Anticoagulation for perioperative thromboprophylaxis in people with cancer

To Compare the Effectiveness of Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin and Unfractionated Heparin in Reducing Lower Limb Girth in Deep Vein Thrombosis

INTRODUCTION

Treating deep vein thrombosis (DVT) using a once-daily dose of enoxaparin offers greater convenience and the possibility of home-based care for certain patients, as opposed to a continuous infusion of unfractionated heparin (UFH). The study aimed to determine the most cost-effective thromboprophylaxis between low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and UFH for hospitalized patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After obtaining clearance from the institutional ethical committee, the study was conducted in the Department of General Surgery, Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College, over a period of six months. Informed consent was obtained from all 46 patients included in this study. The participants were divided into two groups: group A received LMWH and group B received UFH.

RESULTS

The mean age in group A was 59.8 + 10.6 years and in group B was 54.9 + 12.3 years. There was no significant difference in the girth of the lower limb between the groups during the follow-up period (p > 0.05). In group A, there was a highly significant reduction in lower limb girth from day one to day five (p < 0.0001), day five to day 10 (p < 0.0001), and day one to day 10 (p < 0.0001). In group B, there was no significant reduction from day one to day five (p = 0.06), but there was a significant reduction from day five to day 10 (p = 0.001) and day one to day 10 (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Treatment with LMWH as an anticoagulant significantly reduced the lower extremity girth and thrombus thickness in cases of DVT when compared to UFH.

Should intermittent pneumatic compression devices be standard therapy for the prevention of venous thromboembolic events in major surgery? Protocol for a randomised clinical trial (IMPOSTERS)

INTRODUCTION

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a recognised postsurgical risk. Current prevention methods involve low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), graduated compression stockings (GCS), and intermittent pneumatic compression devices (IPCDs). Australian guidelines, commonly adopted by surgeons, recommend LMWH with GCS and/or IPCDs. IPCDs pose clinical risks, increase care burden, are poorly tolerated, and are costly single-use plastic items. Utilising only LMWH and GCS, without IPCDs, could be more practical, patient-friendly, and cost-effective, with added environmental benefits.

METHODS

This is a multicentre, prospective, two-arm randomised controlled non-inferiority trial at five New South Wales (NSW) hospitals, in Australia. We propose to randomise 4130 participants in a 1:1 ratio between arm A: LMWH+GCS+IPCDs (n=2065) or arm B: LMWH+GCS (n=2065). The primary outcome of interest is symptomatic VTE (deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism) identified at the day 30 phone follow-up (FU), confirmed by ultrasound or imaging. Radiologists interpreting the lower-extremity ultrasonography will be blinded to intervention allocation. Secondary outcomes are quality of life at baseline, days 30 and 90 FU using the 5-level European Quality of Life Score, compliance and adverse events with IPCDs, GCS, and LMWH, as well as healthcare costs (from the perspective of the patient and the hospital), and all-cause mortality. The trial has 90% power to detect a 2% non-inferiority margin to detect a reduction rate of VTE from 4% to 2%.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the Hunter New England Human Research Ethics Committee (2022/ETH02276) protocol V.10, 13 July 2023. Study findings will be presented at local and national conferences and in scientific research journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ANZCTR12622001527752.

Cancer-associated thrombosis and drug-drug interactions of antithrombotic and antineoplastic agents

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is often associated with malignant diseases and notably contributes to morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) brings additional costs to health expenditures and has a negative impact on oncological outcomes. Either the recurrence rate of VTE or bleeding complications are also higher in patients with cancer. Prophylactic anticoagulation has been recommended in peri-surgical periods, inpatient settings, and high-risk ambulatory patients. Although various risk stratification scores are used, none are ideal for identifying patients who can benefit from anticoagulant prophylaxis. New risk scoring systems or biomarkers are needed to identify patients who are more likely to benefit from prophylaxis with low bleeding risk. The questions about the patients who will be given prophylaxis and those who develop thromboembolism, with which drug, and how long they will be treated are still not fully answered. Anticoagulation is the cornerstone of the treatment, but management of CAT remains complex. Low molecular weight heparins and direct oral anticoagulants are effective and safe options for the treatment of CAT. Recognizing adverse effects, drug-drug interactions, and accompanying conditions that cause dose adjustment is crucial. Prevention and treatment of VTE in patients with cancer require a multidisciplinary and patient-based approach. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Cancer-associated thrombosis is a significant cause of mortality and morbidity in patients with cancer. Chemotherapy, surgery, and/or use of central venous access remarkably increase the risk of thrombosis. Prophylactic anticoagulation should be considered not only in inpatient follow-up and during peri-surgical period but also ambulatory patients with a high risk of thrombosis. Many parameters, such as drug-drug interactions, primary side of cancer, and comorbidities of patients should be considered when selecting anticoagulant drugs. More accurate risk stratification scores or biomarkers are still an unmet need.

Prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major cause of both morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. Venous thromboembolism, which includes both deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, affects a sizable portion of patients with malignancy and can have potentially life threatening complications. Accurate assessment of risk as well as diagnosis and treatment of this process is paramount to preventing death in this high risk population. Various risk models predictive of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer have been developed, and knowledge of these rubrics is essential for the treating oncologist. Subgroups of particular interest are inpatients receiving chemotherapy, postoperative patients after surgical debulking, and patients undergoing radiotherapy. Numerous newer drugs have become available for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer who are at high risk of developing the disease. These include the class of drugs called direct oral anticoagulants, (DOACs) which do not require the same monitoring that other modalities have previously required and are taken by mouth, preventing the discomfort associated with subcutaneous strategies. The appropriate risk stratification and intervention to prevent venous thromboembolism are vital to the treatment of patients with cancer.

Efficacy and safety of prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in brain neoplasm patients undergoing neurosurgery: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

Neurosurgeons often face this dilemma. Brain neoplasm patients undergoing neurosurgery are at a high risk of venous thrombosis. However, antithrombotic drugs may induce bleeding complications. Therefore, we compared the efficacy and safety of prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in brain neoplasm patients undergoing neurosurgery. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE(R), and Embase from inception to January 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the prophylactic measures efficacy and safety for VTE in brain neoplasm patients undergoing neurosurgery. The main efficacy outcome was symptomatic or asymptomatic VTE. The safety outcomes included major bleeding, minor bleeding, all occurrences of bleeding, and all-cause mortality. We used (Log) odds ratio (OR) of various chemoprophylaxis regimens to judge the safety and effectiveness of VTE. Additionally, all types of intervention were ranked by the Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) value. We included 10 RCTs with 1128 brain neoplasm patients undergoing neurosurgery. For symptomatic or asymptomatic VTE and proximal DVT or PE, DOACs, compared with placebo, can significantly reduce the events. DOACs were superior to all other interventions in the rank plot of these events. For major bleeding reduction, unfractionated heparin (SUCRA value = 0.21) demonstrated better safety efficacy than others. For minor bleeding reduction, DOACs had a significantly higher risk of minor bleeding compared with placebo [Log OR 16.76, 95% CrI (1.53, 61.13)], LMWH [Log OR 15.68, 95% CrI (0.26, 60.10)] and UFH [Log OR 15.93, 95% CrI (0.22, 60.16)] respectively. Except for placebo (SUCRA values of 0.13), UFH (SUCRA values of 0.37) depicted better safety efficacy than others. For all-cause mortality, we found UFH always had significantly lower all-cause mortality compared with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) [Log OR = 14.17, 95% CrI (0.05, 48.35)]. UFH plus intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) (SUCRA value of 0.12) displayed the best safety for all-cause mortality. In our study, DOACs were more effective as prophylaxis for VTE in brain neoplasm patients undergoing neurosurgery. Regarding the safety of prophylaxis for VTE, UFH of chemoprophylaxis consistently demonstrated better safety efficacy, involving either major bleeding, minor bleeding, bleeding, or all-cause mortality.

Liver Injury Among Japanese Patients Treated Using Prophylactic Enoxaparin After Colorectal Surgery

BACKGROUND

Enoxaparin, a low molecular weight heparin, has been used to prevent thrombotic events during major surgery without increasing the rate of hemorrhage. On the other hand, it was reported to cause liver injury, but the details of liver injury induced by prophylactic enoxaparin after abdominal surgery remain unclear.

AIMS

This study aimed to clarify the relationship between prophylactic enoxaparin and liver injury after colorectal surgery, and characterize the injury profile.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 732 Japanese patients who underwent elective resection of the colorectum, and compared their clinicopathological background, details of surgery, postoperative complications, including liver injury, and the type of liver injury according to prophylactic use of enoxaparin. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify risk factors for liver injury during the postoperative period.

RESULTS

The rate of liver injury was 8.9% for patients treated by prophylactic enoxaparin and 1.4% for those who did not receive enoxaparin after colorectal surgery (p < 0.0001). The median onset of liver injury among patients receiving enoxaparin was seven days, and the majority demonstrated the hepatocellular pattern. Enoxaparin was one of the independent risk factors for postoperative liver injury by multivariate analysis (odds ratio: 7.63, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic use of enoxaparin markedly increased the rate of postoperative liver injury in patients who underwent colorectal surgery. Our study confirmed that close monitoring of liver function parameters is essential for patients receiving enoxaparin during the postoperative period.

