ArticleBlood advances2021
Risk of pulmonary emboli after removal of an upper extremity central catheter associated with a deep vein thrombosis.
Article in Blood advances, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Unveiling the complexities of catheter-related thrombosis: risk factors, preventive strategies, and management.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2025Review
- Catheter-related deep vein thrombosis: Where are we at and where are we going? Updates and ongoing unmet clinical needs.European journal of clinical investigation · 2025Review
- Thrombosis in Acute Myeloid Leukemia: Pathogenesis, Risk Factors and Therapeutic Challenges.Current treatment options in oncology · 2023Review
- Daily point-of-care ultrasound-assessment of central venous catheter-related thrombosis in critically ill patients: a prospective multicenter study.Intensive care medicine · 2023Article
- Catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) in patients with solid tumors: a narrative review and clinical guidance for daily care.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022Review
- Upper Extremity Deep Venous Thrombosis: Etiologies, Diagnosis, and Updates in Therapeutic Strategies.Seminars in interventional radiology · 2022Review
- Characteristics and predictors of venous thrombosis recurrence in patients with cancer and catheter-related thrombosis.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2022Article
- EHA Guidelines on Management of Antithrombotic Treatments in Thrombocytopenic Patients With Cancer.HemaSphere · 2022Article
- [Chinese expert consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of venous thromboembolism after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (2022)].Zhonghua xue ye xue za zhi = Zhonghua xueyexue zazhi · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 10 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Standard treatment of catheter-associated upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UE-DVT) is anticoagulation, although catheters are often removed for this indication. The optimal time for catheter removal and whether the act and/or timing of catheter removal is associated with pulmonary embolism (PE) remain unknown. A retrospective cohort study was performed at 8 participating institutions through the Venous thromboEmbolism Network US. Patients with hematologic malignancies and central venous catheter (CVC)-associated UE-DVT were included from 1 January 2010 through 31 December 2016. The primary outcome was objectively confirmed PE within 7 days of UE-DVT diagnosis in anticoagulated patients comparing early (≤48 hours) vs delayed (>48 hours) catheter removal. A total of 626 patients were included, among whom 480 were treated with anticoagulation. Among anticoagulated patients, 255 underwent early CVC removal, while 225 had delayed or no CVC removal; 146 patients received no anticoagulation, among whom 116 underwent CVC removal alone. PE within 7 days occurred in 2 patients (0.78%) with early removal compared with 1 patient (0.44%) with delayed or no CVC removal (P > .9). PE or any cause of death within 7 days occurred in 3 patients in both the early removal (1.18%) and delayed/no removal (1.33%) groups (P > .9). In patients treated with CVC removal only (no anticoagulation), there were no PEs but 3 deaths within 7 days. In patients with hematological malignancy and CVC-associated UE-DVT, early removal of CVCs was not associated with an increased risk of PE compared with delayed or no removal.
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.