4.4 Article

Inherited thrombophilic factors do not increase central venous catheter blockage in children with malignancy

期刊

PEDIATRIC BLOOD & CANCER
卷 51, 期 4, 页码 509-512

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pbc.21617

关键词

Chinese children; central venous catheter blockage; inherited thrombophilic factors; malignancy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Central venous catheter (CVC) blockage is a common complication in pediatric oncology patients. We investigated whether inherited thrombophilic factors may predispose Chinese children with cancer to CVC blockage. Method. Newly diagnosed patients with CVC inserted were recruited during a 30-month period and prospectively followed until CVC removal, end of treatment or death. Protein C (PC), protein S (PS), anti-thrombin III (AT-III), Factor V Leiden (FVL), prothrombin 20210 variant (1)20210), and methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) polymorphism) (C677T), were studied with other acquired factors. The primary endpoint was CVC blockage and symptomatic thromboembolic events (TE) were recorded. Result. Thirty-six patients were recruited. CVC blockage was found in 3/36 (8.3`%) and the incidence was 0.23 per 1, 000 catheter-days. Among the 3 with CVC blockage, 2 were heterozygous for MTHFR polymorphism and 1 was heterozygous for PC deficiency. One with ALL developed superior saggital sinus thrombosis while oil asparaginase and lie was heterozygous for MTHFR polymorphism. One ALL patient with combined heterozygous MTHFR polymorphism, PC and PS deficiency did riot develop any CVC blockage during a median follow-up of 3.8 years. AT-III deficiency, FVL and p20210 were not found in all patients. Conclusion. Compared to previous studies, Our cohort had a much lower incidence of CVC blockage. A different pattern of inherited thrombophilic factors was found With heterozygous MTHFR polymorphism being the most common. We concluded that inherited thrombophilic factors alone were riot associated with CVC blockage in our pediatric cancer patient population.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据