Does Continuation of Low-Dose Aspirin During Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy Compromise Surgical Outcomes?

On the relationship between various anticoagulants and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a single-surgeon serial analysis

Prostate cancer patients often have other health conditions and take anticoagulants. It was believed that surgery under anticoagulants could worsen surgical results. This study aims to explore the safety of robot-assisted prostatectomy in anticoagulated patients, without any exclusion criteria. The study included 500 patients who underwent RARP by a single surgeon between April 2019 and August 2022. Patients were divided into two groups: Group 1, consisting of 376 men (75.2%), did not receive any anticoagulation, while Group 2, with 124 patients (24.8%), received different forms of anticoagulation. Then, the anticoagulation group was divided into 4 subgroups according to their definite anticoagulation: the aspirin 15.6%, new oral anticoagulants (NOAC) 5.4%, Vitamin K antagonist (VKA) 2%, and dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) 1.8% subgroup. Postoperative complications and readmission rates were compared between the two study groups and subgroups. Patients in the combined group 2 were older and they also carried more comorbidities compared to men in group 1 (p = 0.03, p = 0.001).The study groups had similar oncological results, with 40.4% of patients having locally advanced cancers. Catheter days were longer in the anticoagulation group (4.5 vs 4 days, p = 0.001). No significant differences were observed between study groups for overall, minor, and major complications (p = 0.160, 0.100, and 0.915, respectively). In addition, readmissions were low (5.6%) and similar between the study groups (p = 0.635). Under cautious management, RARP under diverse anticoagulation regimes is safe and has comparable results to men with no medications. Further prospective studies must be conducted to confirm our findings.

Effects of thienopyridine class antiplatelets on bleeding outcomes following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

This study aimed to assess the effects of thienopyridine-class antiplatelet agents (including ticlopidine, clopidogrel, and prasugrel) on bleeding complications in patients who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. This cohort study used a database for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy at 23 tertiary centers nationwide between 2011 and 2022. Patients who received thienopyridines (thienopyridine group) were compared with those who received aspirin monotherapy (aspirin group). The primary outcome was the incidence of bleeding complications. High-grade complications were defined as Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher. The risks of these outcomes were evaluated using inverse probability of treatment weighted regression models. The study results demonstrated that thienopyridine therapy was associated with a higher risk of overall bleeding complications (OR: 3.62, 95%CI 1.54-8.49). The increased risks of the thienopyridine group were detected for low-grade bleeding complications (OR: 3.20, 95%CI 1.23-8.30) but not for high-grade bleeding complications (OR: 5.23, 95%CI 0.78-34.9). The increased risk of bleeding complications was not observed when thienopyridine was discontinued (OR: 2.52, 95%CI 0.83-7.70); however, it became apparent when it was continued perioperatively (OR: 4.35, 95%CI 1.14-16.61). In conclusion, thienopyridine increased the incidence of bleeding complications, particularly low-grade bleeding complications, following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. These bleeding effects emerged when thienopyridine was continued perioperatively.

Effect of continued perioperative antithrombotic therapy on bleeding outcomes following laparoscopic nephrectomy and nephroureterectomy

INTRODUCTION

In this study, we aimed to assess the impact of perioperative continuation of antithrombotic therapy on bleeding and complications in patients undergoing laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN) and nephroureterectomy (LNU).

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study. Patients who underwent LRN and LNU between January 2017 and July 2019 at our institution were recruited. All patients taking antithrombotic agents continued taking them during the perioperative phase (AA group). Surgical outcomes of patients in the AA group were compared with those of patients who were not taking antithrombotic agents (NA group). The primary outcome was the rate of bleeding complications. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative estimated blood loss, transfusion rate, and complications for up to 90 days.

RESULTS

A total of 100 patients were included in the analysis, with 36 and 64 patients assigned to the AA and NA groups, respectively. Patients in the AA group were found to have more severe comorbidities than those in the NA group, with a Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥5, totaling 14 (39%) and 12 (19%), respectively (P = .03). According to surgical outcomes, none of the patients in the AA group required secondary procedures for bleeding complications. Moreover, there were no significant differences between the groups in intraoperative blood loss, hemoglobin deficit, rate of perioperative transfusion, readmission rate, or high-grade complications.

