Is There a Role for Thromboprophylaxis in Sickle Cell Patients with Central Venous Access Devices?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".