A prospective study on the incidence of postoperative venous thromboembolism in Korean gastric cancer patients: an inquiry into the application of Western guidelines to Asian cancer patients.
ABSTRACT: Several Western guidelines recommend the routine use of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis for cancer surgery patients to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, the necessity of routine pharmacologic perioperative thromboprophylaxis in Asian gastric cancer (GC) patients has not been clearly determined. To determine the necessity of routine perioperative pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in Korean gastric cancer patients, the incidence of postoperative VTE was prospectively evaluated in gastric cancer patients receiving surgery. Among 610 GC patients who had received surgery, 375 patents underwent routine duplex Doppler ultrasonography (DUS) on days 5-12 following surgery to detect VTE and then VTE-related symptoms and signs were checked at 4 weeks after surgery (cohort A). The 235 patients that declined DUS were registered to cohort B and the occurrence of postoperative VTE was retrospectively analyzed. In cohort A, symptomatic or asymptomatic VTE until 4 weeks after surgery was detected in 9 patients [2.4%; 95% confidence interval (CI); 0.9-3.9]. Tumor stage was a significant factor related to VTE development [stage I, 1.4%; stage II/III, 2.4%; stage IV, 9.7% (P = 0.008)]. In multivariate analysis, patients with stage IV had a higher postoperative VTE development [odds ratio, 8.18 (95% CI, 1.54-43.42)] than those with stage I. In cohort B, a low incidence of postoperative VTE was reaffirmed; only one postoperative VTE case (0.4%) was observed. In conclusion, the incidence of postoperative VTE in Korean GC patients was only 2.4%. Risk-stratified applications of perioperative pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis are thought to be more appropriate than the routine pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in Korean GC patients receiving surgery.
Project description:Pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is routinely recommended for Western cancer patients undergoing major surgery for prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, it is uncertainwhetherroutine administration of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is necessary in all Asian surgical cancer patients. This prospective study was conducted to examine the incidence of and risk factors for postoperative VTE in Korean colorectal cancer (CRC) patients undergoing major abdominal surgery.This study comprised two cohorts, and none of patients received perioperative pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. In cohort A (n=400), patients were routinely screened for VTE using lower-extremity Doppler ultrasonography (DUS) on postoperative days 5-14. In cohort B (n=148), routine DUS was not performed, and imaging was only performed when there were symptoms or signs that were suspicious for VTE. The primary endpoint was the VTE incidence at 4 weeks postoperatively in cohort A.The postoperative incidence of VTE was 3.0% (n=12) in cohort A. Among the 12 patients, eight had distal calf vein thromboses and one had symptomatic thrombosis. Age ? 70 years (odds ratio [OR], 5.61), ? 2 comorbidities (OR, 13.42), and white blood cell counts of > 10,000/?L (OR, 17.43) were independent risk factors for postoperative VTE (p < 0.05). In cohort B, there was one case of VTE (0.7%).The postoperative incidence of VTE, which included asymptomatic cases, was 3.0% in Korean CRC patients who did not receive pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. Perioperative pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis should be administered to Asian CRC patients on a risk-stratified basis.
Project description:VTE is a serious, but decreasing complication following major orthopedic surgery. This guideline focuses on optimal prophylaxis to reduce postoperative pulmonary embolism and DVT.The methods of this guideline follow those described in Methodology for the Development of Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis Guidelines: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines in this supplement.In patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery, we recommend the use of one of the following rather than no antithrombotic prophylaxis: low-molecular-weight heparin; fondaparinux; dabigatran, apixaban, rivaroxaban (total hip arthroplasty or total knee arthroplasty but not hip fracture surgery); low-dose unfractionated heparin; adjusted-dose vitamin K antagonist; aspirin (all Grade 1B); or an intermittent pneumatic compression device (IPCD) (Grade 1C) for a minimum of 10 to 14 days. We suggest the use of low-molecular-weight heparin in preference to the other agents we have recommended as alternatives (Grade 2C/2B), and in patients receiving pharmacologic prophylaxis, we suggest adding an IPCD during the hospital stay (Grade 2C). We suggest extending thromboprophylaxis for up to 35 days (Grade 2B). In patients at increased bleeding risk, we suggest an IPCD or no prophylaxis (Grade 2C). In patients who decline injections, we recommend using apixaban or dabigatran (all Grade 1B). We suggest against using inferior vena cava filter placement for primary prevention in patients with contraindications to both pharmacologic and mechanical thromboprophylaxis (Grade 2C). We recommend against Doppler (or duplex) ultrasonography screening before hospital discharge (Grade 1B). For patients with isolated lower-extremity injuries requiring leg immobilization, we suggest no thromboprophylaxis (Grade 2B). For patients undergoing knee arthroscopy without a history of VTE, we suggest no thromboprophylaxis (Grade 2B).Optimal strategies for thromboprophylaxis after major orthopedic surgery include pharmacologic and mechanical approaches.
