removal. Well-conducted prospective studies in this population are needed, which is supported by most clinicians.
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 | 0,005 | 0,026 |
| 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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 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 ».