Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2003 Sep;44(9):1495-501.
doi: 10.3109/10428190309178770.

Central venous catheter-related complications in patients with hematological malignancies: a retrospective analysis of risk factors and prophylactic measures

Affiliations

Central venous catheter-related complications in patients with hematological malignancies: a retrospective analysis of risk factors and prophylactic measures

A Cortelezzia et al. Leuk Lymphoma. 2003 Sep.

Abstract

We retrospectively analyzed the incidence of thrombotic and infectious complications in relation with the use of central venous catheters (CVCs), in a series of patients with hematological malignancies and low platelet and leucocyte counts.

Patients and methods: 126 patients with hematological malignancies were analyzed. A total of 207 CVCs were implanted: 137 centrally (CICCs) and 70 peripherally (PICCs). The median duration of the CVCs was 19 days for a total of 4051 catheter-days. Antithrombotic prophylaxis was unfractionated heparin (UFH), 2,500 IU daily by 24 h continuous infusion in 169 CVCs, low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), 3,800 IU daily by single bolus intravenous injection (i.v.) in 21 and warfarin in one. No prophylaxis was given in 16 CVCs. Thrombotic complications developed in 15.5% of the CVCs (7.9 events/1000 catheter days), and the frequency of infectious complications was 10.6% (5.2 events/1000 catheter days). On multivariate analysis thromboses were more frequent and earlier with PICCs than CICCs (p = 0.0001), and in patients on UFH (16.6%) than in LMWH prophylaxis (4.7%), but the last difference was not statistically significant. In conclusions the incidence of thrombotic complications in our series was comparable to that observed in non-thrombocytopenic patients and was significantly higher in those carrying PICC than CICC (p = 0.0001). There were fewer thrombotic events in the patients receiving i.v. LMWH prophylaxis than in those receiving i.v. UFH. The use of anticoagulants was safe and not associated with hemorrhages.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources