Fosaprepitant-induced phlebitis: A focus on patients receiving doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide therapy.

Abstract

e20605 Background: Intravenous (IV) fosaprepitant is a potent antiemetic, commonly used in patients receiving chemotherapy. The purpose of this study was to investigate the incidence of IV fosaprepitant-associated infusion site adverse events (ISAEs) among a cohort of breast cancer patients receiving doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) chemotherapy at Mayo Rochester. Methods: A retrospective review of electronic medical record (EMR) data was performed for all patients who were initiated on AC chemotherapy from January 2011 to April 2012. Data collected from the EMR included baseline demographics, antiemetic regimen, documentation of ISAEs and type of IV access (peripheral vs. central). Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation or percentages) were summarized overall and by type of IV access and initially administered antiemetic. Results: 148 patients were included, with a median age of 54 years (range 28-76). 98 patients initially received IV fosaprepitant; 44 oral aprepitant; 6 neither. 132 (89%) initially had peripheral IV access and 16 (11%) had central venous access. Overall, 33 patients (34%) experienced an IV fosaprepitant associated ISAE including: erythema (n=22), pain (n=26), swelling (n=12), infusion site hives (n=5), extravasation (n=4), deep venous thrombosis (n=3), superficial thrombosis (n=7), phlebitis/thrombophlebitis (n=5), venous discoloration (n=1), venous engorgement (n=1), venous hardening/induration (n=4) and local scarring (n=1). Only 1 patient (2%) experienced an oral aprepitant associated ISAE, which was infusion site pain. This patient had previously had a fosaprepitant associated ISAE at the same site. All experienced ISAEs occurred in patients with peripheral IV access. Conclusions: The incidence and severity of ISAEs associated with IV fosaprepitant administration among a group of patients receiving doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide chemotherapy is significant and is appreciably higher than what has been noted in other reports. The higher incidence observed is likely related to the predominance of peripheral venous access used in the studied cohort.