Project description:BACKGROUND:In patients who undergo curative treatment for oesophageal cancer, risk estimates of venous thromboembolism (VTE), arterial thromboembolism and bleeding are needed to guide decisions about thromboprophylaxis. METHODS:This was a single-centre, retrospective cohort study of patients with stage I-III oesophageal cancer who received neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by oesophagectomy. The outcomes VTE, arterial thromboembolism, major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major bleeding and mortality were analysed for four consecutive cancer treatment stages (from diagnosis to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, during neoadjuvant treatment, 30-day postoperative period, and up to 6?months after postoperative period). RESULTS:Some 511 patients were included. The 2-year survival rate was 67·3 (95 per cent c.i. 63·2 to 71·7) per cent. During the 2-year follow-up, 50 patients (9·8 per cent) developed VTE, 20 (3·9 per cent) arterial thromboembolism, 21 (4·1 per cent) major bleeding and 30 (5·9 per cent) clinically relevant non-major bleeding. The risk of these events was substantial at all treatment stages. Despite 30-day postoperative thromboprophylaxis, 17 patients (3·3 per cent) developed VTE after surgery. Patients with VTE had worse survival (time-varying hazard ratio 1·81, 95 per cent c.i. 1·25 to 2·64). Most bleeding events occurred around the time of medical intervention, and approximately one-half during concomitant use of prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation. CONCLUSION:Patients with oesophageal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery are at substantial risk of thromboembolic and bleeding events throughout all stages of treatment. Survival is worse in patients with thromboembolic events during follow-up.
Project description:VTE is a common cause of preventable death in surgical patients.We developed recommendations for thromboprophylaxis in nonorthopedic surgical patients by using systematic methods as described in Methodology for the Development of Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis Guidelines. Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines in this supplement.We describe several alternatives for stratifying the risk of VTE in general and abdominal-pelvic surgical patients. When the risk for VTE is very low (< 0.5%), we recommend that no specific pharmacologic (Grade 1B) or mechanical (Grade 2C) prophylaxis be used other than early ambulation. For patients at low risk for VTE (?1.5%), we suggest mechanical prophylaxis, preferably with intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC), over no prophylaxis (Grade 2C). For patients at moderate risk for VTE (?3%) who are not at high risk for major bleeding complications, we suggest low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) (Grade 2B), low-dose unfractionated heparin (Grade 2B), or mechanical prophylaxis with IPC (Grade 2C) over no prophylaxis. For patients at high risk for VTE (?6%) who are not at high risk for major bleeding complications, we recommend pharmacologic prophylaxis with LMWH (Grade 1B) or low-dose unfractionated heparin (Grade 1B) over no prophylaxis. In these patients, we suggest adding mechanical prophylaxis with elastic stockings or IPC to pharmacologic prophylaxis (Grade 2C). For patients at high risk for VTE undergoing abdominal or pelvic surgery for cancer, we recommend extended-duration, postoperative, pharmacologic prophylaxis (4 weeks) with LMWH over limited-duration prophylaxis (Grade 1B). For patients at moderate to high risk for VTE who are at high risk for major bleeding complications or those in whom the consequences of bleeding are believed to be particularly severe, we suggest use of mechanical prophylaxis, preferably with IPC, over no prophylaxis until the risk of bleeding diminishes and pharmacologic prophylaxis may be initiated (Grade 2C). For patients in all risk groups, we suggest that an inferior vena cava filter not be used for primary VTE prevention (Grade 2C) and that surveillance with venous compression ultrasonography should not be performed (Grade 2C). We developed similar recommendations for other nonorthopedic surgical populations.Optimal thromboprophylaxis in nonorthopedic surgical patients will consider the risks of VTE and bleeding complications as well as the values and preferences of individual patients.
