Abstract

Central venous catheters (CVCs) are a common adjunct to hemophilia therapy, but the risk of CVC-related deep venous thrombosis (DVT) in hemophiliacs is not well defined. In a previous study, 13 patients with CVCs had no radiographic evidence of DVT. However, recent abstracts and case studies demonstrate that DVT does occur. Therefore, this study sought to determine the frequency of DVT in children with hemophilia and long-term CVCs and to correlate venographic findings with clinical features. All hemophilia patients with tunneled subclavian CVCs in place for 12 months or more were candidates for evaluation. Patients were examined for physical signs of DVT and questioned about catheter dysfunction. Contrast venograms were obtained to identify DVT. Fifteen boys with severe hemophilia were evaluated, including 9 from the initially studied group of 13. Eight patients had evidence of DVT, 5 of whom previously had normal venograms. Five of 15 patients had clinical problems related to the CVC, all of whom had DVT. Four of 15 patients had suggestive physical signs; 3 had DVT. The mean duration of catheter placement for all patients was 57.5 months (range, 12-102 months). For patients with DVT, the mean duration was 66.6 ± 7.5 months, compared to 49.5 ± 7.2 months for patients without DVT (P = .06). No patient whose CVC was in place fewer than 48 months had an abnormal venogram. Many hemophilia patients with CVCs develop DVT of the upper venous system, and the risk increases with duration of catheter placement.

Introduction

Infusion of coagulation factor through peripheral veins is simple and effective, but frequent venipuncture is often painful and not possible for some patients with hemophilia. Central venous catheters (CVCs) facilitate the infusion of coagulation factors, especially in demanding regimens of primary prophylaxis and induction of immune tolerance in patients with inhibitors.1-3 Many families request CVCs for domiciliary, on-demand infusions as well. Thus, CVCs are an increasingly common adjunct to the therapy of hemophilia.

The CVCs can be problematic because of mechanical dysfunction and the risk of infection and deep venous thrombosis (DVT). Published series of hemophilia patients with CVCs have thoroughly described the risk of infection2,4-6; however, the frequency of thrombosis is not adequately documented. Indeed, a CVC is the greatest risk factor for DVT in childhood.7,8 As many as two thirds of children who receive total parenteral nutrition (TPN) or antineoplastic chemotherapy develop catheter-related DVT.9-13Nevertheless, investigation of CVC-related DVT in patients with hemophilia is lacking, perhaps because it seems paradoxical that individuals with bleeding disorders might develop DVT.

In 1998, we reported a favorable experience in 13 patients with hemophilia who had CVCs.14 None had definitive radiographic evidence of DVT in the upper venous system (the subclavian, brachiocephalic, or jugular veins, or the superior vena cava) despite having had catheters in place for 10 to 60 months (mean, 23 months). However, a recent abstract15 and several case studies16,17 indicate that thrombosis does occur in patients with hemophilia. Because we recently identified thrombi in several of our patients, we further investigated this issue.

The objective of this study was to determine the frequency of DVT in children with hemophilia whose CVCs had been implanted for 1 year or longer. We used contrast venography to identify thrombi because it is the “gold standard” for detection of upper venous system thrombosis.8,14 

Patients, materials, and methods

We reviewed the records of all patients with hemophilia at our center who had tunneled, internal CVCs (infusion ports, eg, Port-a-Cath), all of which were placed in a subclavian vein. Any patient whose CVC had been in place for more than 12 months was a candidate to be evaluated by contrast venography for DVT involving the subclavian, brachiocephalic, or jugular veins, or the superior vena cava. In particular, we attempted to re-evaluate each of the 13 patients whom we had previously studied.14 The potential risks of radiation exposure and contrast injection were discussed with the patients and their parents. No parent declined to have his or her child evaluated, and informed consent was obtained in each case.

Venograms were obtained by injection of radiocontrast medium into the ipsilateral antecubital vein (relative to the side of CVC insertion) by a method previously described.14 Thrombosis was defined as 2 or more of the following: (1) stenosis or occlusion (or both) of the superior vena cava or of the subclavian, brachiocephalic, or jugular vein; (2) poststenotic dilation; or, (3) prominent collateral veins proximal or distal to a probable stenosis or occlusion.

