2007
DOI: 10.1345/aph.1g714
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Systemic Anticoagulant Prophylaxis for Central Catheter–Associated Venous Thrombosis in Cancer Patients

Abstract: Available data do not support the routine use of anticoagulants for thromboprophylaxis to prevent CVC-related thrombosis. However, several inconsistencies can be found in the studies done to date. More studies are needed to identify subsets of cancer patients who are at higher risk of developing CVC thrombosis and may benefit from prophylactic systemic anticoagulation.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0
1

Year Published

2007
2007
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
0
3
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…[85][86][87] The choice to start prophylaxis against venous thromboembolic events in all oncology patients bearing a CVC, either with LMWH or with minidose warfarin, remains unsupported by evidence-based medicine. However, more studies are needed to identify subsets of cancer patients who are at high risk of developing CVC thrombosis and may benefit from prophylactic systemic anticoagulation.…”
Section: Thrombosismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[85][86][87] The choice to start prophylaxis against venous thromboembolic events in all oncology patients bearing a CVC, either with LMWH or with minidose warfarin, remains unsupported by evidence-based medicine. However, more studies are needed to identify subsets of cancer patients who are at high risk of developing CVC thrombosis and may benefit from prophylactic systemic anticoagulation.…”
Section: Thrombosismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thromboprophylaxis for catheter‐related thrombosis in cancer patients remains controversial. Indeed, two systematic reviews were recently published on thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients with central venous catheters [1,2]. Our meta‐analysis expands and updates this literature by incorporating data from two further multi‐center, randomized trials.…”
mentioning
confidence: 84%
“…Monreal u. Mitarb. konnten in einer Untersuchung den Nutzen einer Thromboseprophylaxe zeigen [23], während sich in aktuelleren randomisierten Studien sowie einer Metaanalyse kein signifikanter Effekt auf die Senkung thromboembolischer Ereignisse durch zentralvenöse Katheter nachweisen ließ [24,27].…”
Section: Portinfektionenunclassified