Project description:Background: Emerging evidence shows that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is commonly complicated by coagulopathy, and venous thromboembolism (VTE) is considered to be a potential cause of unexplained death. Information on the incidence of VTE in COVID-19 patients, however, remains unclear. Method: English-language databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane), Chinese-language databases (CNKI, VIP, WANFANG), and preprint platforms were searched to identify studies with data of VTE occurrence in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Pooled incidence and relative risks (RRs) of VTE were estimated by a random-effects model. Variations were examined based on clinical manifestations of VTE (pulmonary embolism-PE and deep vein thrombosis-DVT), disease severity (severe patients and non-severe patients), and rate of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis (?60 and <60%). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to strengthen the robustness of results. Meta-regression was performed to explore the risk factors associated with VTE in COVID-19 patients. Results: A total of 17 studies involving 1,913 hospitalized COVID-19 patients were included. The pooled incidence of VTE was 25% (95% CI, 19-31%; I 2, 95.7%), with a significant difference between the incidence of PE (19%; 95% CI, 13-25%; I 2, 93.2%) and DVT (7%; 95% CI, 4-10%; I 2, 88.3%; P interaction < 0.001). Higher incidence was observed in severe COVID-19 patients (35%; 95 CI%, 25-44%; I 2, 92.4%) than that in non-severe patients (6%; 95 CI%, 3-10%; I 2, 62.2%; P interaction < 0.001). The high rate of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in COVID-19 patients (?60%) was associated with a lower incidence of VTE compared with the low pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis rate (<60%) (19 vs. 40%; P interaction = 0.052). Severe patients had a 3.76-fold increased risk of VTE compared with non-severe patients (RR, 4.76; 95% CI, 2.66-8.50; I 2, 47.0%). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the primacy results. Conclusions: This meta-analysis revealed that the estimated VTE incidence was 25% in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Higher incidence of VTE was observed in COVID-19 patients with a severe condition or with a low rate of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. Assessment of VTE risk is strongly recommended in COVID-19 patients, and effective measures of thromboprophylaxis should be taken in a timely manner for patients with high risk of VTE.
Project description:Importance:Increasing evidence supports the role of red blood cells (RBCs) in physiological hemostasis and pathologic thrombosis. Red blood cells are commonly transfused in the perioperative period; however, their association with postoperative thrombotic events remains unclear. Objective:To examine the association between perioperative RBC transfusions and postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) within 30 days of surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants:This analysis used prospectively collected registry data from the American College of Surgery National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database, a validated registry of 525 teaching and nonteaching hospitals in North America. Participants included patients in the ACS-NSQIP registry who underwent a surgical procedure from January 1 through December 31, 2014. Data were analyzed from July 1, 2016, through March 15, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures:Risk-adjusted odds ratios (aORs) were estimated using multivariable logistic regression. The primary outcome was the development of postoperative VTE (deep venous thrombosis [DVT] and pulmonary embolism [PE]) within 30 days of surgery that warranted therapeutic intervention; DVT and PE were also examined separately as secondary outcomes. Subgroup analyses were performed by surgical subtypes. Propensity score matching was performed for sensitivity analyses. Results:Of 750 937 patients (56.8% women; median age, 58 years; interquartile range, 44-69 years), 47 410 (6.3%) received at least 1 perioperative RBC transfusion. Postoperative VTE occurred in 6309 patients (0.8%) (DVT in 4336 [0.6%]; PE in 2514 [0.3%]; both DVT and PE in 541 [0.1%]). Perioperative RBC transfusion was associated with higher odds of VTE (aOR, 2.1; 95% CI, 2.0-2.3), DVT (aOR, 2.2; 95% CI, 2.1-2.4), and PE (aOR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.7-2.1), independent of various putative risk factors. A significant dose-response effect was observed with increased odds of VTE as the number of intraoperative and/or postoperative RBC transfusion events increased (aOR, 2.1 [95% CI, 2.0-2.3] for 1 event; 3.1 [95% CI, 1.7-5.7] for 2 events; and 