Survey of the use of thromboprophylaxis in laparoscopic surgery in Denmark

Thromboprophylaxis for lung cancer patients--multimodality assessment of clinician practices, perceptions and decision support tools

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to report the opinions and self-reported practices of clinicians, as well as the availability of decision support tools, regarding appropriate thromboprophylaxis for patients with lung cancer to identify variation in practice and/or divergence from evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPG).

METHODS

A computer-generated survey (SurveyMonkey software) was distributed to surgical, radiation and medical oncologists with lung cancer specialisation, via membership of the Australian Lung Cancer Trials Group (ALTG) from May to September 2013.

RESULTS

Seventy-two clinicians, from public, private, specialist and general hospitals, completed the survey (46% response rate). Hospital-endorsed CPG were widely available (91%); however, these routinely lacked robust recommendations for the ambulatory care setting (98%) and risk stratification tools (65%). Clinicians consistently identified ambulatory care treatment modalities (chemotherapy, alone or in combination with radiotherapy) as having similar (high) thrombotic risk as surgery. Timing and duration of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis prescribing among surgical oncologists varied and were divergent from guideline recommendations. Fifty-eight percent of surveyed clinicians cited a lack of high-quality data to guide preventative strategies in lung cancer patients.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians consistently identified patients with lung cancer as having a high thromboembolic risk in both ambulatory and surgical settings, but with differences in recommendations and variation in practice. CPG lacked robust recommendations for the ambulatory care setting, the main arena for the multimodality lung cancer treatment paradigm.

Risk of bleeding associated with use of systemic thromboembolic prophylaxis during laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

The extent to which systemic perioperative thromboembolic prophylaxis affects peroperative and postoperative bleeding during cholecystectomy is not known. This article reports on risk of bleeding in a national cohort of cholecystectomies.

METHODS

All cholecystectomies registered in the Swedish Register of Gallstone Surgery and Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (GallRiks) between 2005 and 2010 were reviewed. Peroperative bleeding was defined as bleeding that could not be controlled by standard surgical techniques, necessitated conversion to an open procedure or required peroperative blood transfusion. Postoperative bleeding was defined as bleeding that necessitated reoperation, transfusion or a prolonged hospital stay. Risk estimates were performed using univariable and multiple logistic regression, and reported as odds ratios (ORs).

RESULTS

A total of 51 621 procedures were registered in GallRiks. Some 48 010 patients were included in the analyses, of whom 21 259 (44·3 per cent) received thromboembolic prophylaxis. Peroperative bleeding complications occurred in 400 (1·9 per cent) and postoperative bleeding in 296 (1·4 per cent) given thromboembolic prophylaxis, compared with 189 (0·7 per cent) and 195 (0·7 per cent) respectively without thromboprophylaxis. After adjusting for age, sex, indication for surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, mode of admission, operative approach, duration of surgery and hospital volume, the OR for peroperative or postoperative bleeding complications in the group receiving prophylaxis was 1·35 (95 per cent confidence interval 1·17 to 1·55). However, in a subgroup analysis the risk was increased in laparoscopic surgery only. At 30-day follow-up, a total of 74 patients (0·2 per cent) had developed postoperative thromboembolism, 43 (0·2 per cent) of those who received thromboembolic prophylaxis compared with 31 (0·1 per cent) of those who did not.

CONCLUSION

Thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy increased the risk of bleeding, but the occurrence of thromboembolic events was not significantly reduced. Identification of high- and low-risk patients is needed to guide clinical decisions regarding medical thromboprophylaxis.

[National project for the clinical management of healthcare processes. The surgical treatment of cholelithiasis. Development of a clinical pathway]

INTRODUCTION

Because surgical treatment of gallstones is highly prevalent, this topic is particularly suitable for a national study aimed at determining the most important indicators and developing a clinical pathway.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the results obtained during the hospital phase of the process. To define the key indicators of the process. To design a clinical pathway for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A multicenter, prospective, cross-sectional, descriptive study was performed of patients who consecutively underwent surgery for gallstones in 2002. The sample size calculated with data provided by the National Institute of Statistics was 304 patients, which was increased by 45% to compensate for possible losses. Inclusion criteria consisted of elective cholecystectomy for gallstones, without preoperative findings suggestive of common duct stones. A database was designed (Microsoft Access 2000) with 76 variables analyzed in each patient.

