Prophylactic fibrinogen concentrate administration in surgical correction of paediatric craniosynostosis: A double-blind placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Surgical craniosynostosis repair in children is associated with massive blood loss and significant transfusion of blood products. Fibrinogen concentrate is claimed to be useful in reducing blood loss and transfusion requirements. OBJECTIVE: We investigated whether prophylactic administration of fibrinogen concentrate will reduce blood loss and transfusion requirements during paediatric craniofacial surgery. DESIGN: Randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial. SETTING: University medical centre. PATIENTS: A total of 114 infants and children up to 25 months of age (median age 10 months). INTERVENTION: Surgical craniosynostosis repair by calvarial remodelling was performed in each patient. Patients were randomised to receive prophylactic fibrinogen concentrate (Haemocomplettan P) at a mean dose of 79 mg kg-1 body weight or placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was the volume of transfused blood products. Secondary outcomes were peri-operative blood loss, duration of surgery, length of stay in the paediatric ICU, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications and adverse effects of fibrinogen concentrate infusion. RESULTS: No significant differences (P < 0.05) were found in the volume of transfused blood products (median 29 ml kg-1 body weight vs. 29 ml kg-1 body weight), intra-operative estimated blood loss (45 vs. 46 ml kg-1), calculated blood loss (57 vs. 53 ml kg-1), or postoperative blood loss (24 vs. 24 ml kg-1) between the intervention and placebo groups. In addition, duration of surgery, length of stay in the paediatric ICU, hospital stay and complications were not significantly different between the two groups. CONCLUSION: During surgical craniosynostosis repair in young children, prophylactic administration of high-dose fibrinogen concentrate did not reduce the amount of transfused blood products or decrease peri-operative blood loss. TRIAL REGISTRATION: National Trial Register (NTR2975) and EudraCT (2011-002287-24).

Illustrated State-of-the-Art Capsules of the ISTH 2020 Congress.

The 2020 Congress of the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) was held virtually July 12-15, 2019, due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. The congress convenes annually to discuss clinical and basic topics in hemostasis and thrombosis. Each year, the program includes State of Art (SOA) lectures given by prominent scientists. Presenters are asked to create Illustrated Capsules of their talks, which are concise illustrations with minimal explanatory text. Capsules cover major themes of the presentation, and these undergo formal peer review for inclusion in this article. Owing to the shift to a virtual congress this year, organizers reduced the program size. There were 39 SOA lectures virtually presented, and 29 capsules (9 from talks omitted from the virtual congress) were both submitted and successful in peer review, and are included in this article. Topics include the roles of the hemostatic system in inflammation, infection, immunity, and cancer, platelet function and signaling, platelet function disorders, megakaryocyte biology, hemophilia including gene therapy, phenotype tests in hemostasis, von Willebrand factor, anticoagulant factor V, computational driven discovery, endothelium, clinical and basic aspects of thrombotic microangiopathies, fibrinolysis and thrombolysis, antithrombotics in pediatrics, direct oral anticoagulant management, and thrombosis and hemostasis in pregnancy. Capsule authors invite virtual congress attendees to refer to these capsules during the live presentations and participate on Twitter in discussion. Research and Practice in Haemostasis and Thrombosis will release 2 tweets from @RPTHJournal during each presentation, using #IllustratedReview, #CoagCapsule and #ISTH2020. Readers are also welcome to utilize capsules for teaching and ongoing education.

Femoral Vein Catheter is an Important Risk Factor for Catheter-related Thrombosis in (Near-)term Neonates.

