ABSTRACT
Infections in cancer patients after implantation of a central venous device (CVD) are not infrequent and are potentially serious. The possibility of limiting this complication with antithrombotic drugs is still debated. For this observational study, we recorded the routine management of CVD in cancer patients in 18 oncology centers in Lombardy (northern Italy), assessing the effect of antithrombotic prophylaxis on catheter-related infections. Out of 1410 patients enrolled, 451 received antithrombotic prophylaxis continuously after implantation of the central line. During a median follow-up of 30 months, 57 catheter-related infections were reported in the 1390 patients seen at least once at follow-up visits (4.1% of the whole series), giving an overall incidence of 0.10 infections per 1000 catheter days. This complication was significantly more frequent among patients with an indwelling central venous catheter, or peripherally inserted catheter, than among those with a port device, and the group not given antithrombotic prophylaxis had 0.14 infective complications/1000 CVD days compared with 0.05/1000 CVD days (odds ratio 2.4; 95% confidence interval 1.7-5.0) for those treated. Antithrombotic prophylaxis protected against infections at the catheter exit site and track but not against systemic infections. Confirming earlier evidence, this study found a reduction in catheter-related infections in patients given antithrombotic prophylaxis. However, this reduction, reflecting local infections, seems unlikely to be one of the mechanisms explaining the lower mortality among our patients treated with anticoagulants.
Subject(s)
Catheterization, Central Venous/adverse effects , Fibrinolytic Agents/pharmacology , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight/pharmacology , Neoplasms/complications , Prosthesis-Related Infections/complications , Prosthesis-Related Infections/prevention & control , Warfarin/pharmacology , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/therapeutic use , Cohort Studies , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Italy , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasm Staging , Neoplasms/drug therapy , Prospective Studies , Regression Analysis , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Standard treatment for patients with multiple myeloma is debulking chemotherapy with non-alkylating agents followed by a regimen to mobilize peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) and the transplantation of the mobilized, autologous PBSC. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a new regimen and compare it with that of a previous regimen. DESIGN AND METHODS: In a large cohort of 106 patients (group I) we administered a new pre-transplant program which includes 2 courses of pulsed-VAD (vincristine, adriamycin, dexamethasone) followed by 2 courses of DCEP (dexamethasone, cyclophosphamide, etoposide and cis-platinum). We compared the efficacy of this new VAD-DCEP sequence, in terms of mobilizing capacity, toxicity and anti-myeloma activity in comparison with that of the previous VAD-high-dose cyclophosphamide program (group II, 40 patients). RESULTS: In group I 81/106 (76.4%) patients yielded >or= 4x10(6)/kg CD34+ cells, as did 30/40 (75%) in group II but with a significantly higher toxicity in this latter group. In detail, 9 patients in group I (8.5%) had WHO grade III neutropenia versus 35 in group II (87.5%), 5 patients of group I (4.7%) had grade III thrombocytopenia versus 12 patients in group II (30%), and 8 patients in group I (7.5%) experienced an infections fever versus 9 patients in group II (22.5%). Therefore, nearly all patients in group II had to be admitted to hospital (39/40, 97.5%). There was a higher percentage of responses (CR+VGPR+PR) in group I than in group II: 73% versus 50% (p=0.02). INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS: the VAD-DCEP sequence has an adequate mobilizing capacity, without significant toxicity, and a good anti-myeloma activity, and therefore represents a safe and effective therapeutic approach for multiple myeloma patients at the onset of their disease.