RESULTS

Completed questionnaires were obtained from 37 hospitals with 426 patients. The mean age was 55.69 years, with a predominance of women (68.3%). The most frequent symptom was biliary colic (23%). A total of 20.3% of the patient had prior episodes of cholecystitis and 18% had a history of mild pancreatitis. Diagnosis was given by ultrasonography in 93.2% of the patients. Informed consent was provided by 93.2%. The intervention was performed on an inpatient basis in 96.1% and in the ambulatory setting in the remainder. Antibiotic and antithrombotic prophylaxis was administered in 78.9% and 75.1% of the patients respectively. The laparoscopic approach was used in 84.6%, with a conversion rate of 4.9%. Intraoperative cholangiography was performed in 17.8% of the patients and common duct stones were found in 7 patients. The most frequent complication was surgical wound infection (1.1%). Possible accidental lesion of the biliary tract occurred in 0.7% of the patients and was described as biliary fistula. There were four reinterventions: biliary fistula (1), hemoperitoneum (2) and cause unknown (1). The mean surgical time was 73.17 minutes, with a median of 60 minutes. Postoperative length of stay was 4.75 days in open surgery and 2.67 days in laparoscopic surgery. Ninety-nine percent of the patients were satisfied or highly satisfied with the healthcare received.

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of the process and review of the literature identified a series of areas requiring improvement, which were gathered in the clinical pathway developed. These areas consisted of increasing the number of patients with correctly indicated antibiotic and antithrombotic prophylaxis, increasing the percentage of patients providing informed consent and undergoing adequate preoperative tests, limiting intraoperative cholangiography to selected patients, and reducing the number of patients with an overall stay of 3 days.

Current use of thromboembolism prophylaxis for laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients in Sweden

BACKGROUND

The need for thromboembolism (TE) prophylaxis during laparoscopic surgery is not well established. The aim of this study was to investigate current TE prophylaxis in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in Sweden.

METHODS

Mail questionnaire to all Surgical Departments in Sweden about the current use of thromboembolism prophylaxis in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

RESULTS

The response rate was 78 of 80 departments of surgery (98%). Seventy reported performing LC. Thirty-six percent used thromboembolism prophylaxis in all patients, 17% in most, 9% in half their patients and 39% only rarely. The current use of thromboembolism prophylaxis ranged from low-molecular-weight heparin for 7 days + stockings in all patients to no prophylaxis at all in the majority of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of thromboembolism prophylaxis in LC patients is highly variable, even in the small and homogenous country of Sweden. Further studies concerning the risk of TE complications after laparoscopic surgery are warranted.

Prevention of venous thromboembolism: the Seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy

This article discusses the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and is part of the Seventh American College of Chest Physicians Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy: Evidence-Based Guidelines. Grade 1 recommendations are strong and indicate that the benefits do, or do not, outweigh risks, burden, and costs. Grade 2 suggests that individual patients' values may lead to different choices (for a full understanding of the grading see Guyatt et al, CHEST 2004; 126:179S-187S). Among the key recommendations in this chapter are the following. We recommend against the use of aspirin alone as thromboprophylaxis for any patient group (Grade 1A). For moderate-risk general surgery patients, we recommend prophylaxis with low-dose unfractionated heparin (LDUH) (5,000 U bid) or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) [< or = 3,400 U once daily] (both Grade 1A). For higher risk general surgery patients, we recommend thromboprophylaxis with LDUH (5,000 U tid) or LMWH (> 3,400 U daily) [both Grade 1A]. For high-risk general surgery patients with multiple risk factors, we recommend combining pharmacologic methods (LDUH three times daily or LMWH, > 3,400 U daily) with the use of graduated compression stockings and/or intermittent pneumatic compression devices (Grade 1C+). We recommend that thromboprophylaxis be used in all patients undergoing major gynecologic surgery (Grade 1A) or major, open urologic procedures, and we recommend prophylaxis with LDUH two times or three times daily (Grade 1A). For patients undergoing elective total hip or knee arthroplasty, we recommend one of the following three anticoagulant agents: LMWH, fondaparinux, or adjusted-dose vitamin K antagonist (VKA) [international normalized ratio (INR) target, 2.5; range, 2.0 to 3.0] (all Grade 1A). For patients undergoing hip fracture surgery (HFS), we recommend the routine use of fondaparinux (Grade 1A), LMWH (Grade 1C+), VKA (target INR, 2.5; range, 2.0 to 3.0) [Grade 2B], or LDUH (Grade 1B). We recommend that patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty, or HFS receive thromboprophylaxis for at least 10 days (Grade 1A). We recommend that all trauma patients with at least one risk factor for VTE receive thromboprophylaxis (Grade 1A). In acutely ill medical patients who have been admitted to the hospital with congestive heart failure or severe respiratory disease, or who are confined to bed and have one or more additional risk factors, we recommend prophylaxis with LDUH (Grade 1A) or LMWH (Grade 1A). We recommend, on admission to the intensive care unit, all patients be assessed for their risk of VTE. Accordingly, most patients should receive thromboprophylaxis (Grade 1A).