Central venous catheters (CVCs) in neonates are associated with an increased risk of thrombosis. Most reports focus on umbilical venous catheters (UVCs) and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), whereas data available on femoral venous catheters (FVCs) are limited. We performed a retrospective cohort study in all neonates (gestational age ≥34 wk) with CVCs. The primary outcome was the occurrence of thrombosis in CVCs. The secondary outcomes were possible risk factors for thrombosis, the thrombotic incidence in FVCs, UVCs, and PICCs, and clinical aspects of thrombosis in these groups. A total of 552 neonates received a total of 656 catheters, including 407 (62%) UVCs, 185 (28%) PICCs, and 64 (10%) FVCs. Thrombosis was detected in 14 cases, yielding an overall incidence of 2.1% or 3.6 events per 1000 catheter days. FVC was significantly associated with the occurrence of thrombosis when compared with UVC (P=0.02; odds ratio, 3.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-12.0) and PICC (P=0.01; odds ratio, 8.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-41.7). The incidence of thrombosis was higher in FVCs than in UVCs and PICCS, that is, 7.8% (5/64), 1.7% (7/407), and 1.1% (2/185), respectively (P<0.01). The number of thrombotic events per 1000 catheter days was 12.3 in FVCs, 3.2 in UVCs, and 1.5 in PICCs (P<0.05). We concluded that thrombosis occurs more frequently in FVCs than in other CVCs.

Systemic treatments for the prevention of venous thrombo-embolic events in paediatric cancer patients with tunnelled central venous catheters.

BACKGROUND: Venous thrombo-embolic events (VTEs) occur in 2.2% to 14% of paediatric cancer patients and cause significant morbidity and mortality. The malignant disease itself, the cancer treatment and the presence of central venous catheters (CVCs) increase the risk of VTE. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this review was to investigate the effects of preventive systemic treatments in paediatric cancer patients with tunnelled CVCs on (a)symptomatic VTE. Secondary objectives of this review were to investigate adverse effects of systemic treatments for the prevention of (a)symptomatic VTE in paediatric cancer patients with tunnelled CVCs; and to investigate the effects of systemic treatments in the prevention of (a)symptomatic VTE with CVC-related infection in paediatric cancer patients with tunnelled CVCs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 8 2012), MEDLINE (1966 to August 2012) and EMBASE (1966 to August 2012). In addition, we searched reference lists from relevant articles and conference proceedings of the International Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOP) (from 2006 to 2011), the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) (from 2006 to 2011), the American Society of Hematology (ASH) (from 2006 to 2011) and the International Society of Thrombosis and Haematology (ISTH) (from 2006 to 2011). We scanned the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Register and the National Institute of Health (NIH) Register for ongoing trials (www.controlled-trials.com) (August 2012), and we contacted the authors of eligible studies if additional information was required. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing systemic treatments to prevent venous thrombo-embolic events (VTEs) in paediatric cancer patients with tunnelled CVCs with a control intervention or no systemic treatment. For the description of adverse events, cohort studies were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and performed risk of bias assessment of included studies. Analyses were performed according to the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. MAIN RESULTS: Three RCTs and three CCTs (including 1291 children) investigated the prevention of VTE (low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) n = 134, antithrombin (AT) supplementation n = 37, low-dose warfarin n = 31, cryoprecipitate and/or fresh frozen plasma (FFP) supplementation n = 240, AT supplementation and LMWH n = 41). AT, cryoprecipitate and FFP were supplemented only in cases of AT or fibrinogen deficiency. Of the six included RCTs/CCTs, five investigated the prevention of VTE compared with no intervention (n = 737), and one CCT compared AT supplementation and LMWH with AT supplementation (n = 71). All studies had methodological limitations, and clinical heterogeneity between studies was noted.We found no significant effects of systemic treatments compared with no intervention in preventing (a)symptomatic VTE and no differences in adverse events (such as major and/or minor bleeding; none of the studies reported thrombocytopenia, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), heparin-induced thrombocytopenia with thrombosis (HITT), death as a result of VTE, removal of CVC due to VTE, CVC-related infection, and post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS)) between experimental and control groups. Two studies with comparable participant groups and interventions were included for meta-analyses (n = 182). In the experimental group, 1/68 (1.5%) children were diagnosed with symptomatic VTE, as were 4/114 (3.5%) in the control group (best case scenario: risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 4.78). These studies also evaluated asymptomatic CVC-related VTE: In the experimental group, 22/68 (32.4%) were diagnosed with asymptomatic VTE, as were 35/114 (30.7%) in the control group (best case scenario: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.55). Heterogeneity was substantial for this analysis: I(2) = 73%.The attribution of LMWH to AT supplementation resulted in a significant reduction in symptomatic VTE (Fisher's exact test, two-sided P = 0.028) without bleeding complications; asymptomatic VTE, thrombocytopenia, HIT, HITT, death as a result of VTE, removal of CVC due to VTE, CVC-related infection and PTS were not assessed.Four cohort studies were included for the evaluation of adverse events. Three studies provided information on bleeding episodes: One participant developed an ischaemo-haemorrhagic stroke. One study provided information on other adverse events: None occurred. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant effects of systemic treatments compared with no intervention in preventing (a)symptomatic VTE in paediatric oncology patients with CVCs. However, this could be a result of the low number of included participants, which resulted in low power. In one CCT, which compared one systemic treatment with another systemic treatment, we identified a significant reduction in symptomatic VTE with the addition of LMWH to AT supplementation.All studies investigated the prevalence of major and/or minor bleeding episodes, and none found a significant difference between study groups. None of the studies reported thrombocytopenia, HIT, HITT, death as a result of VTE, removal of CVC due to VTE, CVC-related infection or PTS among participants.On the basis of currently available evidence, we are not able to give recommendations for clinical practise. Additional well-designed international RCTs are needed to further explore the effects of systemic treatments in preventing VTE. Future studies should aim for adequate power with attainable sample sizes. The incidence of symptomatic VTE is relatively low; therefore, it might be necessary to select participants with thrombotic risk factors or to investigate asymptomatic VTE instead.