Patients who underwent venography were examined carefully for dilated veins on the chest wall and swelling, tenderness, or erythema of the arms. Patients' parents were questioned about difficulties using the CVC, such as resistance to infusion, absence of blood return, and pain with accession. We recorded any episode of documented pulmonary embolism and any history of respiratory distress or chest pain that might indicate pulmonary embolism.

We correlated the clinical features of the patients with the results of venography, and we compared the mean time of catheter insertion between the groups of boys with and without DVT using a one-tailed ttest. The probability of remaining free of DVT after insertion of a CVC was also calculated.

Results

Patients

Fifteen boys were evaluated, 9 from the previously studied group of 13 and 6 additional patients. The mean age of the patients at time of venography was 9.2 years (range, 4-14 years). Thirteen patients had severe factor VIII deficiency and 2 had severe factor IX deficiency. The reasons for CVC placement included primary prophylaxis (n = 12) and immune tolerance for an inhibitor (n = 3). The patients' characteristics are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Characteristics of patients

Patient
no.* 
Type of
hemophilia 
Age at time of
catheter insertion (y) 
Age at time of
venogram (y) 
Reason catheter
inserted 
Interval from catheter
insertion to venogram (mo) 
Venogram
result 
VIII Prophylaxis 42 Normal 
  12 Replacement/prophylaxis 46 Normal 
VIII Prophylaxis 10 Normal 
    48 DVT 
VIII 11 Prophylaxis 31 Normal 
   14  60 Normal  
VII Immune tolerance 24 Normal  
    62 DVT 
VIII Prophylaxis 17 Normal 
    65 Normal  
VIII Immune tolerance 27 Normal  
   12  73 Normal 
VIII Prophylaxis 28 Normal 
   10  75 DVT 
IX Prophylaxis 30 Normal 
    79 DVT 
IX Prophylaxis 59 Normal 
   12  102 DVT 
10 VIII 1.5 — Prophylaxis — Not done 
  Prophylaxis 12 Old DVT 
11 VIII Prophylaxis 37 Normal 
12 VIII Prophylaxis 37 Normal 
13 VIII Prophylaxis 49 DVT 
14 VIII 14 Prophylaxis 51 DVT 
15 VIII 13 Immune tolerance 66 Normal 
Patient
no.* 
Type of
hemophilia 
Age at time of
catheter insertion (y) 
Age at time of
venogram (y) 
Reason catheter
inserted 
Interval from catheter
insertion to venogram (mo) 
Venogram
result 
VIII Prophylaxis 42 Normal 
  12 Replacement/prophylaxis 46 Normal 
VIII Prophylaxis 10 Normal 
    48 DVT 
VIII 11 Prophylaxis 31 Normal 
   14  60 Normal  
VII Immune tolerance 24 Normal  
    62 DVT 
VIII Prophylaxis 17 Normal 
    65 Normal  
VIII Immune tolerance 27 Normal  
   12  73 Normal 
VIII Prophylaxis 28 Normal 
   10  75 DVT 
IX Prophylaxis 30 Normal 
    79 DVT 
IX Prophylaxis 59 Normal 
   12  102 DVT 
10 VIII 1.5 — Prophylaxis — Not done 
  Prophylaxis 12 Old DVT 
11 VIII Prophylaxis 37 Normal 
12 VIII Prophylaxis 37 Normal 
13 VIII Prophylaxis 49 DVT 
14 VIII 14 Prophylaxis 51 DVT 
15 VIII 13 Immune tolerance 66 Normal 
*

Patients 1 through 9 are both previously and newly studied; patients 10 through 15 are newly studied.

Three patients had more than one CVC. Patients 1 and 4 had their first CVCs replaced because of catheter tip migration. At the time of venography, their second CVCs had been in place for 46 and 62 months, respectively. Patient 10 had his CVC replaced after 41 months because of recurrent infection and mechanical dysfunction. His second CVC had been in place for 12 months when the venogram was obtained.

Three of the 4 previously studied patients who did not have a second venogram are no longer followed at our center. One had his CVC removed after 5 years because of catheter migration. The other 2 have had patent catheters for over 4 years; one of them had a normal contrast dye study of the line to test for patency. The remaining patient from the first study who was not re-evaluated outgrew his CVC, and it was replaced after 57 months. He is scheduled to have a venogram as part of his next comprehensive evaluation.

