Cancer patients have a high risk of developing
thromboembolic disease. Both venous and arterial thrombotic
complications have been described in patients with a variety of malignancies.
Despite the well-established association between malignancy and
thrombosis, the true incidence of thromoembolism in cancer patients
is difficult to ascertain because of the paucity of data in most
malignancies. The best information comes from trials of adjuvant
therapy in patients with breast cancer. In patients receiving
tamoxifen (Nolvadex), the incidence of thromboembolism is
approximately 1%. In those undergoing chemotherapy, the risk of
thrombosis varies from 2% to 18%, increasing with more advanced
stages of disease.
In addition to the thrombogenic risk arising from intrinsic tumor
procoagulant activity, extrinsic factors are also involved in the
pathogenesis of thrombosis in cancer patients.[2-4] These include
antineoplastic drugs, hormonal agents, surgery, immobilization, and
indwelling central venous catheters. The interaction of these factors
results in a heightened thrombophilic state and complicates the
diagnosis and treatment of venous thromboembolism.
Deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism are the most common
thrombotic conditions in patients with cancer.[2,3] Although cancer
patients with venous thromboembolism often present with typical
symptoms, such as limb swelling and pain or shortness of breath, the
clinical presentation can be less specific than in patients without
cancer. Therefore, the use of objective investigations is essential
in confirming a diagnosis of deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism.
Contrast venography remains the reference standard for diagnosing
deep-vein thrombosis. Increasingly, however, noninvasive testing is
replacing venography in routine clinical practice because of the
morbidity associated with venography and its limited availability.
Compression or duplex ultrasonography is a highly accurate,
noninvasive method for diagnosing symptomatic proximal thrombosis in
the legs, with a sensitivity of 95% and a specificity of 96%.[5-7]
Based on the results of venous ultrasonography, in combination with either D-dimer
testing or clinical assessment, patients with suspected deep-vein
thrombosis can be managed safely.[8-10]
Although published studies evaluating the accuracy of noninvasive
diagnostic methods have included patients with cancer, it is not
known whether these diagnostic tests are as accurate in this subgroup
of patients because the cancer and/or its treatments may reduce the
diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive investigations.[11,12] For
example, extrinsic venous compression by the tumor mass may cause
both impedance plethysmography and venous ultrasonography to yield
Supporting these concepts, one study demonstrated that impedance
plethysmography was less sensitive and specific in diagnosing
deep-vein thrombosis in patients with cancer than in patients without
the disease. In addition, a recent analysis found that the
specificity and negative predictive value of a D-dimer
assay are significantly lower in cancer patients than in noncancer
patients, resulting in a high number of false-negative results.
A suggested algorithm for diagnosing deep-vein thrombosis in cancer
patients is shown in Figure
Making a diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in patients with or without
cancer remains difficult and often relies on clinical assessment plus
a battery of investigations. These may include ventilation-perfusion
lung scintigraphy, venous ultrasonography, and D-dimer
Spiral computed tomography (CT), recently shown to be specific and
reliable for diagnosing pulmonary embolism in the central pulmonary
vasculature, is not sufficiently sensitive for detecting emboli
involving subsegmental arteries in more distal lung segments.[17,18]
However, spiral CT may be superior to ventilation-perfusion lung
scintigraphy in patients with cancer, as it detects other pulmonary
abnormalities and can often differentiate pulmonary metastases from emboli.
To date, no published studies have specifically addressed the
accuracy of noninvasive testing for the diagnosis of pulmonary
embolism in patients with cancer. Figure
2 is a suggested algorithm for the diagnosis of pulmonary
embolism in these patients.
