Catheter-related thrombosis represents one of the most common complications following central venous access insertion. Despite the amount of available studies, many aspects surrounding catheter-related thrombosis remain controversial. Thirteen years ago, the Italian Study Group for Long Term Central Venous Access (GAVeCeLT) developed a nationwide Consensus in order to clarify some key aspects on this topic. Despite most of them still remain valid, however, knowledge around catheter-related thrombosis has greatly evolved over the last decade, with a natural evolution in terms of catheter technologies, insertion techniques, and management bundles. Aims of this editorial are to readdress conclusions of the 2007 GAVeCeLT Consensus in the light of the new relevant evidences that have been added in the last 13 years and to analyze some unsolved issues that still remain debated.
McGeeDCGouldMK.Preventing complications of central venous catheterization. New Engl J Med2003; 348: 1123–1133.
2.
DebourdeauPFargeDBeckersM, et al. International clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prophylaxis of thrombosis associated with central venous catheters in patients with cancer. J Thromb Haemost2013; 11(1): 71–80.
Baumann KreuzigerLCoteLVerhammeP, et al. A RIETE registry analysis of recurrent thromboembolism and hemorrhage in patients with catheter-related thrombosis. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord2015; 3(3): 243–250.
5.
WhiteDWollerSCStevensSM, et al. Comparative thrombosis risk of vascular access devices among critically ill medical patients. Thromb Res2018; 172: 54–60.
6.
MinetCPottonLBonadonaA, et al. Venous thromboembolism in the ICU: main characteristics, diagnosis and thromboprophylaxis. Crit Care2015; 19: 287.
7.
ChopraVAnandSHicknerA, et al. Risk of venous thromboembolism associated with peripherally inserted central catheters: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet2013; 382: 311–325.
8.
BalsoranoPVirgiliGVillaG, et al. Peripherally inserted central catheter-related thrombosis rate in modern vascular access era-when insertion technique matters: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Vasc Access2019; 21: 45–54.
9.
ZochiosVUmarISimpsonN, et al. Peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC)-related thrombosis in critically ill patients. J Vasc Access2014; 15(5): 329–337.
10.
PittirutiMBruttiACelentanoD, et al. Clinical experience with power-injectable PICCs in intensive care patients. Crit Care2012; 16: R21.
11.
MalinoskiDEwingTBhaktaA, et al. Which central venous catheters have the highest rate of catheter-associated deep venous thrombosis: a prospective analysis of 2,128 catheter days in the surgical intensive care unit. J Trauma Acute Care Surg2013; 74(2): 454–460.
12.
PolettiFCoccinoCMonoloD, et al. Efficacy and safety of peripherally inserted central venous catheters in acute cardiac care management. J Vasc Access2018; 19(5): 455–460.
13.
NolanMEYadavHCawcuttKA, et al. Complication rates among peripherally inserted central venous catheters and centrally inserted central catheters in the medical intensive care unit. J Crit Care2016; 31(1): 238–242.
14.
TakashimaMSchultsJMihalaG, et al. Complication and failures of central vascular access device in adult critical care settings. Crit Care Med2018; 46(12): 1998–2009.
15.
CortelezziAMoiaMFalangaA, et al. Incidence of thrombotic complications in patients with haematological malignancies with central venous catheters: a prospective multicentre study. Br J Haematol2005; 129(6): 811–817.
16.
CampisiCBiffiRPittirutiM.Catheter-related central venous thrombosis: the development of a nationwide Consensus paper in Italy. J Assoc Vasc Access2007; 12: 38–46.
17.
BagotCNAryaR.Virchow and his triad: a question of attribution. Br J Haematol2008; 143(2): 180–190.
18.
ForauerARTheoharisCGADasikaNL.Jugular vein catheter placement: histologic features and development of catheter-related (fibrin) sheaths in a swine model. Radiology2006; 240(2): 427–434.
19.
NifongTPMcDevittTJ.The effect of catheter to vein ratio on blood flow rates in a simulated model of peripherally inserted central venous catheters. Chest2011; 140(1): 48–53.
20.
GuytonACHallJE.Guyton and Hall textbook of medical physiology. 13th ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2015.
21.
BoddiMVillaGChiostriM, et al. Incidence of ultrasound-detected asymptomatic long-term central vein catheter-related thrombosis and fibrin sheath in cancer patients. Eur J Haematol2015; 95(5): 472–479.
22.
PittirutiMHamiltonHBiffiR, et al. ESPEN guidelines on parenteral nutrition: central venous catheters (access, care, diagnosis and therapy of complications). Clin Nutr2009; 28(4): 365–377.
23.
LampertiMBodenhamARPittirutiM, et al. International evidence-based recommendations on ultrasound-guided vascular access. Intensive Care Med2012; 38(7): 1105–1117.
24.
Franco-SadudRSchnobrichDMatthewsBK, et al. Recommendations on the use of ultrasound guidance for central and peripheral vascular access in adults: a position statement of the Society of Hospital Medicine. J Hosp Med2019; 14: E1–E22.
25.
PoliPScoccaADi PuccioF, et al. A comparative study on the mechanical behavior of polyurethane PICCs. J Vasc Access2016; 17(2): 175–181.
KleidonTUllmanAJZhangL, et al. How does your PICCOMPARE? A pilot randomized controlled trial comparing various PICC materials in pediatrics. J Hosp Med2018; 13: 517–525.
28.
SylviaCJJrWagelMAGiare-PatelK, et al. Chlorhexidine-coated peripherally inserted central catheters reduce fibroblastic sleeve formation in an in vivo ovine model. J Vasc Access2018; 19(6): 644–650.
29.
MenéndezJJVerdúCCalderónB, et al. Incidence and risk factors of superficial and deep vein thrombosis associated with peripherally inserted central catheters in children. J Thromb Haemost2016; 14(11): 2158–2168.
30.
KooCMVissapragadaRSharpR, et al. ABO blood group related venous thrombosis risk in patients with peripherally inserted central catheters. Br J Radiol2018; 91(1082): 20170560.
31.
CotogniPPittirutiMBarberoC, et al. Catheter-related complications in cancer patients on home parenteral nutrition: a prospective study of over 51,000 catheter days. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr2013; 37(3): 375–383.
32.
CotogniPBarberoCGarrinoC, et al. Peripherally inserted central catheters in non-hospitalized cancer patients: 5-year results of a prospective study. Support Care Cancer2015; 23(2): 403–409.
33.
PittirutiMEmoliAPortaP, et al. A prospective, randomized comparison of three different types of valved and non-valved peripherally inserted central catheters. J Vasc Access2014; 15(6): 519–523.
34.
LovedayHPWilsonJAPrattRJ, et al. Epic3: national evidence-based guidelines for preventing healthcare-associated infections in NSH hospitals in England. J Hosp Infect2014; 86(Suppl 1): S1–S70.
35.
ChanRJNorthfieldSLarsenE, et al. Central venous Access device SeCurement and Dressing Effectiveness for peripherally inserted central catheters in adult acute hospital patients (CASCADE): a pilot randomised controlled trial. Trials2017; 18: 458.
36.
YamamotoAJSolomonJASoulenMC, et al. Sutureless securement device reduces complications of peripherally inserted central venous catheters. J Vasc Interv Radiol2002; 13: 77–81.
37.
AlekseyevSByrneMCarpenterA, et al. Prolonging the life of a patient’s IV: an integrative review of intravenous securement devices. Medsurg Nurs2012; 21(5): 285–292.
38.
PetreeCWrightDLSandersV, et al. Reducing blood stream infections during catheter insertion. Radiol Technol2012; 83(6): 532–540.
39.
DangFPLiHJTianJH.Comparative efficacy of 13 antimicrobial dressings and different securement devices in reducing catheter-related bloodstream infections: a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Medicine2019; 98(14): e14940.
40.
VersoMAgnelliG.Venous thromboembolism associated with long-term use of central venous catheters in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol2003; 21: 3665–3675.
41.
HisadaYMackmanN.Cancer-associated pathways and biomarkers of venous thrombosis. Blood2017; 130: 1499–1506.
42.
KhoranaAKudererNMCulakovaE, et al. Development and validation of a predictive model for chemotherapy-associated thrombosis. Blood2008; 111: 4902–4907.
43.
ZakarijaAKwaanHC.Adverse effects on hemostatic function of drugs used in hematologic malignancies. Semin Thromb Hemost2007; 33(4): 355–364.
44.
RamotYNyskaASpectreG.Drug-induced thrombosis: an update. Drug Saf2013; 36(8): 585–603.
45.
VeselyTM.Central venous catheter tip position: a continuing controversy. J Vasc Interv Radiol2003; 14(5): 527–534.
46.
DebourdeauPKassab ChahmiDLe GalG, et al. 2008 SOR guidelines for the prevention and treatment of thrombosis associated with central venous catheters in patients with cancer: report from the working group. Ann Oncol2009; 20(9): 1459–1471.
47.
GorskiLA.The 2016 infusion therapy standards of practice. Home Healthc Now2017; 35: 10–18.
48.
GaoYLiuYZhangH, et al. The safety and accuracy of ECG-guided PICC tip position verification applied in patients with atrial fibrillation. Ther Clin Risk Manag2018; 14: 1075–1081.
49.
PittirutiMLa GrecaAScoppettuoloG.The electrocardiographic method for positioning the tip of central venous catheters. J Vasc Access2011; 12(4): 280–291.
50.
GiordanoPSaraccoPGrassiM, et al. Recommendations for the use of long-term central venous catheter (CVC) in children with hemato-oncological disorders: management of CVC-related occlusion and CVC-related thrombosis. Ann Hematol2015; 94(11): 1765–1776.
51.
ZuhaRPriceTPowlesR, et al. Paradoxical emboli after central venous catheter removal. Ann Oncol2000; 11(7): 885–886.
52.
SivaramCACravenPChandrasekaranK.Transesophageal echocardiography during removal of central venous catheter associated with thrombus in superior vena cava. Am J Card Imaging1996; 10(4): 266–269.
53.
SousaBFurlanettoJHutkaM, et al. Central venous access in oncology: ESMO clinical practice guidelines. Ann Oncol2015; 26(Suppl 5): v152–v168.
54.
PittirutiMScoppettuoloG. Manuale GAVeCeLT dei PICC e dei Midline. Indicazioni, impianto, gestione. [The GAVeCeLT manual of PICC and midline. indications, insertion, management]. Edra, Milan, Italy, 2017.
55.
KearonCAklEAComerotaAJ, et al. Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest2012; 141(Suppl 2): e419S–e496S.
56.
LeeAYYPetersonEAWuC.Clinical practice guidelines on cancer-associated thrombosis: a review on scope and methodology. Thromb Res2016; 140(Suppl 1): S119–S127.
57.
SchindlerJBonaRDChenHH, et al. Regional thrombolysis with urokinase for central venous catheter-related thrombosis in patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy with autologous blood stem cell rescue. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost1999; 5(1): 25–29.
58.
PucheuADierhasMLeducB, et al. Fibrinolyse des thromboses veineuses profondes sur dispositifs de perfusion implantables. A Propos D’une Série Consécutive De 57 Thromboses Et De 32 Fibrinolyses [Fibrinolysis of deep venous thrombosis on implantable perfusion devices. Apropos of a consecutive series of 57 cases of thrombosis and 32 cases of fibrinolysis]. Bull Cancer1996; 83: 293–299.
59.
KahaleLATsolakianIGHakoumMB, et al. Anticoagulation for people with cancer and central venous catheters. Cochrane Database Sys Rev2018; 6: CD006468.
60.
JonesSButtWMonagleP, et al. The natural history of asymptomatic central venous catheter–related thrombosis in critically ill children. Blood2019; 133: 857–866.
61.
PinelliFBalsoranoP.Catheter-related thrombosis natural history in adult patients: a tale of controversies, misconceptions, and fears. J Vasc Access2019; 21: 405–407.