Contrast venography

Eight of 15 patients (53%) had abnormal venograms consistent with DVT (Table 2). Five of the patients from the first study, all of whom had previously normal venograms, now had evidence of DVT. Three of the 6 newly evaluated patients also had abnormal venograms. Figure 1 shows a representative abnormal venogram (patient 14).

Table 2.

Patients with abnormal venogram

Patient no. History of problems with CVC Physical examination Venogram findings Outcome 
No blood return and resistance to infusion Normal Venous stricture at catheter insertion and multiple collaterals around the left subclavian vein Catheter removed  
Discomfort in neck with CVC use and resistance to infusion Few dilated veins on upper left chest wall and left shoulder; left arm 2 cm greater in diameter than the right Occluded right subclavian vein with multiple collaterals Catheter removed  
None Normal Narrowing of the proximal right subclavian with mild poststenotic dilation Scheduled catheter removal 
None Normal Chronic thrombosis of left subclavian and brachiocephalic veins and superior vena cava; numerous mediastinal collaterals Catheter removed  
No blood return, resistance to infusion, discomfort with CVC use Normal Proximal subclavian vein narrowing with collateral formation; nonocclusive 4-5 cm thrombus Catheter removed  
10 None Prominent chest wall veins and left arm 1 cm greater in diameter than the right Thrombosis or stricture of left subclavian and brachiocephalic veins with multiple collaterals Catheter removed 
13 Resistance to infusion Normal Multiple collaterals around the right subclavian vein, suggesting a proximal stenosis Catheter removed  
14 No blood return Right arm 2 cm greater in diameter than left Stricture of right subclavian vein with multiple collaterals Catheter removed 
Patient no. History of problems with CVC Physical examination Venogram findings Outcome 
No blood return and resistance to infusion Normal Venous stricture at catheter insertion and multiple collaterals around the left subclavian vein Catheter removed  
Discomfort in neck with CVC use and resistance to infusion Few dilated veins on upper left chest wall and left shoulder; left arm 2 cm greater in diameter than the right Occluded right subclavian vein with multiple collaterals Catheter removed  
None Normal Narrowing of the proximal right subclavian with mild poststenotic dilation Scheduled catheter removal 
None Normal Chronic thrombosis of left subclavian and brachiocephalic veins and superior vena cava; numerous mediastinal collaterals Catheter removed  
No blood return, resistance to infusion, discomfort with CVC use Normal Proximal subclavian vein narrowing with collateral formation; nonocclusive 4-5 cm thrombus Catheter removed  
10 None Prominent chest wall veins and left arm 1 cm greater in diameter than the right Thrombosis or stricture of left subclavian and brachiocephalic veins with multiple collaterals Catheter removed 
13 Resistance to infusion Normal Multiple collaterals around the right subclavian vein, suggesting a proximal stenosis Catheter removed  
14 No blood return Right arm 2 cm greater in diameter than left Stricture of right subclavian vein with multiple collaterals Catheter removed 
Fig. 1.

Abnormal venogram.

Patient 14 had multiple collateral vessels in the right mid-subclavian region providing antegrade flow around the obstruction of the proximal subclavian vein.

Fig. 1.

Abnormal venogram.

Patient 14 had multiple collateral vessels in the right mid-subclavian region providing antegrade flow around the obstruction of the proximal subclavian vein.

Patient 10 had transferred from another physician's care. His first CVC was in place for 41 months, but it was removed because of recurrent infection and mechanical dysfunction. This patient did not have prior radiographic studies. We evaluated him 12 months after insertion of a second CVC in the opposite subclavian vein. His venogram was consistent with DVT in his left superior venous system where his previous catheter had been inserted. There was no evidence of DVT in the right upper venous system, the location of the current CVC.

Clinical problems and physical examinations

Five of 15 patients had clinical problems related to their CVCs, such as discomfort with accession, resistance to infusion, and lack of blood return. All 5 had venographic evidence of DVT. The 3 other patients with DVT had no apparent clinical difficulties.

