Literature DB >> 16317012

Dalteparin for prevention of catheter-related complications in cancer patients with central venous catheters: final results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial.

M Karthaus1, A Kretzschmar, H Kröning, M Biakhov, D Irwin, N Marschner, C Slabber, G Fountzilas, A Garin, N G F Abecasis, W Baronius, G G Steger, T Südhoff, C Giorgetti, P Reichardt.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients receiving chemotherapy experience thromboembolic complications associated with the use of long-term indwelling central venous catheters (CVCs). This prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study evaluated whether prophylactic treatment with a low molecular weight heparin could prevent clinically relevant catheter-related thrombosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy for at least 12 weeks (n=439) were randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive either dalteparin (5000 IU) or placebo, by subcutaneous injection, once daily for 16 weeks. Patients underwent upper extremity evaluation with either venography or ultrasound at the time of a suspected catheter-related complication (CRC) or upon completion of study medication. The primary end point, as determined by a blinded adjudication committee, was the occurrence of a CRC, defined as the first occurrence of any one of the following: clinically relevant catheter-related thrombosis that was symptomatic or that required anticoagulant or fibrinolytic therapy; catheter-related clinically relevant pulmonary embolism; or catheter obstruction requiring catheter removal.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the frequency of CRCs between the dalteparin arm (3.7%) and the placebo arm (3.4%; P=0.88), corresponding to a relative risk of 1.0883 (95% confidence interval 0.37-3.19). No difference in the time to CRC was observed between the two arms (P=0.83). There was no significant difference between the dalteparin and placebo groups in terms of major bleeding (1 versus 0) or overall safety.
CONCLUSIONS: Dalteparin prophylaxis did not reduce the frequency of thromboembolic complications after CVC implantation in cancer patients. Dalteparin was demonstrated to be safe over 16 weeks of treatment in these patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16317012     DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdj059

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Oncol        ISSN: 0923-7534            Impact factor:   32.976


  50 in total

1.  Port catheter versus peripherally inserted central catheter for postoperative chemotherapy in early breast cancer: a retrospective analysis of 448 patients.

Authors:  L Lefebvre; E Noyon; D Georgescu; V Proust; C Alexandru; M Leheurteur; J C Thery; L Savary; O Rigal; F Di Fiore; C Veyret; F Clatot
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2015-09-05       Impact factor: 3.603

2.  Central venous catheter-related thrombosis in cancer patients: what we know and what we need to know.

Authors:  Davide Tassinari; Carlotta Santelmo; Paola Tombesi; Sergio Sartori
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2008-01-16       Impact factor: 3.603

3.  Canadian consensus recommendations on the management of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer. Part 1: prophylaxis.

Authors:  J C Easaw; M A Shea-Budgell; C M J Wu; P M Czaykowski; J Kassis; B Kuehl; H J Lim; M MacNeil; D Martinusen; P A McFarlane; E Meek; O Moodley; S Shivakumar; V Tagalakis; S Welch; P Kavan
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 3.677

4.  Risk factors for catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) in cancer patients: a patient-level data (IPD) meta-analysis of clinical trials and prospective studies.

Authors:  W Saber; T Moua; E C Williams; M Verso; G Agnelli; S Couban; A Young; M De Cicco; R Biffi; C J van Rooden; M V Huisman; D Fagnani; C Cimminiello; M Moia; M Magagnoli; S P Povoski; S F Malak; A Y Lee
Journal:  J Thromb Haemost       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 5.824

5.  Should cancer patients receive thromboprophylaxis to prevent catheter-related upper limb deep vein thrombosis?

Authors:  Paolo Prandoni
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 3.397

6.  Venous thromboembolic disease.

Authors:  Michael B Streiff; Paula L Bockenstedt; Spero R Cataland; Carolyn Chesney; Charles Eby; John Fanikos; Patrick F Fogarty; Shuwei Gao; Julio Garcia-Aguilar; Samuel Z Goldhaber; Hani Hassoun; Paul Hendrie; Bjorn Holmstrom; Kimberly A Jones; Nicole Kuderer; Jason T Lee; Michael M Millenson; Anne T Neff; Thomas L Ortel; Judy L Smith; Gary C Yee; Anaadriana Zakarija
Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw       Date:  2011-07-01       Impact factor: 11.908

7.  [Indications, technique and complications of port implantation].

Authors:  L Haeder; J Jähne
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 0.955

Review 8.  Totally implantable vascular access devices 30 years after the first procedure. What has changed and what is still unsolved?

Authors:  Roberto Biffi; Adriana Toro; Simonetta Pozzi; Isidoro Di Carlo
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 3.603

9.  Predictors of venous thromboembolism in patients with advanced common solid cancers.

Authors:  Isaac E Hall; Martin S Andersen; Harlan M Krumholz; Cary P Gross
Journal:  J Cancer Epidemiol       Date:  2010-02-16

10.  Deep venous thrombosis of the neck and pulmonary embolism in patients with a central venous catheter admitted to cardiac rehabilitation after cardiac surgery: a prospective study of 815 patients.

Authors:  Rino Frizzelli; Ornella Tortelli; Vincenzo Di Comite; Redenta Ghirardi; Claudio Pinzi; Cleante Scarduelli
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2008-03-21       Impact factor: 3.397

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.