Antibiotic and other lock treatments for tunnelled central venous catheter-related infections in children with cancer.

BACKGROUND: The risk of developing a tunnelled central venous catheter (CVC)-related infection ranges between 0.1 and 2.3 per 1000 catheter days for children with cancer. These infections are difficult to treat with systemic antibiotics (salvage rate 24% - 66%) due to biofilm formation in the CVC. Lock treatments can achieve 100 - 1000 times higher concentrations locally without exposure to high systemic concentrations. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to investigate the efficacy of antibiotic and other lock treatments in the treatment of CVC-related infections in children with cancer compared to a control intervention. We also assessed adverse events of lock treatments. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, issue 3, 2011), MEDLINE/PubMed (1945 to August 2011) and EMBASE/Ovid (1980 to August 2011). In addition we searched reference lists from relevant articles and the conference proceedings of the International Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOP) (from 2006 to 2010), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) (from 2006 to 2010), the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) (from 2006 to 2011), the American Society of Hematology (ASH) (from 2006 to 2010) and the International Society of Thrombosis and Haematology (ISTH) (from 2006 to 2011). We scanned the ISRCTN Register and the National Institute of Health Register for ongoing trials (www.controlled-trials.com) (August 2011). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing an antibiotic lock or other lock treatment (with or without concomitant systemic antibiotics) with a control intervention (other lock treatment with or without concomitant systemic antibiotics or systemic antibiotics alone) for the treatment of CVC-related infections in children with cancer. For the description of adverse events, cohort studies were also eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and performed 'Risk of bias' assessments of included studies. Analyses were performed according to the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. MAIN RESULTS: Two RCTs evaluated urokinase lock treatment with concomitant systemic antibiotics (n = 56) versus systemic antibiotics alone (n = 48), and one CCT evaluated ethanol lock treatment with concomitant systemic antibiotics (n = 15) versus systemic antibiotics alone (n = 13). No RCTs or CCTs evaluating antibiotic lock treatments were identified. All studies had methodological limitations and clinical heterogeneity between studies was present. We found no evidence of significant difference between ethanol or urokinase lock treatments with concomitant systemic antibiotics and systemic antibiotics alone regarding the number of participants cured, the number of recurrent CVC-related infections, the number of days until the first negative blood culture, the number of CVCs prematurely removed, ICU admission and sepsis. Not all studies were included in all analyses. No adverse events occurred in the five publications of cohort studies (one cohort was included in two publications) assessing this outcome; CVC malfunctioning occurred in three out of five publications of cohort studies assessing this outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No significant effect of urokinase or ethanol lock in addition to systemic antibiotics was found. However, this could be due to low power or a too-short follow-up. The cohort studies identified no adverse events; some cohort studies reported CVC malfunctioning. No RCTs or CCTs were published on antibiotic lock treatment alone. More well-designed RCTs are needed to further explore the effect of antibiotic or other lock treatments in the treatment of CVC-related infections in children with cancer.