4.5 [95% CI, 1.0-19.4] for ≥3 events vs no intraoperative or postoperative RBC transfusion; P < .001 for trend). In subgroup analyses, the association between any perioperative RBC transfusion and postoperative VTE remained statistically significant across all surgical subspecialties analyzed. The association between any perioperative RBC transfusion and the development of postoperative VTE also remained robust after 1:1 propensity score matching (47 142 matched pairs; matched OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.8-2.1). Conclusions and Relevance:The results of this study suggest that perioperative RBC transfusions may be significantly associated with the development of new or progressive postoperative VTE, independent of several putative confounders. These findings, if validated, should reinforce the importance of rigorous perioperative management of blood transfusion practices.
Project description:BACKGROUND: Thrombin formation commences perioperatively in orthopaedic surgery and therefore some surgeons prefer preoperative initiation of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. However, because of the potential for increased surgical bleeding, the postoperative initiation of thromboprophylaxis has been advocated to reduce blood loss, need for transfusion, and bleeding complications. Trials on timing of thromboprophylaxis have been designed primarily to detect thrombotic events, and it has been difficult to interpret the magnitude of blood loss and bleeding events owing to lack of information for bleeding volume and underpowered bleeding end points. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We therefore asked whether there are differences in blood loss, transfusion requirements, and other postoperative clinical complications with preoperative versus postoperative start of thromboprophylaxis with dalteparin. METHODS: In a double-blind, randomized controlled trial, 80 patients undergoing primary cemented THA were allocated to dalteparin injections starting 12 hours before or 6 hours after surgery. Blood loss was measured by weighing sponges and drapes, volume in suction drains during surgery, and wound drains until removal 24 hours postoperatively. Hemoglobin and hematocrit were recorded at predefined times during and after surgery. RESULTS: We found no differences in blood loss (1081 mL ± 424 mL versus 1023 mL ± 238 mL), bleeding-related events (10% versus 17%), or number of patients who had transfusions (12 versus five) with preoperative and postoperative thromboprophylaxis, respectively. Other complications were few in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest blood loss is similar with preoperative and postoperative initiation of dalteparin thromboprophylaxis, but indicate a trend toward fewer transfusion requirements which might favor postoperative start of thromboprophylaxis.
Project description:<h4>Purpose</h4>Despite its clinical benefits, enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is less widely implemented for gastric cancer surgery. This nationwide survey investigated the current status of the implementation of ERAS in perioperative care for gastric cancer surgery in South Korea.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>This survey enrolled 89 gastric surgeons from 52 institutions in South Korea. The questionnaire consisted of 24 questions about the implementation of the ERAS protocols in the management of gastric cancer surgery. The survey was carried out using an electronic form sent via email.<h4>Results</h4>Of the 89 gastric surgeons, 58 (65.2%) answered that they have knowledge of the concept and details of ERAS, 45 (50.6%) of whom were currently applying ERAS for their patients. Of the ERAS protocols, preoperative education (91.0%), avoidance of preoperative fasting (68.5%), maintenance of intraoperative normothermia (79.8%), thromboprophylaxis (96.5%), early active ambulation (64.4%), and early removal of urinary catheter (68.5%) were relatively well adopted in perioperative care. However, other practices, such as avoidance of preoperative bowel preparation (41.6%), provision of preoperative carbohydrate-rich drink (10.1%), avoidance of routine abdominal drainage (31.4%), epidural anesthesia (15.9%), single-dose prophylactic antibiotics (19.3%), postoperative high oxygen therapy (36.8%), early postoperative diet (14.6%), restricted intravenous fluid administration (53.9%), and application of discharge criteria (57.3%) were not very well adopted for patients.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Perioperative management of gastric cancer surgery is largely heterogeneous among gastric surgeons in South Korea. Standard perioperative care based on scientific evidence needs to be established to improve the quality of surgical care and patient outcomes.
