Tunneled infusion catheters: increased incidence of symptomatic venous thrombosis after subclavian versus internal jugular venous access.

PURPOSE: To compare the incidence of symptomatic venous thrombosis after tunneled infusion catheter placement via the internal jugular vein (IJV) versus the subclavian vein (SCV). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of 774 catheters placed. Only patients with complete follow-up were included, which yielded a population of 279 catheters in 238 patients (166 in the SCV, 113 in the IJV; total of 26,242 catheter days). All catheters were placed by interventional radiologists with ultrasonographic (in IJV) or venographic (in SCV) guidance. RESULTS: Initial complications were limited to one pneumothorax in the SCV group and one episode of oversedation in the IJV group. There was no difference in infection rates between the two sites (SVC vs IJV: 0.25 vs 0.32 per 100 catheter days; P >.99). The mean dwell time was slightly longer for SCV catheters (103 days) than for IJV catheters (79 days) (P =.04). Venous thrombosis developed in 13% of patients (0.12 per 100 catheter days) with an SVC catheter placed as compared with in 3% (0.04 per 100 catheter days) with an IJV catheter (P =.018). This difference persisted after adjustment for catheter size and side of placement (P =.025). The mean time to thrombosis was 36 days for SCV catheters and 142 days for IJV catheters. CONCLUSION: The IJV is the preferred site for tunneled infusion catheter placement because of the lower incidence of symptomatic venous thrombosis.

Tandem autotransplantation for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To investigate the tolerability and impact on progression-free and overall survival of two consecutive cycles of high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) with autologous bone marrow transplantation (ABMT) in patients with previously untreated metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight patients received conventional-dose induction therapy (ITx) followed by a planned two cycles of HDC with ABMT. Median age was 45 years (range, 34 to 60 years). Sites of disease were bone (seven patients), visceral (three), soft tissue (11), multiple (six), and CNS (one). The ITx regimens of cyclophosphamide, Adriamycin (doxorubicin; Adria Laboratories, Columbus, OH), methotrexate, fluorouracil, prednisone, and tamoxifen (CAMFTP) (three patients); fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FAC; 11 patients); cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF; four patients); or doxorubicin or mitoxantrone/cyclophosphamide (10 patients) were given to maximum response (three to five cycles). HDC was cyclophosphamide 6 g/m2, carboplatin 2 g/m2, and etoposide 625 mg/m2 with ABMT. RESULTS: Of 28 patients, 24 received two (86%) cycles of HDC. Four received only one cycle due to persistent toxicity from course 1 (one patient), no response to course 1 (two), and death on course 1 (one). Grade 3 to 4 nonhematologic toxicities included mucositis (in one or both cycles in 21 of 28 patients; 75%), diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting. Reversible peripheral neuropathy was seen in 15 of 28 patients and was severe in one. Documented infections were seen in 19 of 52 cycles. There was one transplant-related death. Six patients were converted from partial remission (PR) to complete remission (CR) with HDC; two of 24 patients (8%) were converted from PR to CR with the second cycle of HDC. Progression-free survival rate is nine of 28 patients (32%) with median follow-up of 23 months (range, 13 to 36+ months). Eighteen of 28 patients (64%) have progressed at 1 to 17 months from ABMT. CONCLUSION: Two cycles of HDC with ABMT was well tolerated with a high response rate in patients with metastatic breast cancer. The importance of the second cycle of HDC in this population is unclear.

Randomized trial of the addition of gram-positive prophylaxis to standard antimicrobial prophylaxis for patients undergoing autologous bone marrow transplantation.

The purpose of the study reported here was to investigate the impact of prophylaxis against gram-positive infections in patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow transplantation in a randomized trial. Forty-three patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy with autologous bone marrow transplant were enrolled in a nonblinded randomized trial to receive or not to receive prophylaxis for gram-positive infections with 10(6) U of penicillin intravenously (i.v.) every 6 h (q6h) (if penicillin allergic, 750 mg of vancomycin i.v. q12h) in addition to standard antimicrobial prophylaxis with 400 mg of norfloxacin orally three times a day, 200 mg of fluconazole orally once a day, and 5 mg of acyclovir per kg of body weight i.v. q12h. The patients were being treated for germ cell cancer (n = 15), breast cancer (n = 16), Hodgkin's disease (n = 3), non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (n = 4), acute myeloid leukemia (n = 1), acute lymphoblastic leukemia (n = 1), and ovarian cancer (n = 3). The trial was stopped because of excess morbidity in the form of streptococcal septic shock in the group not receiving gram-positive prophylaxis. There were significantly fewer overall infections (10 versus 3; P = 0.016) and streptococcal infections (9 versus 1; P = 0.0078) in the group receiving gram-positive prophylaxis. There were no significant differences in the numbers of deaths, duration of broad-spectrum antibiotics, or incidence of neutropenic fever between the two groups. Prophylaxis for gram-positive infections with penicillin or vancomycin is effective in reducing the incidence of streptococcal infections in patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow transplant. However, this approach may carry a risk of fostering resistance among streptococci to penicillin or vancomycin.