ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Children with intestinal failure (IF) are at risk of loss of vascular access because of catheter-related venous thrombosis. Whether primary prophylactic anticoagulation is effective and safe in preventing catheter-related thrombosis is largely unknown. Our aim was to assess the incidences of catheter-related venous thrombosis and bleeding complications in children with IF receiving home parenteral nutrition (HPN) treated with primary prophylactic anticoagulation. METHODS: All children, aged 0-18 years, treated with HPN at the Emma Children's Hospital/Amsterdam UMC were followed from January 2007 to July 2019. All patients were offered primary prophylactic anticoagulation from the start of HPN. The primary outcomes were catheter-related venous thrombosis and bleeding on prophylactic anticoagulation. RESULTS: In total, 55 (76%) of 74 patients received primary prophylactic anticoagulation. The median age at the start of prophylaxis was 8.4 (interquartile range [IQR], 5.0-55.7) months. Patients were followed for a median of 31.2 (IQR, 10.7-53.5) months, with a total of 65,463 catheter days. The incidence of catheter-related thrombosis on prophylactic anticoagulation was 0.2 per 1000 catheter days. In total, the incidence of clinically relevant bleeding was 0.1 per 1000 catheter days. The median time to first event was 1268 (IQR, 149-2014) days for thrombosis and 389 (IQR, 227-2912) days for clinically relevant bleeding. Cumulative event-free survival after 5 years was 78% for thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows a low rate of catheter-related venous thrombosis and a slightly elevated rate of clinically relevant bleeding in children receiving HPN and primary prophylactic anticoagulation.
Subject(s)
Catheter-Related Infections , Catheterization, Central Venous , Central Venous Catheters , Parenteral Nutrition, Home , Thrombosis , Venous Thrombosis , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Catheter-Related Infections/epidemiology , Catheterization, Central Venous/adverse effects , Central Venous Catheters/adverse effects , Child , Child, Preschool , Humans , Infant , Parenteral Nutrition, Home/adverse effects , Retrospective Studies , Thrombosis/etiology , Thrombosis/prevention & control , Venous Thrombosis/etiology , Venous Thrombosis/prevention & controlABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Long QT syndrome (LQTS) is associated with potentially fatal arrhythmias. Treatment is very effective, but its diagnosis may be challenging. Importantly, different methods are used to assess the QT interval, which makes its recognition difficult. QT experts advocate manual measurements with the tangent or threshold method. However, differences between these methods and their performance in LQTS diagnosis have not been established. We aimed to assess similarities and differences between these 2 methods for QT interval analysis to aid in accurate QT assessment for LQTS. METHODS: Patients with a confirmed pathogenic variant in KCNQ1(LQT1), KCNH2(LQT2), or SCN5A(LQT3) genes and their family members were included. Genotype-positive patients were identified as LQTS cases and genotype-negative family members as controls. ECGs were analyzed with both methods, providing inter- and intrareader validity and diagnostic accuracy. Cutoff values based on control population's 95th and 99th percentiles, and LQTS-patients' 1st and 5th percentiles were established based on the method to correct for heart rate, age, and sex. RESULTS: We included 1484 individuals from 265 families, aged 33±21 years and 55% females. In the total cohort, QTTangent was 10.4 ms shorter compared with QTThreshold (95% limits of agreement±20.5 ms, P<0.0001). For all genotypes, QTTangent was shorter than QTThreshold ( P<0.0001), but this was less pronounced in LQT2. Both methods yielded a high inter- and intrareader validity (intraclass correlation coefficient >0.96), and a high diagnostic accuracy (area under the curve >0.84). Using the current guideline cutoff (QTc interval 480 ms), both methods had similar specificity but yielded a different sensitivity. QTc interval cutoff values of QTTangent were lower compared with QTThreshold and different depending on the correction for heart rate, age, and sex. CONCLUSION: The QT interval varies depending on the method used for its assessment, yet both methods have a high validity and can both be used in diagnosing LQTS. However, for diagnostic purposes current guideline cutoff values yield different results for these 2 methods and could result in inappropriate reassurance or treatment. Adjusted cutoff values are therefore specified for method, correction formula, age, and sex. In addition, a freely accessible online probability calculator for LQTS ( www.QTcalculator.org ) has been made available as an aid in the interpretation of the QT interval.
