Search

Background: The most appropriate lock solution for central venous access devices is still to be defined. GAVeCeLT - the Italian group for venous access devices - has developed a consensus on the evidence-based criteria for the choice and the clinical use of the most appropriate lock solution for central venous catheters (excluding dialysis catheters)., Method: After the constitution of a panel of experts, a systematic collection and review of the literature has been performed, focusing on clinical studies dealing with lock solutions used for prevention of occlusion (heparin, citrate, urokinase, recombinant tissue plasminogen activator [r-TPA], normal saline) or for prevention of infection (citrate, ethanol, taurolidine, ethylene-diamine-tetra-acetic acid [EDTA], vancomycin, linezolid and other antibiotics), in both adults and in pediatric patients. Studies on central lines used for dialysis or pheresis, on peripheral venous lines and on arterial lines were excluded from this analysis. Studies on lock solutions used for treatment of obstruction or infection were not considered. The consensus has been carried out according to the Delphi method., Results: The panel has concluded that: (a) there is no evidence supporting the heparin lock; (b) the prevention of occlusion is based on the proper flushing and locking technique with normal saline; (c) the most appropriate lock solution for infection prevention should include citrate and/or taurolidine, which have both anti-bacterial and anti-biofilm activity, with negligible undesired effects if compared to antibiotics; (d) the patient populations most likely to benefit from citrate/taurolidine lock are yet to be defined., Conclusions: The actual value of heparinization for non-dialysis catheters should be reconsidered. Also, the use of lock with substances with anti-bacterial and anti-biofilm activity (such as citrate or taurolidine) should be taken into consideration in selected populations of patients.

Background: Heparin solution is routinely used to maintain the patency of infusion devices. Literature supports the alternative use of normal saline solution for flushing and locking intravenous infusion devices especially for pediatric patients. There is uncertainty regarding safety and efficacy of this policy for intermittent locking of implanted ports., Objective: This study evaluates efficacy and safety of normal saline solution for intermittent locking procedures of implanted ports., Methods: This is a retrospective observational cohort study of 610 implanted ports receiving 2 different locking solutions conducted at the National Institute for Cancer Research, IST Genova, Italy, from January 2007 to August 2009. Group A (n = 297) received heparinized solution (10 mL/500 U heparin), whereas group B (n = 313), 10 mL normal saline. Primary endpoint was irreversible port occlusion. Minimum follow-up was 12 months. The role of age, type of tumor, disease stage, access site, access body side, catheter tip position, and concomitant use of parenteral nutrition and chemotherapy was evaluated in secondary aim., Results: : Results fail to show statistically significant differences in implanted ports survival free from failure for occlusive events between the use of heparinized solution and that of normal saline for the maintenance of port patency, both in univariate (P = .9) and in multivariate analyses (P = .7)., Conclusion: Normal saline solution seems to be as effective as heparinized solution for keeping patent implanted ports in adult cancer patients., Implications for Practice: Switching from heparinized solution to normal saline for catheter intermittent lock of ports seems a safe procedure.

Deep vein thrombosis of upper limb is a common complication of CVC in patients with cancer. In these patients the risk factors for CVC-related thrombosis are not completely defined. The purpose of this study was to identify the risk factors for CVC-related thrombosis in patients included in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study aimed at assessing the efficacy and safety of enoxaparin for the prophylaxis of CVC-related thrombosis. CVC-related thrombosis was screened by mandatory venography after 6 weeks of study treatment. A number of patient baseline characteristics were assessed as potential risk factors for CVC-related deep vein thrombosis. Crude associations between risk factors and clinical outcomes were assessed by chi(2) test or Fisher's exact test. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to identify independent risk factors. A CVC-related thrombosis was found in 50 out of 310 patients (16.1%). At multiple logistic regression analysis, CVC tip misplaced in the upper half of superior vena cava (OR 4.05, 95%CI 1.64-10.02), left-sided CVC insertion (OR 2.29, 95%CI 1.01-5.51) and chest radiotherapy (OR 7.01, 95%CI 1.42-34.66) were independent risk factors for thrombosis. In addition to these risk factors, the presence of distant metastases (OR 9.36, 95%CI 1.53-57.05) increased the risk of thrombosis in patients who received placebo. An inadequate position of the CVC tip, left-sided CVC insertion and chest radiotherapy are independent risk factors for CVC-related thrombosis in cancer patients. Patients with distant metastases have an increased risk for thrombosis in absence of antithrombotic prophylaxis.

Purpose: The extent of venous thromboembolism (VTE) associated with central vein catheters (CVC) in cancer patients remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the low molecular weight heparin, enoxaparin, in the prevention of VTE., Patients and Methods: In a multicenter, double-blind study, consecutive cancer patients scheduled for CVC insertion were randomly assigned to receive either subcutaneous enoxaparin 40 mg once a day or placebo. Treatment was started 2 hours before CVC insertion and continued for 6 weeks. The primary end points of the study were deep vein thrombosis (DVT), confirmed by venography of the CVC limb performed 6 weeks after randomization, or clinically overt pulmonary embolism, confirmed by objective testing during the study drug administration. Patients were assessed for bleeding complications., Results: Three hundred eighty-five patients were randomized, of which 321 (83.4%) underwent venography. A venography was adequate for adjudication in 155 patients in each treatment group. A DVT was observed in 22 patients (14.1%) treated with enoxaparin and in 28 patients (18.0%) treated with placebo, corresponding to a relative risk of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.47 to 1.31). No major bleeding occurred. Five patients (2.6%) in the enoxaparin group and two patients (1.0%) in the placebo group died during the treatment period., Conclusion: In this study, no difference in the rate of CVC-related VTE was detected between patients receiving enoxaparin and patients receiving placebo. The dose of enoxaparin used in this study proved to be safe. Clinical trials evaluating higher enoxaparin doses could optimize the efficacy of this agent for this indication.