The treatment of cancer patients with venous thromboembolism can be
difficult. The major concerns regarding treatment are
anticoagulant-induced bleeding and recurrent thromboembolism. Other
challenging issues include: (1) how to manage anticoagulant therapy
around the time of invasive procedures; (2) whether to initiate
anticoagulation in a patient with an extremely short life expectancy,
or when to discontinue such therapy; (3) and when to use aggressive
second-line antithrombotic treatments, such as insertion of an
inferior vena caval filter or thrombolysis. Therefore, in addition to
the usual treatment objectives of averting death from pulmonary
embolism, reducing morbidity from the acute event, minimizing
postphlebitic symptoms, and preventing thromboembolic pulmonary
hypertension, anticoagulant treatment in cancer patients must be
individualized based on the overall therapeutic and palliative goals
Initial Anticoagulant Therapy
The current standard initial treatment of patients with venous
thrombosis consists of either intravenous unfractionated heparin or
subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin. Large clinical trials
conducted during the past decade have demonstrated that
low-molecular-weight heparins are as safe and effective as
unfractionated heparin in both inpatient and outpatient settings.[19-24]
An oral anticoagulant is administered within 24 hours of the start
of unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin and is continued
for long-term secondary prophylaxis. Currently, the same treatment
regimens are used for patients with and without cancer.
Unfractionated HeparinThe standard, 5,000-unit
intravenous loading dose for unfractionated heparin should be
followed by a continuous infusion of at least 30,000 U/24 h.
Subsequent doses should be adjusted based on a validated nomogram to
reach and maintain a therapeutic activated partial thromboplastin
time (APTT) of approximately 1.5 to 2.0 times the control value. This
therapeutic range should correspond to a heparin level of 0.2 to 0.4
U/mL by protamine sulfate titration, or 0.4 to 0.7 U/mL by
antifactor Xa assay.
The therapeutic range differs depending on the APTT reagent and
automated coagulation machine used, and a fixed ratio of 1.5 times
control may not be therapeutic for insensitive reagents.
Therefore, each laboratory should perform standardizing procedures
for its specific reagent and equipment. In patients who require large
doses of heparin (> 40,000 U/24 h), the antifactor Xa
heparin level should be monitored instead of the APTT because of a
dissociation between the APTT and heparin concentration in these
In patients with uncomplicated acute thrombosis, the heparin infusion
should be continued for a minimum of 5 days, and it should not be
stopped until the oral anticoagulant has reached therapeutic levels
for 2 consecutive days, as indicated by the international normalized
ratio (INR) of 2.0 to 3.0. For patients presenting with extensive
disease, eg, phlegmasia cerulea dolens or life-threatening pulmonary
embolism, a longer, 7- to 10-day course of heparin is indicated.
The major advantage of a heparin infusion is that rapid reversal of
the anticoagulant effect can be achieved by stopping the infusion and
by administering protamine sulfate, if necessary. This is clearly
desirable in a patient who has a high risk of bleeding, and yet
urgently requires anticoagulant therapy.
The disadvantages of a heparin infusion include the need for
intravenous administration and frequent laboratory monitoring, the
lack of standardized assays, the potential development of heparin
resistance, and the uncommon but potentially fatal complication of
heparin-induced thrombocytopenia with thrombosis.[25-27,29] In
addition, the need for hospitalization and laboratory monitoring
required make this a costly treatment.
Low-Molecular-Weight Heparins, which have an average molecular
weight of 5,000 d, are fractionated products of standard heparin
(average molecular weight of 15,000 d). Low-molecular-weight
heparins, which include enoxaparin sodium (Lovenox), dalteparin
(Fragmin), and ardeparin (Normiflo), are produced by enzymatic or
chemical depolymerization and have similar biochemical properties.
Low-molecular-weight heparins have many experimental and clinical
advantages over unfractionated heparin. Because low-molecular-weight
heparins bind less to plasma proteins, macrophages, platelets, and
endothelium than unfractionated heparin, they have longer plasma
half-lives, better bioavailability, and more predictable
pharmacokinetics. These properties translate clinically into
once- or twice-daily subcutaneous, weight-based dosing that does not
require laboratory monitoring; hence, outpatient administration of
these products is a feasible, safe option. This option is
particularly attractive for cancer patients, in whom quality of life
is an important issue.
Although this class of drugs is more expensive than unfractionated
heparin, the elimination of hospitalization and laboratory monitoring
has made this initial therapy option more cost-effective.[31,32] It
is important to emphasize that different low-molecular-weight
heparins may vary in their clinical effects, and that efficacy and
safety profiles cannot be completely extrapolated from one
preparation to another.
