International Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Treatment and Prophylaxis of Thrombosis Associated with Central Venous Catheters in Patients with Cancer

Abstract

Abstract Abstract 4357 Background Use of long term indwelling central venous catheter (CVC) is associated with symptomatic (Σ) events in up to 30% of cancer patients (pts), which may lead to pulmonary embolism (PE) and loss of the CVC. Lack of consensus on management of CVC related thrombosis (CVCT) and heterogeneity in clinical practices worldwide led us to establish international Good Clinical Practices Guidelines (GCPG) for the management of CRT in cancer pts. Methods The international working group (WG) met 4 times and worked 2 years with the methodological support and quality control of the French institute of Cancer (INCa). All studies on cancer, venous thromboembolism (VTE, including pulmonary embolism PE), and anticoagulant drugs (AC) published from 1996 to 2011 weree searched using MEDLINE®database. Meta-analyses, systematic reviews, randomized or non-randomized prospective or retrospective studies in the absence of randomized clinical trials, and abstracts only if a full paper had been accepted in a peer-reviewed medical journal were included in the analysis. The included studies concerned the prophylaxis and treatment of CVC in cancer pts. Studies in non-cancer pts, pts with a peripheral or dialysis catheter, or with a history of cancer in remission for more than 5 years were not considered. The main study outcomes were rates of proven catheter related thrombosis (CRT), extension of CRT, PE associated with CRT, major and minor bleeding, thrombocytopenia, and death. Quality of the studies was evaluated in a double-blind manner by the methodologists using the GRADE appraisal grids. Extracted data were entered in evidence tables, subsequently validated by all the WG. The level of evidence (High A, Moderate B, Low C, Very low D) depended on study design, limitations, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision and publication bias. For each question, results analysis were summarized and discussed by the WG. Overall conclusions and recommendations were classified as Strong (Grade 1 Guideline) or Weak (Grade 2 Guideline) based on evidence levels, the balance between desirable/undesirable effects, values and preferencesand costs. In the absence of scientific evidence, judgment based on consensus within the WG was defined as Best Clinical Practice (BCP). The GCP were reviewed and evaluated using a specific grid in February 2012 by 45 independent experts in managing cancer pts worldwide and 3 pt representatives. Results Conclusion Dissemination and implementation of these international GCPG on the prevention and treatment of CRT in cancer ptsat each national level is a major public health priority, necssitating world wide collaboration. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.