Four of the 15 patients had physical signs suggestive of DVT, such as slight arm swelling or prominent chest wall veins, but no patient had a functional deficit of the affected arm. Three of these 4 patients had abnormal venograms. The patient with the normal venogram had only mild prominence of superficial veins over the ipsilateral shoulder. In contrast, 5 patients with DVT had normal physical examinations.

Outcome and follow-up

The mean duration of catheter placement for all patients was 57.5 months (median, 60 months; range, 12-102 months). The mean duration of CVC placement in the patients with DVT was 66.6 ± 7.5 months (SEM) compared to 49.5 ± 7.2 months for the patients without DVT (P = .06). Figure 2 depicts the probability of remaining free of DVT after CVC insertion. No patient whose catheter was in place for fewer than 48 months had an abnormal venogram associated with his current CVC, whereas all patients whose catheter was in place longer than 73 months had venographic evidence of a DVT.

Fig. 2.

Probability of remaining free of DVT after the insertion of a CVC.

Fig. 2.

Probability of remaining free of DVT after the insertion of a CVC.

We removed the CVCs from 6 of the 8 patients with DVT because they no longer functioned or had migrated out of the subclavian vein. We discussed the risks of continued use of an apparently functional CVC associated with a DVT with the parents of the remaining 2 boys (patients 7 and 10). Patient 10 had his CVC removed. The family of patient 7 preferred to keep the CVC for frequent prophylactic infusions until they were comfortable with peripheral venous administration.

None of the 8 patients with DVT was treated with systemic fibrinolytic agents or anticoagulants. No patient presented with clinical signs suggestive of pulmonary thromboembolism. No patient had a catheter-related infection, except for patient 10 described previously.

We did not prospectively assay for inherited thrombophilic states in all patients. However, we did test patient 2 because his parents strongly desired placement of a second CVC. He had no demonstrable abnormalities of protein C, protein S, antithrombin, or prothrombin, but he was heterozygous for the factor V Leiden mutation. Because of this finding we discouraged replacement of the CVC and taught the family how to use peripheral veins instead.

Discussion

Regimens of primary prophylaxis beginning in the first year of life can prevent hemophilic arthropathy,1,18,19 and immune tolerance programs can eliminate inhibitors.1 Reliable venous access is needed for these treatments, but repeated peripheral venipuncture can be difficult or impossible in very young children. CVCs can make these intensive and effective treatment approaches more feasible and more convenient.20-22 However, the widespread use of CVCs is now being re-evaluated because of complications such as infection and thrombosis.

Five recent series describing more than 100 hemophilia patients with CVCs have documented the risk of catheter-related infection and mechanical dysfunction.2-6,19 Four of the studies mention catheter occlusion in a total of 8 patients, but only Blanchette and coworkers described venographic evidence of DVT in a single patient.19 We report herein a specific investigation for DVT using contrast venography in a cohort of unselected patients with hemophilia and long-term CVCs.

Although we initially reported that catheter-related thrombosis is rare in hemophilia patients,14 with longer follow-up we now realize that DVT is indeed common. Approximately half of our patients with CVCs in place for more than 1 year now have evidence of DVT. We found that the risk of DVT increased with time and was highest when CVCs had been in place 4 years or longer. Three of 8 patients with DVT in this series had suggestive physical signs, and 5 had evidence of catheter dysfunction. Yet, despite the common occurrence of thrombosis, no patient has had clinically apparent pulmonary embolism or symptomatic postphlebitic syndrome.

This study corroborates the findings of other observers reported in abstract form.15,16 Koerper and colleagues performed bilateral venograms on 11 asymptomatic children with hemophilia who had tunneled catheters in place for 1 to 6 years.16 Two patients (22%) had complete occlusion of the left brachiocephalic vein with development of collateral vessels. Blanchette and coworkers evaluated 16 patients with hemophilia who had indwelling catheters for 1 to 40 months using Doppler ultrasonography, dye studies of the central line testing for patency, and venograms.15 Ten of 16 patients (63%) had evidence of a DVT. The site of catheter insertion was not mentioned. Venography identified thrombi in the subclavian and brachiocephalic veins or involving the superior vena cava, but only ultrasonography identified thrombi in the internal jugular vein. These investigators concluded that both ultrasound and radiocontrast studies should be used to evaluate adequately the entire upper venous system. Our patients had only subclavian CVCs, and because it would be unlikely to have jugular venous thrombosis without DVT in contiguous veins, venography alone was deemed sufficient.

