Interventions to obstructive long-term central venous catheter in cancer patients: a meta-analysis
- 91 Downloads
The aim of this systematic review was to identify the interventions used to treat obstructive events, whether thrombotic or non-thrombotic, in long-term central venous catheters (LT-CVC) in cancer patients.
This review included clinical trials and observational studies reporting the drugs used to treat obstructive catheter events in cancer patients. The authors developed specific search strategies for CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, LILACS, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Open Grey, and ProQuest. The authors evaluated methodological quality of included studies using criteria from Cochrane’s Collaboration Tool and the Methodological Index for non-randomized studies (MINORS). The quality of evidence was analyzed by using GRADE’s software.
More than 9000 articles were found across the databases. After duplicates removed, the studies were selected in 2 phases. After that, only 15 studies were included. The drugs used to restoration of catheter function were urokinase (53.3%), alteplase (20%), tenecteplase (13.3%), reteplase (6.7%), recombinant urokinase (6.7%), and staphylokinase (6.7%). The results of meta-analysis of 14 studies showed an overall restoration rate of ~ 84%. The drug type meta-analysis demonstrates a success rate of ~ 84%, ~ 92%, and ~ 84% for urokinase, alteplase, and tenecteplase groups, respectively. The main methodological problem in included articles concerns the sample. The quality of evidence ranged from very low to high.
The most common interventions used to treat thrombotic catheter occlusion in cancer patients were urokinase and alteplase. No evidence was found about the treatment for non-thrombotic occlusion, thus elucidating an important gap to be investigated.
KeywordsVascular access devices Central venous catheters Catheter occlusion Therapeutics Systematic review
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
We declare that we have had full control of the primary data extracted for this study, and we agree to allow the journal to revise the data, if it will be requested.
- 2.Chang DH, Mammadov K, Hickethier T, Borggrefe J, Hellmich M, Maintz D, Kabbasch C (2017) Fibrin sheaths in central venous port catheters: treatment with low-dose, single injection of urokinase on an outpatient basis. Ther Clin Risk Manag 13:111–115. https://doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S125130 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 7.Tolar B, Gould JR (1996) The timing and sequence of multiple device-related complications in patients with long-term indwelling catheters. Cancer 78:1308–1313. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19960915)78:6<1308::AID-CNCR20>3.0.CO;2-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Costa ACC, Ribeiro JM, Vasques CI et al (2017) Interventions for treatment of thrombotic occlusion in long-term central venous catheters: a systematic review. PROSPERO CRD42017074256. http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD4201074256
- 15.Higgins J, Green S (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. URL http://handbook.cochrane.org
- 16.Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt G (2013) GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations: the GRADE Working Group. URL guidelinedevelopment.org/handbook
- 18.Gabrail N, Sandler E, Charu V, Anas N, Lim E, Blaney M, Ashby M, Gillespie BS, Begelman SM (2010) TROPICS1: a phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of tenecteplase for restoration of function in dysfunctional central venous catheters. JVIR 21(12):1852–1858 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2010.09.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Haire WD, Lieberman RP, Lund GB, Edney J, Wieczorek BM (1990) Obstructed central venous catheters: restoring function with a 12-hour infusion of a low-dose urokinase. Cancer 66(11):2279–2285. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19901201)66:11<2279::AID-CNCR2820661105>3.0.CO;2-O CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Haire WD, Deitcher SR, Mullane KM, Jaff MR, Firszt CM, Schulz GA, Schuerr DM, Schwartz LB, Mouginis TL, Barton RP (2004) Recombinant urokinase for restoration of patency in occluded central venous access devices: a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Thromb Haemost 92(3):575–582. https://doi.org/10.1160/TH03-11-0686 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.Liu CY, Jain V, Shields AF, Heilbrun LK (2004) Efficacy and safety of reteplase for central venous catheter occlusion in patients with cancer. JVIR 15:39–44. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.RVI.0000106385.63463.EC CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 25.Tebbi C, Costanzi J, Shulman R, Dreisbach L, Jacobs BR, Blaney M, Ashby M, Gillespie BS, Begelman SM (2011) A phase III, open-label, single-arm study of tenecteplase for restoration of function in dysfunctional central venous catheters. JVIR 22(8):1117–1123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2011.02.034 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 29.Deitcher SR, Fraschini G, Himmelfarb J, Schuman E, Smith TJ, Schulz GA, Firszt CM, Mouginis TL (2004) Dose-ranging trial with a recombinant urokinase (urokinase alfa) for occluded central venous catheters in oncology patients. JVIR 15(6):575–579. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.RVI.0000124950.24134.19 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 30.Ponec D, Irwin D, Haire WD, Hill PA, Li X, McCluskey E, COOL Investigators (2001) Recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (alteplase) for restoration of flow in occluded central venous access devices: a double-blind placebo-controlled trial – the cardiovascular thrombolytic to open occluded lines (COOL) efficacy trial. JVIR 12(8):951–955. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1051-0443(07)61575-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 32.Ernst FR, Chen E, Lipkin C, Tayama D, Amin AN (2014) Comparison of hospital length of stay, costs, and readmissions of alteplase versus catheter replacement among patients with occluded central venous catheter. J Hosp Med 9(8):490–496. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.2208 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar