Prophylaxis of catheter-related deep vein thrombosis in cancer patients with low-dose warfarin, low molecular weight heparin, or control: a randomized, controlled, phase III study

Purpose Whether an anticoagulant prophylaxis is needed for patients with cancer with a central venous catheter is a highly controversial subject. We designed a study to compare different prophylactic strategies over 3 months of treatment. Methods We performed a phase III prospective, open-label rand...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inCancer chemotherapy and pharmacology Vol. 72; no. 1; pp. 65 - 73
Main Authors Lavau-Denes, Sandrine, Lacroix, P., Maubon, A., Preux, P. M., Genet, D., Vénat-Bouvet, L., Labourey, J. L., Martin, J., Slaouti, P., Tubiana-Mathieu, N.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Berlin/Heidelberg Springer-Verlag 01.07.2013
Springer
Springer Nature B.V
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Purpose Whether an anticoagulant prophylaxis is needed for patients with cancer with a central venous catheter is a highly controversial subject. We designed a study to compare different prophylactic strategies over 3 months of treatment. Methods We performed a phase III prospective, open-label randomized trial. After the insertion of a central venous access device, consecutive patients with planned chemotherapy for cancer were randomized to no anticoagulant prophylaxis, low molecular weight heparin [low molecular weight heparin (LMWH); with isocoagulation doses], or warfarin 1 mg/day. Treatments were given over the first 3 months. Doppler ultrasound and venographies were performed on days 1 and 90, respectively, or sooner in case of clinical presumption of thrombosis. Results A total of 420 patients were randomized, and 407 were evaluable. Forty-two catheter-related deep vein thrombosis (DVT) occurred (10.3 %), 20 in those with no anticoagulation, 8 in those receiving warfarin, and 14 in those receiving LMWH. Nine additional non-related catheter deep vein thrombosis (CDVT) occurred. Anticoagulation significantly reduced the incidence of catheter-related DVT ( p  = 0.035) and catheter non-related DVT ( p  = 0.007), with no difference between warfarin and LMWH. Safety was good (3.4 % of attributable events) but compliance with randomized prophylaxis was lower than expected. Conclusions Prophylaxis showed a benefit regarding catheter-related and non-catheter-related DVT with no increase in serious side effects.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
ObjectType-News-3
content type line 23
ISSN:0344-5704
1432-0843
DOI:10.1007/s00280-013-2169-y