Other potential advantages of low-molecular-weight heparins over
unfractionated heparin suggested by meta-analyses of clinical trials
and by animal experiments include a lower risk of bleeding,[33-35]
osteoporosis,[36-38] and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia.[25,29]
Possible Antineoplastic EffectMore interestingly, both
low-molecular-weight heparins and unfractionated heparin may have an
antineoplastic effect and, thus, may offer a survival advantage to
cancer patients with thrombosis.[33,34,39] The mechanism for this
effect is unclear, but experimental studies suggest that heparin and
its low-molecular-weight fractions may inhibit angiogenesis.[40,41]
Ongoing randomized trials are exploring this possibility.
Bleeding RiskThe risk of clinically important bleeding
during the initial period of anticoagulation with heparin or low-molecular-weight
heparins is likely less than 5%. The exact risk depends on the
total dose of unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin, the age
of the patient, underlying bleeding tendencies (eg, peptic ulcer
disease), and whether the patient is receiving concomitant
antiplatelet therapy.[25,42] However, studies of heparin-associated
bleeding have included many noncancer patients. Hence, the true rate
of bleeding in cancer patients receiving unfractionated or
low-molecular-weight heparin is unclear.
1. Levine MN: Prevention of thrombotic disorders in cancer patients
undergoing chemotherapy. Thromb Haemost 78:133-136, 1997.
2. Green KB, Silverstein RL: Hypercoagulability in cancer. Hematol
Oncol Clin North Am 10:499-530, 1996.
3. Dvorak HF: Abnormalities of hemostasis in malignant disease, in
Coleman RW, Hirsh J, Marder VJ, et al (eds): Hemostasis and
Thrombosis: Basic Principles and Clinical Practice, 3rd ed, pp
1255-1274. Philadelphia, Lippincott, 1994.
4. Rickles FR, Edwards RL: Activation of blood coagulation in cancer:
Trousseaus syndrome revisited. Blood 62:14-31, 1982.
5. Kearon C, Ginsberg JS, Hirsh J: The role of venous ultrasonography
in the diagnosis of suspected deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary
embolism. Ann Intern Med 129:1044-1049, 1998.
6. Heijboer H, Buller HR, Lensing AWA, et al: A comparison of
real-time compression ultrasonography with impedance plethysmography
for the diagnosis of deep-vein thrombosis in symptomatic outpatients.
N Engl J Med 329:1365-1369, 1993.
7. Lensing AWA, Prandoni P, Brandjes D, et al: Detection of deep-vein
thrombosis by real-time B-mode ultrasonography. N Engl J Med
8. Kearon C, Ginsberg JS, Douketis J, et al: Diagnosis of a first
deep-vein thrombosis in outpatients: Interim analysis of a management
based on clinical evaluation and D-dimer
(SimpliRED) result. Thromb Haemost 78(suppl):588, 1997.
9. Ginsberg JS, Kearon C, Douketis J, et al: D-dimer
and impedance plethysmography in patients with suspected deep-vein
thrombosis: Results of a management trial. Arch Intern Med
10. Wells PS, Brill-Edwards P, Stevens P, et al: A novel and rapid
whole-blood assay for D-dimer in patients with
clinically suspected deep-vein thrombosis. Circulation 91:2184-2187, 1995.
11. Lee AYY, Julian JA, Levine MN, et al: The clinical utility of a
rapid whole-blood D-dimer assay in patients
with cancer who present with suspected acute deep venous thrombosis.
Ann Intern Med 131:417-423, 1999.
12. Keefe DL, Roistacher N, Pierri MK: Evaluation of suspected
deep-vein thrombosis in oncologic patients. Angiology 45:771-775, 1994.
13. Wells PS, Ginsberg JS, Anderson DA, et al: Use of a clinical
model for safe management of patients with suspected pulmonary
embolism. Ann Intern Med 129:997-1005, 1998.