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in high-risk orthopedic and cancer surgery

Orthopedic surgery and surgery for cancer are major risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) can occur in up to 50% of patients after major orthopedic surgery. The rate of VTE after cancer surgery varies according to the type of surgery, with rates as high as those after orthopedic surgery in certain settings. Use of thromboprophylaxis in these high-risk settings is well established and recent studies inform the type and duration of thromboprophylaxis. With major orthopedic surgery, there has been a shift from use of low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) along with renewed interest in aspirin as a thromboprophylaxis agent. Recent studies have also informed optimal thromboprophylaxis strategies after nonmajor orthopedic surgery. Use of thromboprophylaxis after major cancer surgery for cancer is established and recent evidence has focused on the potential benefits of extended-duration thromboprophylaxis. This review will summarize emerging evidence for thromboprophylaxis after orthopedic and cancer surgery with a view to providing clinicians with concise and actionable guidance for best practice.

Low molecular weight heparin versus unfractioned heparin for anticoagulation during perioperative extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A single center experience in 102 lung transplant patients

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is gaining importance in the perioperative management of lung transplant patients. To date, the ideal substance for anticoagulation of ECMO patients is still a matter of debate. In this study, we describe our experience with the use of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in comparison with unfractioned heparin (UFH) in lung transplant patients undergoing perioperative ECMO support. We retrospectively analyzed data from all lung transplant patients who underwent perioperative ECMO support at our institution between 2013 and 2017. Bleeding events served as primary outcome parameter. Secondary outcome parameters consisted of thromboembolic events. 102 patients were included in this study, of which 22 (21.6%) received UFH for anticoagulation, and 80 (78.4%) received LMWH. There was no difference between the two groups in regard to serious bleeding events (22.7% in the UFH group vs 12.5% in the LMWH group, P = .31). However, the proportion of patients experiencing thromboembolic events was significantly higher in the UFH group than in the LMWH group (50% vs 20%, P = .01). After adjusting for baseline differences between the two groups, we still observed a difference with respect to thromboembolic events. These data remain to be validated in future prospective, randomized trials.

SEOM clinical guideline of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and cancer (2019)

In 2011, the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) first published a clinical guideline of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and cancer. This guideline was updated in 2014, and since then, multiple studies and clinical trials have changed the landscape of the treatment and prophylaxis of VTE in cancer patients. To incorporate the most recent evidence, including data from direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) randomized clinical trials, SEOM presents a new update of the guideline.

The impact of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis and disease-stage on postoperative bleeding following colorectal cancer surgery

Background

Pharmacological thromboprophylaxis after colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery is internationally recommended for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the risk factors of postoperative bleeding after elective surgery for patients with primary CRC receiving pharmacological thromboprophylaxis of fondaparinux or enoxaparin.

Methods

We experienced consecutive 266 patients who underwent elective surgery for CRC during the study period. Finally, the medical records of 218 patients with CRC administrated fondaparinux or enoxaparin following surgery were retrospectively reviewed to evaluate symptomatic VTE until 28 days and postoperative bleeding comparing perioperative D-dimer levels.

Results

The significant differences in TNM classification staging and type of thromboprophylaxis were observed between postoperative bleeding-negative and bleeding-positive group. There was no statistical significance among other backgrounds of patients between the two groups. One case (0.46%) of symptomatic VTE and total 11 cases (5%) of postoperative bleeding were observed. In the univariate analysis, fondaparinux thromboprophylaxis and early disease-stage CRC (stages 0 and I) were associated with risk for postoperative bleeding. Multivariate analysis revealed that fondaparinux thromboprophylaxis was identified as an independent risk factor of postoperative bleeding. Moreover, preoperative levels of D-dimer in patients with stage IV CRC were significantly higher than those with the other stages. The significant elevation in preoperative D-dimer was also observed in patients with stage II CRC compared to those with stage I CRC. Perioperative levels of D-dimer in patients with advanced disease-stage CRC (stages II, III, and IV) were significantly higher than those in patients with early disease-stage CRC.

Conclusions

Fondaparinux administration and early disease-stage CRC appeared to be risk factors for postoperative bleeding in patients with pharmacological thromboprophylaxis undergoing surgical treatment for CRC. Patients’ hypercoagulative condition depending on disease progression of CRC might be related to the occurrence of postoperative bleeding following CRC surgery.