Cargando…

Effectiveness and safety of catheter removal alone versus standard anticoagulation therapy after catheter removal for peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC)-related thrombosis

BACKGROUND: Currently, peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are widely used; however, there are associated problems due to catheter-related thrombosis (CRT). According to the existing literature and guidelines, 3–6 months of anticoagulation therapy is recommended, but these recommendation...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Liu, Li, Huang, Jing, Wu, Zhoupeng, Ma, Yukui
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AME Publishing Company 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8756203/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35071472
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-21-5884
_version_ 1784632517908758528
author Liu, Li
Huang, Jing
Wu, Zhoupeng
Ma, Yukui
author_facet Liu, Li
Huang, Jing
Wu, Zhoupeng
Ma, Yukui
author_sort Liu, Li
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Currently, peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are widely used; however, there are associated problems due to catheter-related thrombosis (CRT). According to the existing literature and guidelines, 3–6 months of anticoagulation therapy is recommended, but these recommendations are based on analogous deep vein thrombosis of the lower limbs. More specific management strategies need to be developed, and the safety and effectiveness of these strategies needs to be investigated. METHODS: Some studies have suggested that catheter removal alone is a reasonable option, especially for patients with a higher risk of bleeding. We conducted a retrospective study of hospitalized patients from a single center who were diagnosed with PICC-related thrombosis. Among the 85 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 63 patients were treated with catheter removal alone, and 22 patients received anticoagulation therapy after catheter removal. The progression of thrombosis and bleeding in the two groups were compared. Most patients who underwent catheter removal alone had hematological malignancies, and thrombocytopenia had occurred during chemotherapy. RESULTS: After PICC removal, no patients in the anticoagulation therapy group developed progressive thrombosis, while 10 patients in the catheter removal alone group developed progressive thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (PE), including one case of PE, four cases of secondary upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT), and five patients showed obvious aggravation of thrombosis after catheter removal, and were administered repeated anticoagulant therapy. In the PICC removal + anticoagulation treatment group, major bleeding increased significantly (28.6% vs. 4.7%, P=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the PICC removal + anticoagulation treatment group, the risk of major bleeding in the catheter removal alone group was significantly reduced. In some patients with an increased bleeding risk, catheter removal alone may be a safer and more effective option than catheter removal with anticoagulation treatment for CRT.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8756203
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher AME Publishing Company
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87562032022-01-21 Effectiveness and safety of catheter removal alone versus standard anticoagulation therapy after catheter removal for peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC)-related thrombosis Liu, Li Huang, Jing Wu, Zhoupeng Ma, Yukui Ann Transl Med Original Article BACKGROUND: Currently, peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are widely used; however, there are associated problems due to catheter-related thrombosis (CRT). According to the existing literature and guidelines, 3–6 months of anticoagulation therapy is recommended, but these recommendations are based on analogous deep vein thrombosis of the lower limbs. More specific management strategies need to be developed, and the safety and effectiveness of these strategies needs to be investigated. METHODS: Some studies have suggested that catheter removal alone is a reasonable option, especially for patients with a higher risk of bleeding. We conducted a retrospective study of hospitalized patients from a single center who were diagnosed with PICC-related thrombosis. Among the 85 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 63 patients were treated with catheter removal alone, and 22 patients received anticoagulation therapy after catheter removal. The progression of thrombosis and bleeding in the two groups were compared. Most patients who underwent catheter removal alone had hematological malignancies, and thrombocytopenia had occurred during chemotherapy. RESULTS: After PICC removal, no patients in the anticoagulation therapy group developed progressive thrombosis, while 10 patients in the catheter removal alone group developed progressive thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (PE), including one case of PE, four cases of secondary upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT), and five patients showed obvious aggravation of thrombosis after catheter removal, and were administered repeated anticoagulant therapy. In the PICC removal + anticoagulation treatment group, major bleeding increased significantly (28.6% vs. 4.7%, P=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the PICC removal + anticoagulation treatment group, the risk of major bleeding in the catheter removal alone group was significantly reduced. In some patients with an increased bleeding risk, catheter removal alone may be a safer and more effective option than catheter removal with anticoagulation treatment for CRT. AME Publishing Company 2021-12 /pmc/articles/PMC8756203/ /pubmed/35071472 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-21-5884 Text en 2021 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Liu, Li
Huang, Jing
Wu, Zhoupeng
Ma, Yukui
Effectiveness and safety of catheter removal alone versus standard anticoagulation therapy after catheter removal for peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC)-related thrombosis
title Effectiveness and safety of catheter removal alone versus standard anticoagulation therapy after catheter removal for peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC)-related thrombosis
title_full Effectiveness and safety of catheter removal alone versus standard anticoagulation therapy after catheter removal for peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC)-related thrombosis
title_fullStr Effectiveness and safety of catheter removal alone versus standard anticoagulation therapy after catheter removal for peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC)-related thrombosis
title_full_unstemmed Effectiveness and safety of catheter removal alone versus standard anticoagulation therapy after catheter removal for peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC)-related thrombosis
title_short Effectiveness and safety of catheter removal alone versus standard anticoagulation therapy after catheter removal for peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC)-related thrombosis
title_sort effectiveness and safety of catheter removal alone versus standard anticoagulation therapy after catheter removal for peripherally inserted central catheter (picc)-related thrombosis
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8756203/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35071472
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-21-5884
work_keys_str_mv AT liuli effectivenessandsafetyofcatheterremovalaloneversusstandardanticoagulationtherapyaftercatheterremovalforperipherallyinsertedcentralcatheterpiccrelatedthrombosis
AT huangjing effectivenessandsafetyofcatheterremovalaloneversusstandardanticoagulationtherapyaftercatheterremovalforperipherallyinsertedcentralcatheterpiccrelatedthrombosis
AT wuzhoupeng effectivenessandsafetyofcatheterremovalaloneversusstandardanticoagulationtherapyaftercatheterremovalforperipherallyinsertedcentralcatheterpiccrelatedthrombosis
AT mayukui effectivenessandsafetyofcatheterremovalaloneversusstandardanticoagulationtherapyaftercatheterremovalforperipherallyinsertedcentralcatheterpiccrelatedthrombosis