DISCUSSION

These results indicate that perioperative use of antithrombotic agents does not increase the risk of bleeding and can be considered safe during LRN and LNU.

Safety of not withholding clopidogrel therapy during the immediate several days pre- and post-trans-urethral resection of prostate (TURP): a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Benign prostatic hypertrophy or hyperplasia (BPH) is a frequent urological complain particularly in old-aged individuals. Those patients usually have other risk factors (such as ischemic cardiovascular diseases) for which they might be treated with anti-thrombotic agents chronically. These medicines may induce blood thinning and raise the incidence of hemorrhage. Thus, if those patients needed operative treatment for BPH, they may be at high risk of hemorrhage or its related adverse effects with the usage of anti-thrombotic drugs during the peri-operative time. On the other hand, dis-continuation of these agents can lead to ischemic events in susceptible individuals. Therefore, this research aims to assess the safety of the continuation of using anti-thrombotic agents throughout the peri-operative duration in patients with prostate surgery in form of Transurethral Resection of Prostate (TURP) only for Benign Prostatic Hypertrophy (BPH).

METHODS

Patients' notes were reviewed retrospectively. The entire participants were categorized into two categories. First category was on clopidogrel therapy (CTC) for prolong time and the usage of these agents was carried on throughout the peri-operative period. The second category was not on clopidogrel therapy at all (NCTC). Both of these categories had Transurethral Resection of Prostate (TURP) for Benign Prostatic Hypertrophy (BPH). A comparison had been conducted between the two categories with regards to: (i) the amount of blood lost intra-operatively (ii) the duration of operation (iii) hematocrit concentration per-operatively (iv) transfused packed red blood cells (PRBC) if needed (v) clearance of hematuria postoperatively (vi) secondary hemorrhage and clot retention after discharge. Pearson Chi-square test, Independent sample t test and test for numeric variables were used as appropriate.

RESULTS

The study identified 329 patients. One hundred and sixty five participants in the CTC (clopidogrel therapy category) and 164 in the NCTC (non-clopidogrel therapy category). It had been revealed that there was no statistically significant difference between the CTC and NCTC regarding: (i) the amount of blood lost intra-operatively (ii) the duration of operation (iii) hematocrit concentration per-operatively (iv) transfused packed red blood cells (packed RBC) if needed (v) clearance of hematuria postoperatively (vi) secondary hemorrhage and clot retention after discharge (P > 0.65).

CONCLUSION

The continuation of usage of anti-thrombotic therapy (clopidogrel) during peri-operative period in patients with TURP for BPH is a safe practice. It is not associated with high probability of hemorrhage or PRBC transfusion or other adverse effects.

Continuing acetylsalicylic acid during Robotic-Assisted Radical Cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion does not increase hemorrhagic complications: results from a large multicentric cohort

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether continuing the antiplatelet drug acetylsalicylic acid≤100mg (ASA) during Robotic-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) with intracorporeal urinary diversion (ICUD) increases the risk of peri-and postoperative hemorrhagic complications and overall morbidity. Indeed, guidelines recommend interrupting antiplatelet therapy before radical cystectomy; however, RARC with ICUD is associated to reduced estimated blood loss and blood transfusions compared to its open counterpart.

METHODS

Data from a multicentric European database were analyzed. All participating centers maintained a prospective database of patients undergoing RARC with ICUD. We identified patients receiving antiplatelet therapy by acetylsalicylic acid ≤100mg. Patients were divided into three groups: those not taking acetylsalicylic acid (no-ASA), those where ASA was continued perioperatively (c-ASA) and those where ASA was interrupted perioperatively (i-ASA). Estimated blood loss and peri-and post-operative transfusions were recorded. Hemorrhagic complications, ischemic, thrombotic and cardiac morbidity was recorded and classified using the Clavien-Dindo score by a senior urologist.