Tromboprofilaxia na colecistectomia videolaparoscópica

Inspirados no caso de um paciente que desenvolveu tromboembolia pulmonar três dias após a realização de uma colecistectomia videolaparoscópica, mesmo tendo feito uso de heparina não fracionada no pré e nas primeiras 24hs de pós-operatório.Os autores analisaram a ocorrência de tromboembolia venosa na colecistectomia videolaparoscópica , os fatores de risco, as medidas de tromboprofilaxia e sugerem a conduta a ser adotada neste tipo de procedimento.

Perioperative venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in Israel: a survey of academic surgical departments

OBJECTIVE

Postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) represents a serious threat to patients undergoing surgical procedures. Without thromboprophylaxis, deep vein thrombosis occurs in up to 60% of patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery and 15% of patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. Although, many studies have shown the efficacy of pharmacologic and mechanical means of VTE prophylaxis, practice variations in this area abound worldwide. The purpose of this study was to determine the attitudes and practice of VTE prophylaxis of academic surgical department heads in Israel.

METHODS

A questionnaire covering various aspects of VTE prophylaxis was mailed to all surgical department heads of university teaching hospitals in Israel. Three months later, the same questionnaire was sent to department heads who had not yet replied. Data retrieved from the returned questionnaires were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 250 departments in 23 hospitals affiliated to the four medical schools in Israel were identified; 130 department heads (52%) returned the questionnaires. The current study analyzes results obtained from the general surgical, orthopedic, urological, vascular and gynecological departments only. The total number of responses from these departments was 90 (69% response rate). Sixty-seven percent of the departments considered VTE to be a clinical problem. Ninety-four percent of departments have a policy for VTE prophylaxis. The most frequently used modalities for VTE prophylaxis (more than one option possible) were low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) (59%), unfractionated heparin (43%) and an intermittent pneumatic compression device (20%). VTE prophylaxis is begun 12 h preoperatively by 33% of departments, 2-4 h preoperatively by 20% of departments and with premedication by 8% of departments. VTE prophylaxis was continued during the postoperative period by all departments, with 52% stopping prophylaxis upon patient mobilization. Bleeding complications have been noted by 55% of departments, of these 9% were considered major. In general surgical, orthopedic and gynecologic departments, VTE prophylaxis was widely used for those procedures for which published guidelines exist, while considerable variation in VTE prophylaxis administration was demonstrated in a number of commonly encountered clinical situations for which there are no published recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms that academic surgical departments in Israel conform to standard VTE prophylaxis guidelines. However, considerable variations in practice exist regarding the means of prophylaxis, onset of prophylaxis and its duration. These areas should be the focus of ongoing educational efforts including the development of uniform practice guidelines to improve the quality of care regarding VTE prophylaxis. Furthermore, attention should be given to methods for decreasing hemorrhage caused by LMWH and unfractionated heparin usage.

Venous thromboembolism in laparoscopic surgery

Currently there are limited randomized data regarding thromboprophylaxis in laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this article is to identify principles to guide safe practice with regard to prevention of venous thromboembolism. With the exception of laparoscopic cholecystectomy, there are no prospective, randomized studies comparing the incidence of venous thromboembolism between a conventional procedure and a laparoscopic procedure for the same operation. Surveys of surgical practice indicate that policies for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in laparoscopic surgery are generally the same as those for conventional surgery. The increasing use of a minimal access approach for a variety of abdominal, pelvic, and thoracic procedures demands further prospective, randomized studies in this area. Current guidelines endorsed by The Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons recommend following the adoption of protocols used in conventional surgery for the equivalent laparoscopic operation, and the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery has recommended the use of intraoperative intermittent pneumatic compression of the lower extremities for all prolonged laparoscopic procedures. There is only limited evidence to support these recommendations. Venous thromboembolism is an important and preventable complication in surgical patients. Evidence does not exist to consider laparoscopic surgery patients to be at a substantially lower risk for venous thromboembolism than those undergoing conventional procedures. Currently there is a lack of data regarding the prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism in laparoscopic surgery, and the practice is thus opinion based. The authors recommend that the use of standard prophylactic regimens tailored to specific patient populations for conventional operations be adopted for laparoscopic surgery until prospective data are available.