↓ Skip to main content

Anticoagulation for people with cancer and central venous catheters

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Anticoagulation for people with cancer and central venous catheters
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006468.pub6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lara A Kahale, Ibrahim G Tsolakian, Maram B Hakoum, Charbel F Matar, Maddalena Barba, Victor ED Yosuico, Irene Terrenato, Francesca Sperati, Holger Schünemann, Elie A Akl

Abstract

Central venous catheter (CVC) placement increases the risk of thrombosis in people with cancer. Thrombosis often necessitates the removal of the CVC, resulting in treatment delays and thrombosis-related morbidity and mortality. This is an update of the Cochrane Review published in 2014. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in people with cancer with a CVC. We conducted a comprehensive literature search in May 2018 that included a major electronic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), and Embase (Ovid); handsearching of conference proceedings; checking of references of included studies; searching for ongoing studies; and using the 'related citation' feature in PubMed. This update of the systematic review was based on the findings of a literature search conducted on 14 May 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of unfractionated heparin (UFH), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), vitamin K antagonists (VKA), or fondaparinux or comparing the effects of two of these anticoagulants in people with cancer and a CVC. Using a standardized form, we extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Outcomes included all-cause mortality, symptomatic catheter-related venous thromboembolism (VTE), pulmonary embolism (PE), major bleeding, minor bleeding, catheter-related infection, thrombocytopenia, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach (Balshem 2011). Thirteen RCTs (23 papers) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. These trials enrolled 3420 participants. Seven RCTs compared LMWH to no LMWH (six in adults and one in children), six RCTs compared VKA to no VKA (five in adults and one in children), and three RCTs compared LMWH to VKA in adults.LMWH versus no LMWHSix RCTs (1537 participants) compared LMWH to no LMWH in adults. The meta-analyses showed that LMWH probably decreased the incidence of symptomatic catheter-related VTE up to three months of follow-up compared to no LMWH (risk ratio (RR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 0.81; risk difference (RD) 38 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 13 fewer to 52 fewer; moderate-certainty evidence). However, the analysis did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of LMWH on mortality at three months of follow-up (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.26; RD 14 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 36 fewer to 20 more; low-certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.06 to 36.28; RD 0 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 35 more; very low-certainty evidence), minor bleeding (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.92; RD 14 more per 1000, 95% CI 16 fewer to 79 more; low-certainty evidence), and thrombocytopenia (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.33; RD 5 more per 1000, 95% CI 35 fewer to 58 more; low-certainty evidence).VKA versus no VKAFive RCTs (1599 participants) compared low-dose VKA to no VKA in adults. The meta-analyses did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of low-dose VKA compared to no VKA on mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.55; RD 1 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 34 fewer to 52 more; low-certainty evidence), symptomatic catheter-related VTE (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.64; RD 31 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 62 fewer to 51 more; low-certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 7.14, 95% CI 0.88 to 57.78; RD 12 more per 1000, 95% CI 0 fewer to 110 more; low-certainty evidence), minor bleeding (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.26; RD 15 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 30 fewer to 13 more; low-certainty evidence), premature catheter removal (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.24; RD 29 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 114 fewer to 202 more; low-certainty evidence), and catheter-related infection (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.85; RD 71 more per 1000, 95% CI 109 fewer to 356; low-certainty evidence).LMWH versus VKAThree RCTs (641 participants) compared LMWH to VKA in adults. The available evidence did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of LMWH relative to VKA on mortality (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.59; RD 6 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 41 fewer to 56 more; low-certainty evidence), symptomatic catheter-related VTE (RR 1.83, 95% CI 0.44 to 7.61; RD 15 more per 1000, 95% CI 10 fewer to 122 more; very low-certainty evidence), PE (RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.74 to 3.92; RD 35 more per 1000, 95% CI 13 fewer to 144 more; low-certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 3.11, 95% CI 0.13 to 73.11; RD 2 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 72 more; very low-certainty evidence), or minor bleeding (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.20 to 4.61; RD 1 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 21 fewer to 95 more; very low-certainty evidence). The meta-analyses showed that LMWH probably increased the risk of thrombocytopenia compared to VKA at three months of follow-up (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.39; RD 149 more per 1000, 95% CI 43 fewer to 300 more; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence was not conclusive for the effect of LMWH on mortality, the effect of VKA on mortality and catheter-related VTE, and the effect of LMWH compared to VKA on mortality and catheter-related VTE. We found moderate-certainty evidence that LMWH reduces catheter-related VTE compared to no LMWH. People with cancer with CVCs considering anticoagulation should balance the possible benefit of reduced thromboembolic complications with the possible harms and burden of anticoagulants.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 50 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 21%
Researcher 9 17%
Unspecified 9 17%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Other 4 8%
Other 12 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 50%
Unspecified 13 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 4 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 September 2018.
All research outputs
#3,694,837
of 12,667,869 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,864
of 10,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,054
of 273,867 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#144
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,667,869 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,396 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.3. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 273,867 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 175 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.