14. Ginsberg JS, Wells PS, Kearon C, et al: Sensitivity and
specificity of a rapid whole-blood assay for D-dimer
in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. Ann Intern Med
15. Hull RD, Raskob G, Ginsberg JS, et al: A noninvasive strategy for
the treatment of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. Arch
Intern Med 289-297, 1994.
16. The PIOPED Investigators: Value of the ventilation/perfusion scan
in acute PE. JAMA 263:2753-2759, 1990.
17. Gilbert D, Desjardin A, Audet P, et al: Diagnosis of suspected
pulmonary embolism by spiral computed tomography: Comparison with
pulmonary angiography. Chest 114:4(suppl):281S, 1998.
18. Remy-Jardin M, Remy J, Deschildre F, et al: Diagnosis of
pulmonary embolism with spiral computed tomography: Comparison with
pulmonary angiography and scintigraphy. Radiology 200:699-706, 1996.
19. The Columbus Investigators: Low molecular weight heparin in the
treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med
20. Simonneau G, Sors H, Charbonnier B, et al: A comparison of
low-molecular-weight heparin with unfractionated heparin for acute
pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med 337:663-669, 1997.
21. Levine M, Gent M, Hirsh J, et al: A comparison of
low-molecular-weight heparin administered primarily at home with
unfractionated heparin administered in the hospital for proximal
deep-vein thrombosis. N Engl J Med 337:657-662, 1996.
22. Koopman MMW, Prandoni P, Piovella F, et al: Treatment of venous
thrombosis with intravenous unfractionated heparin administered in
the hospital as compared with subcutaneous low-molecular-weight
heparin administered at home. N Engl J Med 334:682-687, 1996.
23. Prandoni P, Lensing AWA, Buller HR, et al: Comparison of
subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin with intravenous standard
heparin in proximal deep-vein thrombosis. Lancet 339:441-445, 1992.
24. Hull RD, Raskob GL, Pineo GF, et al: Subcutaneous
low-molecular-weight heparin compared with continuous intravenous
heparin in the treatment of proximal vein thrombosis. N Engl J Med
25. Hirsh J, Warkentin TW, Raschke R, et al: Heparin and
low-molecular-weight heparin: Mechanisms of action, pharmacokinetics,
dosing considerations, monitoring, efficacy, and safety. Chest
26. Brill-Edwards P, Ginsberg JS, Johnston M, et al: Establishing a
therapeutic range for heparin therapy. Ann Intern Med 119:104-109, 1993.
27. Levine MN, Hirsh J, Gent M, et al: A randomized trial comparing
activated thromboplastin time with heparin assay in patients with
acute venous thromboembolism requiring large daily doses of heparin.
Arch Intern Med 154:49-56, 1994.
28. Hyers TM, Agnelli A, Hull R, et al: Antithrombotic therapy for
venous thromboembolic disease. Chest 114:561S-578S, 1998.
29. Warkentin TE, Levine MN, Hirsh J, et al: Heparin-induced
thrombocytopenia in patients treated with low-molecular-weight
heparin or unfractionated heparin. N Engl J Med 332:1330-1335, 1995.
30. Weitz JI: Low molecular weight heparins. N Engl J Med
31. Gould MK, Dembitzer AD, Sanders GD, et al: Low-molecular-weight
heparins compared with unfractionated heparin for treatment of acute
deep venous thrombosis: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med
32. Hull RD, Raskob GE, Rosenbloom D, et al: Treatment of proximal
vein thrombosis with subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin vs
intravenous heparin: An economic perspective. Arch Intern Med
33. Siragusa S, Cosmi B, Piovella F, et al: Low molecular weight
heparins and unfractionated heparin in the treatment of patients with
acute venous thromboembolism: Results of a meta-analysis. Am J Med
34. Lensing AWA, Prins MH, Davidson BL, et al: Treatment of deep
venous thrombosis with low molecular weight heparins: A
meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med 155:601-607, 1995.
35. Leizorovicz A, Simonneau G, Decousus H, et al: Comparison of
efficacy and safety of low-molecular-weight heparins and
unfractionated heparin in initial treatment of deep-vein thrombosis:
A meta-analysis. Br Med J 309:299-304, 1994.