Thrombosis in patients with bleeding disorders is seemingly paradoxical. Young patients with hemophilia should not be prone to DVT. They have defective coagulation but are otherwise healthy, and they have no increased risk of concomitant inherited thrombophilia.23,24 Accordingly, Arbini and coworkers tested 21 patients with severe hemophilia but with mild bleeding symptoms for prothrombotic disorders. Only one was heterozygous for the factor V Leiden mutation, and none had an hereditary deficiency of antithrombin, protein C, or protein S.24 Patients with debilitating diseases such as cancer and short-gut syndrome also require tunneled catheters to facilitate the infusion of chemotherapy, blood products, or TPN. These conditions and their treatments can injure the endothelium and promote DVT within months of catheter insertion. As many as 50% of these patients develop CVC-related DVT.11,13,25 We have shown that this risk is ultimately the same for hemophilia patients, but we did not detect thrombosis until CVCs had been in place 4 years or longer. This suggests that thrombi form more slowly in patients with hemophilia, perhaps because hemostasis is only intermittently normalized by factor infusions.

Why so many patients develop DVT is not known. Vidler and colleagues reported 2 patients with severe hemophilia and an inhibitor who had CVC-related DVT.17 Both were treated with high-dose factor infusions and one with an activated prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC). The authors speculated that high-dose factor and procoagulant PCC therapy might have promoted thrombus formation. Three patients in our study received PCC; 2 did not develop DVT. The patient with DVT received PCC only through his first CVC, which was removed after 3 months because of migration of the catheter tip. His DVT occurred approximately 5 years after the insertion of a second CVC. Thus, exposure to a PCC is not a necessary antecedent of thrombosis in hemophilia patients. Perhaps the only requisites are chronic irritation of the vessel wall by a catheter tip and intermittent normalization of coagulation.

Although patients with hemophilia may develop catheter-related DVT, the benefits of CVCs, especially in young patients, likely outweigh the risks. However, caution is urged, and physicians should specifically monitor for DVT. Surveillance should include attention to difficulties with the infusion of factor and examination of the patient for physical signs of DVT. Patients should also be evaluated intermittently for the feasibility of peripheral venipuncture, and families should understand that a CVC is a temporary adjunct to therapy. Removal of catheters within 4 years might prevent thrombosis. Screening venography may be warranted for patients who require CVCs longer. If DVT occurs, one should strongly consider removal of the CVC and the use of peripheral veins instead. Further studies of CVC-related DVT are needed to define the adverse sequelae, the utility of routine screening, and the appropriateness of anticoagulant therapy.

Supported in part by National Institutes of Health Training Grant T32-CA09640, and grants from Maternal and Child Health Bureau (5 H30 MC00029-11), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U27/CCU613189-05), and the Children's Cancer Fund of Dallas.

The publication costs of this article were defrayed in part by page charge payment. Therefore, and solely to indicate this fact, this article is hereby marked “advertisement” in accordance with 18 U.S.C. section 1734.

