MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Prospective Cohort Study of the Incidence, Risk Factors and Long-Term Sequelae of Symptomatic Catheter-Related Thrombosis in Adults with Cancer.

2004· article· en· W2576042684 on OpenAlexaff
Agnes Y. Lee, Carolyn Webb, Qing Guo, Lorrie Costantini, Greg W. Butler, Mark N. Levine

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProspective cohort studyCatheterSurgeryThrombosisCohortIncidence (geometry)CancerComplicationParenteral nutritionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Long-term indwelling central venous catheters (CVCs) are used for delivering chemotherapy, parenteral nutrition, antibiotics, and blood products, as well as for facilitating blood drawing, in many patients with malignancy. Although the important supportive role of CVCs is unquestioned, there is uncertainty regarding the prevention and treatment of catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) because there is a lack of prospective and contemporary data on the natural history of this complication. As a first step towards improving CRT management, we conducted a prospective cohort study to examine the incidence, clinical risk factors, and the long-term sequelae of symptomatic CRT in adults with cancer. Consecutive patients undergoing insertion of a CVC at a tertiary care center were enrolled and followed for the duration of their catheter-dwell time plus 4 weeks or a maximum of 52 weeks, whichever comes first. Scheduled assessments were done at weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 24, 36 and 52 weeks after insertion. Patients with symptomatic CRT were treated with anticoagulants and were followed for an additional 52 weeks from the date of CRT diagnosis. Baseline information and follow-up data regarding catheter patency, thromboprophylaxis, clinical symptoms, and thrombotic events was collected. Standardized regional guidelines for catheter care were followed and symptomatic CRT was diagnosed based on objective testing and satisfaction of prespecified criteria. Between March 2002 and July 2003, 444 patients underwent 500 catheter insertions. The mean patient age was 56 y (range 18–91 y) and 55% of patients were female. Catheters inserted included PICCs (65%), ports (18%), pheresis (11%), and Hickman catheters (6%). As of July 22, 2004, 442 patients had completed follow-up. The total catheter-dwell time was 59,959 d (median 88 d), while the total follow-up was 73,654 pt-d (median 151 d). Colorectal was the most common tumor type in 18% of patients and 41% of all patients at enrolment had metastatic solid tumor. Overall, there were 19 episodes of symptomatic CRT, representing an incidence of 4.3% (95% CI 2.6–6.6%) of patients or 0.3 CRTs per 1000 catheter-dwell days (95% CI 0.2–0.5 per 1000 d). The mean time to CRT was 53 d (range 6–162 d). Development of CRT was not associated with age, ECOG performance status, cancer treatment, catheter type, side of insertion, thromboprophylaxis, infection, or previous history of thrombosis. The only significant risk factor was ovarian cancer (P=0.02). In patients with symptomatic CRT, 89% (17/19) of CRTs were treated with anticoagulant therapy alone, 5.3% (1/19) had the catheter removed, and 5.3% (1/19) were treated with both; none had symptomatic pulmonary embolism or post-thrombotic syndrome during follow-up. In summary, the incidence of symptomatic CRT in adults with cancer is low and treatment with anticoagulant therapy alone was not associated with any serious long-term sequelae. Due to the small number of CRTs observed, larger studies are required to further evaluate risk factors and identify the optimal therapeutic approach for CRTs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis→French-language works237,207→