36. Muir JM, Weitz JI, Andrew M, et al: A histomorphometric
comparison of the effects of heparin and low molecular weight heparin
on cancellous bone in rats. Blood 89:3236-3242, 1997.
37. Shaughnessy SG, Young E, Deschamps P, et al: The effects of low
molecular weight and standard heparin on calcium loss from fetal rate
calvaria. Blood 86:1368-1373, 1995.
38. Monreal M, Lafoz E, Olive A, et al: Comparison of subcutaneous
unfractionated heparin with a low molecular weight heparin (Fragmin)
in patients with venous thromboembolism and contraindications to
coumarin. Thromb Haemost 71:7-11, 1994.
39. Lebeau B, Chastang C, Brechot J-M, et al: Subcutaneous heparin
treatment increases survival in small-cell lung cancer. Cancer
40. Norrby K: Heparin and Angiogenesis: A low-molecular-weight
fraction inhibits and a high-molecular-weight fraction stimulates
angiogenesis systemically. Haemostasis 23(suppl 1):141-149, 1993.
41. Folkman J, Langer R, Linhardt RJ, et al: Angiogenesis inhibition
and tumour regression caused by heparin or heparin fragment in the
presence of cortisone. Science 221:719-725, 1983.
42. Levine MN, Raskob G, Landefeld S, et al: Hemorrhagic
complications of anticoagulant treatment. Chest 114:511S-523S, 1998.
43. Hirsh J, Dalen JE, Anderson D, et al: Oral anticoagulants:
Mechanism of action, clinical effectiveness, and optimal therapeutic
range. Chest 114:445S-469S, 1998.
44. Harrison L, Johnston M, Massicotte MP, et al: Comparison of 5-mg
and 10-mg loading doses in initiation of warfarin therapy. Ann Intern
Med 126:133-136, 1997.
45. Wester JPJ, de Valk HW, Nieuwenhuis HK, et al: Risk factors for
bleeding during treatment of acute venous thromboembolism. Thromb
Haemost 76:682-688, 1996.
46. Gitter MJ, Jaeger TM, Petterson TM, et al: Bleeding and
thromboembolism during anticoagulant therapy: A population-based
study in Rochester, Minnesota. Mayo Clin Proc 70:725-733, 1995.
47. Prandoni P: Antithrombotic strategies in patients with cancer.
Thromb Haemost 78:141-144, 1997.
48. Prandoni P, Lensing AWA, Cogo A, et al: The long-term clinical
course of acute deep venous thrombosis. Ann Intern Med 125:1-7, 1996.
49. Bona RD, Hickey AD, Wallace DM: Efficacy and safety of oral
anticoagulation in patients with cancer. Thromb Haemost 78:137-140, 1997.
50. Bona RD, Sivjee KY, Hickey AD, et al: The efficacy and safety of
oral anticoagulation in patients with cancer. Thromb Haemost
51. Kearon C, Gent M, Hirsh J, et al: A comparison of 3 months of
anticoagulation with extended anticoagulation for a first episode of
idiopathic venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med 340:901-907, 1999.
52. Chan A, Woodruff RK: Complications and failure of anticoagulation
therapy in the treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with
disseminated malignancy. Aust NZ J Med 22:119-122, 1992.
53. Walsh-McMonagle D, Green D: Low-molecular-weight heparin in the
management of Trousseaus syndrome. Cancer 80:649-655, 1997.
54. Woerner EM, Rowe RL: Trousseaus syndrome. Am Fam Physician
55. Sanson B-J, Lensing AWA, Prins MH, et al: Safety of
low-molecular-weight heparin in pregnancy: A systematic review.
Thromb Haemost 81:668-672, 1999.
56. Nelson-Piercy C, Letsky EA, de Swiet M: Low-molecular-weight
heparin for obstetric thromboprophylaxis: Experience of 69
pregnancies in 61 women at high risk. Am J Obstet Gynecol
57. Melissari E, Parker CJ, Wilson NV, et al: Use of low molecular
weight heparin in pregnancy. Thromb Hameost 68:652-656, 1992.
