The role of body mass index in the development of thromboembolic events among cancer patients with PICCs: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) guarantee a stable and safe vascular access to administer irritants or vesicants therapies. However, they may occasionally be affected by relevant thrombotic complications especially in patients with hypercoagulability such as oncological patients. Among the identification of independent risk factors, the role of body mass index (BMI) ≥25 kg/m is now emerging in literature with conflicting results. The aim of this systematic review is to analyze the available scientific literature in order to determine whether BMI could represent a risk factor in the development of thromboembolic event among cancer patients with PICCs.

DATA SOURCES AND REVIEW METHODS

A scientific literature review was performed in Pubmed, Embase and Cinahl from Jan 1, 2010 to September 10, 2020 in which we identified 100 records. Of these, 88 were excluded and 14 were reviewed in full text. Among the reviewed records, 6 articles satisfied the inclusion criteria for analysis. These criteria included the English language, oncological patients with PICCs, the evaluation of catheter-related thrombosis as well as the stratification of patients according to BMI. Studies off topic and lacking data on PICC related complications among overweight and underweight patients were excluded. The includedstudies, judged with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, was fair-lower quality. The primary endpoint was the relative risk (RR) of PICC-related thrombosis of overweight/obese vs normal weight/underweight (i.e., BMI ≥25 vs <25 kg/m) in cancer patients.

RESULTS

A total of 2431 patients were included in the analysis. Overall, 15.1% of patients developed PICC-related thrombosis within a median time of 23.2 days (range 11.0-42.5) after PICC implantation. Concerning BMI, 52.6% of the entire population was overweight/obese. We assessed the proportion of patients with PICC-related thrombotic events in the two groups, with 28% (95% CI, 12%-45%) of events registered in the overweight/obese patients cohort, and 13% (95% CI, 6%-19%) in the normal weight/underweight cohort. The pooled relative risk (RR) was 2.06 (95% CI, 1.21-3.49, p<0.001) in overweight/obese vs normal weight/underweight patients.

CONCLUSION

This review showed a two-fold risk of thrombosis in overweight/obese compared to normal weight/underweight oncological patients with PICCs. Underweight condition could also play a role in thrombosis development, especially in nasopharyngeal and digestive system cancer. Future prospective studies are needed to achieve reliable results and produce useful conclusion.