SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2011
Anticoagulation for patients with cancer and central venous catheters.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 82 citations in OpenAlex.
- Anticoagulation for people with cancer and central venous catheters.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Predictors for the prescription of pharmacological prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism during hospitalization in Internal Medicine: a sub-analysis of the FADOI-NoTEVole study.Internal and emergency medicine · 2025Observational
- Evaluating Rivaroxaban for Thromboprophylaxis in Cancer Patients with Long-Term Venous Access Devices: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Vascular health and risk management · 2025Article
- Long-Term Follow-Up and Clinical Relevance of Incidental Findings of Fibrin Sheath and Thrombosis on Computed Tomography Scans of Cancer Patients with Port Catheters.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2021Article
- Jugular venous catheter-associated thrombosis and fatal pulmonary embolism: A case report.Medicine · 2020Article
- Preventing Venous Thromboembolism in Ambulatory Cancer Patients: The ONKOTEV Study.The oncologist · 2017Article
- Predictors of venous thromboembolic events associated with central venous port insertion in cancer patients.Journal of oncology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
- Update of
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCentral venous catheter (CVC) placement increases the risk of thrombosis in cancer patients. Thrombosis often necessitates the removal of the CVC, resulting in treatment delays and thrombosis related morbidity and mortality.
objectivesTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation in cancer patients with a CVC. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 1 2010), MEDLINE (January 1966 to February 2010; accessed via OVID), EMBASE (January 1980 to February 2010; accessed via OVID) and ISI the Web of Science (1975 to February 2010). We handsearched conference proceedings, checked references of included studies and used the "related article" feature within PubMed. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any dose of unfractionated heparin (UFH), low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), vitamin K antagonists (VKA), or fondaparinux to no intervention or placebo or comparing two different anticoagulants in cancer patients with a CVC. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data from each included study and resolved their disagreements by discussion. MAIN
resultsOf 8187 identified citations, we included 12 RCTs enrolling 3611 patients and assessing either prophylactic dose heparin or low dose VKAs. Prophylactic dose heparin was not associated with a statistically significant effect on death (relative risk (RR) = 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.53 to 1.37), symptomatic deep venous thrombosis (DVT) (RR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.28 to 1.05) asymptomatic DVT (RR = 0.81; 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.02), major bleeding (RR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.10 to 4.78), thrombocytopenia (RR = 0.85; 95% CI: 0.49 to 1.46), or infection (RR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.49 to 1.68). Similarly, low dose VKAs were not associated with a statistically significant effect on death (RR = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.15), symptomatic DVT (RR = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.35 to 1.11) or major bleeding (RR = 6.93; 95% CI: 0.86 to 56.08). However, they were associated with a statistically significant reduction in asymptomatic DVT (RR = 0.42; 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.61). Studies comparing heparin to VKA found no effects on any of the outcomes of interest. AUTHORS'
conclusionsWe found no statistically significant effect of heparin or VKA on the outcomes of interest. However, the findings did not rule out clinically important benefits and harms. Patients with cancer with CVCs considering anticoagulation should balance the possible benefit of reduced thromboembolic complications with the possible harms and burden of anticoagulants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.