RESULTS

640 patients were analyzed. Patients on acetylsalicylic acid were significantly older and had more comorbidities. No significant difference was found for estimated blood loss between no-ASA, c-ASA and i-ASA (280 vs. 300 vs. 200ml respectively; P = 0.09). Similarly, no significant difference was found for intraoperative (5% vs. 9% vs. 11%; P = 0.07) and postoperative transfusion rate (11% vs. 13% vs. 18%; P = 0.17). Higher ischemic complications were noted in the i-ASA group compared to no-ASA and c-ASA (4% vs. 0.6% vs. 1.4%; P = 0.03). On uni and multivariate logistic regression, continuing acetylsalicylic acid was not significantly associated to either major complications or post-operative transfusions.

CONCLUSIONS

Peri-operative acetylsalicylic acid continuation in RARC with ICUD does not increase hemorrhagic complications. Interrupting acetylsalicylic acid peri-operatively may expose patients to a higher risk of ischemic events.

Effect of Continued Perioperative Anticoagulant Therapy on Bleeding Outcomes Following Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of continued perioperative anticoagulant drug administration on bleeding and complications in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

METHODS

Between January 2014 and January 2020, 620 patients with prostate cancer underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomies and were retrospectively reviewed. Fourteen patients who discontinued antithrombotic therapy were excluded. Among the 606 included patients, 31 continued anticoagulant therapy during the perioperative phase (anticoagulant group). The anticoagulant group outcomes were compared with those of patients who continued clopidogrel and prasugrel (thienopyridine group = 13), aspirin monotherapy (aspirin group = 61), and no chronic antithrombotic agent (control group = 501). The primary outcome was the incidence of bleeding complications requiring transfusion, additional intervention, or readmission. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of thrombotic complications, estimated blood loss, and overall complication rates.

RESULTS

Among the 31 patients in the anticoagulant group, 20 (65%) used directed oral anticoagulants, 11 (35%) used warfarin, and 5 used combined aspirin. Only 1 (3%) patient in the anticoagulant group required postoperative transfusion, and none required additional interventions or readmission. No significant differences were detected between the anticoagulant and other groups (anticoagulant vs thienopyridine, aspirin, and control groups) regarding bleeding complications (3% vs 8%, P = .51; 0%, P = .34; 0.4%, P = .17, respectively), thrombotic complications (3% vs 0%, P = .70; 2%, P = .56; 0.2%, P = .11, respectively), estimated blood loss (200 vs 100 mL, P = .63; 175 mL, P = .64; 165 mL, P = .74, respectively), or other high-grade complications (6% vs 0%, P = .49; 2%, P = .26; 3%, P = .24, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Perioperative continuation of anticoagulant use is feasible for patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Risks and complications of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in patients receiving antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant therapy: a retrospective cohort study in a single institute

The objective of the study was to evaluate the risk of bleeding complications in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) while taking antiplatelet (AP) and/or anticoagulant (AC) agents. We analyzed the data of 334 patients undergoing RARP from May 2015 to May 2019. Patients were categorized into AP, AC, and control groups; the bleeding complications were compared among them. The end points were the estimated blood loss, decrease in hemoglobin level, and bleeding complications. The patient characteristics did not differ significantly among groups, with the exception of ASA scores, which were significantly higher in the AP and AC groups vs. the control group. The estimated blood loss and hemoglobin decrease were not significantly different between the AP and AC groups and the control group. The frequency of bleeding complications did not differ significantly between the AP and the control groups, but was significantly higher in the AC vs. the control group (4.3% in the AP and 23.5% in the AC group vs. 3.7% in the control group; P = 0.63 and P < 0.01, respectively). There was no significant difference in bleeding complications between the AP continuation (continuation of a single AP) and the AP interruption group or between the heparin bridging and the AC interruption group. All bleeding complications observed in the AC group occurred after resuming AC therapy. RARP can be performed safely with continuation of a single AP, and in patients taking ACs by interrupting these agents or via heparin bridging, without increasing intraoperative bleeding, whereas postoperative bleeding complications may increase after resuming ACs.