58. Pini M, Aiello S, Manotti C, et al: Low molecular weight heparin
vs warfarin in the prevention of recurrences after deep-vein
thrombosis. Thromb Haemost 72:191-197, 1994.
59. Schwarz RE, Marrero AM, Conlon KC, et al: Inferior vena cava
filters in cancer patients: Indications and outcomes. J Clin Oncol
60. Decousus H, Leizorovicz A, Parent F, et al: A clinical trial of
vena caval filters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism in
patients with proximal deep-vein thrombosis: Prevention du Risque
dEmblie Pulmonaire par Interruption Cave Study Group. N Engl J
Med 338:409-415, 1998.
61. Arcasoy SM, Kreit JW: Thrombolytic therapy of pulmonary embolism:
A comprehensive review of current evidence. Chest 115:1695-1707, 1999.
62. Elliott G: Thrombolytic therapy for venous thromboembolism. Curr
Opin Hematol 6:304-308, 1999.
63. Kanter DS, Mikkola KM, Patel SR, et al: Thrombolytic therapy for
pulmonary embolism: Frequency of intracranial hemorrhage and
associated risk factors. Chest 111:1241-1245, 1997.
64. Levine MN, Goldhaber SZ, Gore JM, et al: Hemorrhagic
complications of thrombolytic therapy in the treatment of myocardial
infarction and venous thromboembolism. Chest 108:291-301S, 1995.
65. Rogers LQ, Lutcher CL: Streptokinase therapy for deep-vein
thrombosis: A comprehensive review of the English literature. Am J
Med 88:389-395, 1990.
66. Golhaber SZ: Contemporary pulmonary embolism thrombolysis. Int J
Cardiol 65(suppl 1):S91-93, 1998.
67. Konstantinides S, Tiede N, Geibel A, et al: Comparison of
alteplase vs heparin for resolution of major pulmonary embolism. Am J
Cardiol 82:966-970, 1998.
68. Meneveau N, Shiele F, Metz D, et al: Comparative efficacy of a
two-hour regimen of streptokinase vs alteplase in acute massive
pulmonary embolism: Immediate clinical and hemodynamic outcome and
1-year follow-up. J Am Coll Cardiol 31:1057-1063, 1998.
69. Bona RD: Thrombotic complication of central venous catheters in
cancer patients. Semin Thromb Hemost 25:147-157, 1999.
70. Balestreri L, De Cicco M, Matovic M, et al: Central venous
catheter-related thrombosis in clinically asymptomatic oncologic
patients: A phlebographic study. Eur J Radiol 20:108-111, 1995.
71. Horne MK III, May DJ, Alexander HR, et al: Venographic
surveillance of tunneled venous access devices in adult oncology
patients. Ann Surg Oncol 2:174-178, 1995.
72. Eastridge BJ, Lefor AT: Complications of indwelling venous access
devices in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 13:233-238, 1995.
73. Haire WD, Lieberman RP, Lund GB, et al: Thrombotic complications
of silicone rubber catheters during autologous marrow and peripheral
stem cell transplantation: Prospective comparsion of Hickman and
Groshong catheters. Bone Marrow Transplant 7:57-59, 1991.
74. Nightingale CE, Norman A, Cunningham D, et al: A prospective
analysis of 949 long-term central venous access catheters for
ambulatory chemotherapy in patients with gastrointestinal malignancy.
Eur J Cancer 33:398-403, 1997.
75. Puel V, Cuadry M, LeMetayer P, et al: Superior vena cava
thrombosis related to catheter malposition in cancer chemotherapy
given through implanted ports. Cancer 72:2248-2252, 1993.
76. Raad I, Luna M, Khalil SM, et al: The relationship between the
thrombotic and infectious complications of central venous catheters.
JAMA 271:1014-1016, 1994.
77. Stillman RM, Soliman F, Carcia L, et al: Etiology of
catheter-associated sepsis: Correlation with thrombogenicity. Arch
Surg 112:1497-1499, 1977.
78. Conlan MG, Haire WD, Lieberman RP, et al: Catheter related
thrombosis in patients with refractory lymphoma undergoing autologous
stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant 7:235-240, 1991.