Project description:Importance:The guidelines by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American Society for Clinical Oncology recommend the routine use of thromboprophylaxis for patients with gastric adenocarcinoma. However, many physicians in Asian countries use venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis much less often because of the perceived lower VTE incidence in this population. Objectives:To evaluate the incidence of postgastrectomy VTE in Korean patients with gastric adenocarcinoma, and to identify the complications and evaluate the efficacy and safety of VTE prevention methods. Design, Setting, and Participants:The Optimal Prophylactic Method for Venous Thromboembolism After Gastrectomy in Korean Patients (PROTECTOR) randomized clinical trial was conducted between August 1, 2011, and March 31, 2015. Patients with histologically confirmed gastric adenocarcinoma presenting to a single center (Seoul St Mary's Hospital in Seoul, South Korea) were enrolled. Patients were randomized to either an intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC)-only group or an IPC+low-molecular-weight (LMW) heparin sodium group. The data were analyzed on intention-to-treat and per protocol bases. Data analysis was performed from April 1, 2016, to October 30, 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures:Venous thromboembolism incidence was the primary outcome. Postoperative complications, particularly those associated with VTE prophylaxis methods, were the secondary end point. Results:Of the 682 patients enrolled and randomized, 447 (65.5%) were male and 245 (34.5%) were female, with a mean (SD) age of 57.67 (12.94) years. Among the 666 patients included in the analysis, the overall incidence of VTE was 2.1%. The incidence of VTE was statistically significantly higher in the IPC-only group compared with the IPC+LMW heparin group (3.6%; 95% CI, 2.05%-6.14% vs 0.6%; 95% CI, 0.17%-2.18%; P?=?.008). Among the 14 patients (2.1%) with VTE, 13 were asymptomatic and received a deep vein thrombosis diagnosis, whereas 1 patient received a symptomatic pulmonary thromboembolism diagnosis. The overall incidence of bleeding complications was 5.1%. The incidence of bleeding complications was significantly higher in the IPC+LMW heparin group compared with the IPC-only group (9.1% vs 1.2%; P?<?.001). No cases of VTE-associated mortality were noted. Conclusions and Relevance:Use of IPC alone is inferior to the use of IPC+LMW heparin in preventing postoperative VTE. Because LMW heparin is associated with a high bleeding risk, further study is needed to stratify the patients at high risk for perioperative development of VTE. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01448746.
Project description:Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the most common preventable cause of morbidity and mortality in the hospital. Adequate thromboprophylaxis has reduced the rate of hospital-acquired VTE substantially; however, some inpatients still develop VTE even when they are prescribed thromboprophylaxis. Predictors associated with thromboprophylaxis failure are unclear. In this study, we aimed to identify risk factors for inpatient VTE despite thromboprophylaxis.We conducted a case-control study to identify independent predictors for inpatient VTE. Among patients discharged from the BJC HealthCare system between January 2010 and May 2011, we matched 94 cases who developed in-hospital VTE while taking thromboprophylaxis to 272 controls who did not develop VTE. Matching was done by hospital, patient age, month and year of discharge. We used multivariate conditional logistic regression to develop a VTE prediction model.We identified five independent risk factors for in-hospital VTE despite thromboprophylaxis: hospitalization for cranial surgery, intensive care unit admission, admission leukocyte count >13,000/mm(3), presence of an indwelling central venous catheter, and admission from a long-term care facility.We identified five risk factors associated with the development of VTE despite thromboprophylaxis in the hospital setting. By recognizing these high-risk patients, clinicians can prescribe aggressive VTE prophylaxis judiciously and remain vigilant for signs or symptoms of VTE.