References

References
1
Ljung
R
Lindgren
A
Tengborn
L
Petrini
P
The feasibility of long-term venous access in children with hemophilia.
Semin Hematol.
31(suppl. 2)
1994
16
18
2
Miller
K
Buchanan
G
Zappa
S
et al. 
Implantable venous access devices in children with hemophilia: a report of low infection rates.
J Pediatr.
132
1998
934
938
3
Bollard
CM
Teague
LR
Berry
EW
Ockelford
PA
The use of central venous catheters (portacaths) in children with haemophilia.
Haemophilia.
6
2000
66
70
4
Ljung
R
van den Berg
M
Petrini
P
et al. 
Port-a-cath usage in children with haemophilia: experience of 53 cases.
Acta Paediatr.
87
1998
1051
1054
5
Collins
PW
Khair
KS
Liesner
R
Hann
M
Complications experienced with central venous catheters in children with congenital bleeding disorders.
Br J Haematol.
99
1997
206
208
6
Liesner
RJ
Vora
AJ
Hann
IM
Lilleyman
JS
Use of central venous catheters in children with severe congenital coagulopathy.
Br J Haematol.
91
1995
203
207
7
Nuss
R
Manco-Johnson
MJ
Venous thrombosis: issues for the pediatrician.
Contemp Pediatr.
17
2000
75
94
8
Massicotte
MP
Dix
D
Monagle
P
Adams
M
Andrew
M
Central venous catheter related thrombosis in children: analysis of the Canadian Registry of Venous Thromboembolic Complications.
J Pediatr.
133
1998
770
775
9
Andrew
M
Marzinotto
V
Pencharz
P
et al. 
A cross sectional study of catheter-related thrombosis in children receiving total parenteral nutrition at home.
J Pediatr.
126
1995
358
63
10
Ross
P
Jr
Ehrenkranz
R
Kleinman
CS
Seashore
JH
Thrombus associated with central venous catheters in infants and children.
J Pediatr Surg.
24
1989
253
256
11
Mitchell
LG
Sutor
AH
Andrew
M
Hemostasis in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia: coagulopathy induced by disease and treatment.
Semin Thromb Hemost.
21
1995
390
401
12
Andrew
M
Michelson
AD
Bovill
E
Leaker
M
Massicotte
MP
Guidelines for antithrombotic therapy in pediatric patients.
J Pediatr.
132
1998
575
588
13
Glaser
DW
Medeiros
D
Rollins
N
Buchanan
GR
Catheter-related thrombosis in children with cancer.
J Pediatr.
138
2001
255
259
14
Medeiros
D
Miller
KL
Rollins
NK
Buchanan
GR
Contrast venography in young haemophiliacs with implantable central venous access devices.
Haemophilia.
4
1998
10
15
15
Blanchette
VS
Al-Trabolsi
H
Stain
AM
et al. 
High risk of central venous line-associated thrombosis in boys with hemophilia [abstract].
Blood.
94
1999
818a
16
Koerper
MA
Esker
S
Cobb
L
Asymptomatic thrombosis of innominate vein in hemophiliac children with subcutaneous venous access devices (ports) [abstract].
National Hemophilia Foundation 48th Annual Meeting
1996
; San Diego, CA.
17
Vidler
V
Richards
M
Vora
A
Central venous catheter-associated thrombosis in severe haemophilia.
Br J Haematol.
104
1999
461
464
18
Nilsson
IM
Berntorp
E
Lofqvist
T
Pettersson
H
Twenty-five years' experience of prophylactic treatment in severe haemophilia A and B.
J Intern Med.
232
1992
25
32
19
Blanchette
VS
Al-Musa
A
Stain
AM
Filler
RM
Ingram
J
Central venous access catheters in children with haemophilia.
Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis.
7(suppl 1)
1996
539
544
20
Perkins
JL
Johnson
VA
Osip
JM
et al. 
The use of implantable venous access devices (IVADs) in children with hemophilia.
J Pediatr Hematol Oncol.
19
1997
339
344
21
Schultz
WH
Ware
R
Filston
HC
Kinney
TR
Prolonged use of an implantable central venous access system in a child with severe hemophilia.
J Pediatr.
114
1989
100
101
22
Vora
AJ
Lilleyman
JS
Vascular access in young haemophiliacs: use of indwelling central venous catheters.
Int J Pediatr Hematol Oncol.
1
1994
521
527
23
Lee
DH
Walker
IR
Teitel
J
et al. 
Effect of the factor V Leiden mutation on the clinical expression of severe hemophilia A.
Thromb Haemost.
83
2000
387
391
24
Arbini
AA
Mannucci
PM
Bauer
KA
Low prevalence of the factor V Leiden mutation among “severe” hemophiliacs with a “milder” bleeding diathesis.
Thromb Haemost.
74
1995
1255
1258
25
Beck
C
Dubois
J
Grignon
A
Lacroix
J
David
M
Incidence and risk factors of catheter-related deep vein thrombosis in pediatric intensive care unit: a prospective study.
J Pediatr.
133
1998
237
241

Author notes

George R. Buchanan, Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Pediatrics, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX 75390-9063; e-mail: George.Buchanan@UTSouthwestern.edu.