79. Barbui T, Finazzi G, Grassi A, et al: Thrombosis in cancer
patients treated with hematopoietic growth factorsa meta-analysis.
Thromb Haemost 75:368-371, 1996.
80. Stephens LC, Haire WD, Schmit-Pokorny K, et al: Granulocyte
macrophage colony stimulating factor: High incidence of apheresis
catheter thrombosis during peripheral stem cell collection. Bone
Marrow Transplant 11:51-54, 1993.
81. Prandoni P, Polistena P, Bernardi E, et al: Upper extremity
deep-vein thrombosis: Risk factors, diagnosis, and complications.
Arch Intern Med 157:57-62, 1997.
82. Koskoy C, Kuzu A, Kutlay J, et al: The diagnostic value of colour
Doppler ultrasound in central venous catheter-related thrombosis.
Clin Radiol 50:687-689, 1995.
83. Longley DG, Finlay DE, Letourneau JG: Sonography of the upper
extremity and jugular veins. Am J Radiol 160:957-962, 1993.
84. Grassi CJ, Polak JF: Axillary and sub-clavian venous thrombosis:
Follow-up evaluation with color Doppler flow US and venography.
Radiology 175:651-654, 1990.
85. Podoloff DA, Kim EE: Evaluation of sensitivity and specificity of
upper extremity radionuclide venography in cancer patients with
indwelling central venous catheters. Clin Nucl Med 17:457-462, 1992.
86. Dhekne RD, Moore WH, Peters C, et al: Upper extremity
radionuclide venography in the diagnosis and management of venous
disease associated with intravenous catheters. Angiology 39:907-914, 1988.
87. Haire WD, Lynch TG, Lieberman RP, et al: Utility of duplex
ultrasound in the diagnosis of asymptomatic catheter-induced
subclavian vein thrombosis. J Ultrasound Med 10:493-496, 1991.
88. Horne MK, Mayo DJ, Alexander HR, et al: Upper extremity impedance
plethysmography in patients with venous access devices. Thromb
Haemost 72:540-542, 1994.
89. Bern MM, Lokich JJ, Wallach SR, et al: Very low doses of warfarin
can prevent thrombosis in central venous catheters: A randomized
prospective trial. Ann Intern Med 112:423-428, 1990.
90. Monreal M, Alastrel A, Rull M, et al: Upper Extremity deep-vein
thrombosis in cancer patients with venous access
devicesprophylaxis with a low molecular weight heparin
(Fragmin). Thromb Haemost 75:251-253, 1996.
91. Haire WD, Atkinson JB, Stephens LC, et al: Urokinase vs
recombinant tissue plasminogen activator in thrombosed central venous
catheters: A double-blinded, randomized trial. Thromb Haemost
92. Haire WD, Lieberman RP, Lund GB, et al: Obstructed central venous
catheters:. Restoring function with a 12-hour infusion of low-dose
urokinase. Cancer 66:2279-2285, 1990.
93. Fraschini G, Jadeja J, Lawson M, et al: Local infusion of
urokinase for the lysis of thrombosis associated with permanent
central venous catheters in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 5:672-678, 1987.
94. Gould JR, Carloss HW, Skinner WL: Groshong catheter-associated
subclavian venous thrombosis. Am J Med 95:419-423, 1993.
95. Anderson AJ, Krasnow SH, Boyer MW, et al: Thrombosis: The major
Hickman catheter complication in patients with solid tumor. Chest
96. Levine M, Hirsh J, Gent M, et al: Double-blind randomized trial
of a very-low-dose warfarin for prevention of thromboembolism in
stage IV breast cancer. Lancet 343:886-889, 1994.
97. Wentzien TH, OReilly RA, Kearns PJ: Prospective evaluation
of anticoagulant reversal with oral vitamin K1 while continuing
warfarin therapy unchanged. Chest 114:1546-1550, 1998.
98. Hirsh J: Reversal of the anticoagulant effects of warfarin by
vitamin K1. Chest 114:1505-1508, 1998.