|
1
|
Shargall Y, Wiercioch W, Brunelli A, Murthy S, Hofstetter W, Lin J, Li H, Linkins LA, Crowther M, Davis R, Rocco G, Morgano GP, Schünemann F, Muti-Schünemann G, Douketis J, Schünemann HJ, Litle VR. Joint 2022 European Society of Thoracic Surgeons and The American Association for Thoracic Surgery guidelines for the prevention of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism in thoracic surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2023; 165:794-824.e6. [PMID: 36895083 DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2022.05.041] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/10/2021] [Revised: 04/21/2022] [Accepted: 05/09/2022] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, is a potentially fatal but preventable postoperative complication. Thoracic oncology patients undergoing surgical resection, often after multimodality induction therapy, represent among the highest risk groups for postoperative VTE. Currently there are no VTE prophylaxis guidelines specific to these thoracic surgery patients. Evidenced-based recommendations will help clinicians manage and mitigate risk of VTE in the postoperative period and inform best practice. OBJECTIVE These joint evidence-based guidelines from The American Association for Thoracic Surgery and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons aim to inform clinicians and patients in decisions about prophylaxis to prevent VTE in patients undergoing surgical resection for lung or esophageal cancer. METHODS The American Association for Thoracic Surgery and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included broad membership to minimize potential bias when formulating recommendations. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used, including GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, which were subject to public comment. RESULTS The panel agreed on 24 recommendations focused on pharmacological and mechanical methods for prophylaxis in patients undergoing lobectomy and segmentectomy, pneumonectomy, and esophagectomy, as well as extended resections for lung cancer. CONCLUSIONS The certainty of the supporting evidence for the majority of recommendations was judged as low or very low, largely due to a lack of direct evidence for thoracic surgery. The panel made conditional recommendations for use of parenteral anticoagulation for VTE prevention, in combination with mechanical methods, over no prophylaxis for cancer patients undergoing anatomic lung resection or esophagectomy. Other key recommendations include: conditional recommendations for using parenteral anticoagulants over direct oral anticoagulants, with use of direct oral anticoagulants suggested only in the context of clinical trials; conditional recommendation for using extended prophylaxis for 28 to 35 days over in-hospital prophylaxis only for patients at moderate or high risk of thrombosis; and conditional recommendations for VTE screening in patients undergoing pneumonectomy and esophagectomy. Future research priorities include the role of preoperative thromboprophylaxis and the role of risk stratification to guide use of extended prophylaxis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yaron Shargall
- Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
| | - Wojtek Wiercioch
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Alessandro Brunelli
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, St. James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Sudish Murthy
- Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - Wayne Hofstetter
- Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex
| | - Jules Lin
- Section of Thoracic Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich
| | - Hui Li
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
| | - Lori-Ann Linkins
- Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Marc Crowther
- Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Roger Davis
- Patient Representative, Burlington, Ontario, Canada
| | - Gaetano Rocco
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Gian Paolo Morgano
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Finn Schünemann
- Medizinische Fakultät, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Giovanna Muti-Schünemann
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - James Douketis
- Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Holger J Schünemann
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Virginia R Litle
- Department of Surgery, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Mass
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Shargall Y, Wiercioch W, Brunelli A, Murthy S, Hofstetter W, Lin J, Li H, Linkins LA, Crowther M, Davis R, Rocco G, Morgano GP, Schünemann F, Muti-Schünemann G, Douketis J, Schünemann HJ, Litle VR. Joint 2022 European Society of Thoracic Surgeons and The American Association for Thoracic Surgery guidelines for the prevention of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism in thoracic surgery. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CARDIO-THORACIC SURGERY : OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION FOR CARDIO-THORACIC SURGERY 2022; 63:6889652. [PMID: 36519935 DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezac488] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/10/2021] [Revised: 04/21/2022] [Accepted: 05/09/2022] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, is a potentially fatal but preventable postoperative complication. Thoracic oncology patients undergoing surgical resection, often after multimodality induction therapy, represent among the highest risk groups for postoperative VTE. Currently there are no VTE prophylaxis guidelines specific to these thoracic surgery patients. Evidenced-based recommendations will help clinicians manage and mitigate risk of VTE in the postoperative period and inform best practice. OBJECTIVE These joint evidence-based guidelines from The American Association for Thoracic Surgery and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons aim to inform clinicians and patients in decisions about prophylaxis to prevent VTE in patients undergoing surgical resection for lung or esophageal cancer. METHODS The American Association for Thoracic Surgery and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included broad membership to minimize potential bias when formulating recommendations. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used, including GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, which were subject to public comment. RESULTS The panel agreed on 24 recommendations focused on pharmacological and mechanical methods for prophylaxis in patients undergoing lobectomy and segmentectomy, pneumonectomy, and esophagectomy, as well as extended resections for lung cancer. CONCLUSIONS The certainty of the supporting evidence for the majority of recommendations was judged as low or very low, largely due to a lack of direct evidence for thoracic surgery. The panel made conditional recommendations for use of parenteral anticoagulation for VTE prevention, in combination with mechanical methods, over no prophylaxis for cancer patients undergoing anatomic lung resection or esophagectomy. Other key recommendations include: conditional recommendations for using parenteral anticoagulants over direct oral anticoagulants, with use of direct oral anticoagulants suggested only in the context of clinical trials; conditional recommendation for using extended prophylaxis for 28 to 35 days over in-hospital prophylaxis only for patients at moderate or high risk of thrombosis; and conditional recommendations for VTE screening in patients undergoing pneumonectomy and esophagectomy. Future research priorities include the role of preoperative thromboprophylaxis and the role of risk stratification to guide use of extended prophylaxis. (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2022;▪:1-31).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yaron Shargall
- Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Wojtek Wiercioch
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Alessandro Brunelli
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, St. James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Sudish Murthy
- Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
| | - Wayne Hofstetter
- Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Jules Lin
- Section of Thoracic Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Hui Li
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
| | - Lori-Ann Linkins
- Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Marc Crowther
- Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Roger Davis
- Patient Representative, Burlington, Ontario, Canada
| | - Gaetano Rocco
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Gian Paolo Morgano
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Finn Schünemann
- Medizinische Fakultät, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Giovanna Muti-Schünemann
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - James Douketis
- Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Holger J Schünemann
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.,Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Virginia R Litle
- Department of Surgery, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
3
|
Mortality risk associated with venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis. LANCET HAEMATOLOGY 2020; 7:e583-e593. [PMID: 32735837 DOI: 10.1016/s2352-3026(20)30211-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/20/2020] [Revised: 05/26/2020] [Accepted: 05/27/2020] [Indexed: 01/12/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Venous thromboembolism is associated with increased mortality risk in some populations, but how frequently it is a direct cause of death is unclear. We used data from venous thromboembolism prevention trials to evaluate the causal effect of venous thromboembolism reduction on mortality. METHODS We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating venous thromboembolism prevention. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science starting from Jan 1, 1993, to March 19, 2018. We included studies of patients who were at elevated risk of venous thromboembolism and were randomly assigned to either anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy versus placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies with an active control agent (which might mitigate the lethality of venous thromboembolism) and those for which mortality data were unavailable. We modelled heterogeneity in a Bayesian framework, taking overall mortality as a primary endpoint, and pulmonary embolism, fatal pulmonary embolism, and major bleeding as secondary endpoints. We focused our analyses on studies reporting statistically significant effects of prevention on venous thromboembolism endpoints. We report treatment effects as median risk ratios (RRs), wherein a null effect equals 1, with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). This meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018089697. FINDINGS From 4229 studies screened, we identified 86 eligible RCTs; 52, with data from over 70 000 patients, were positive, with significantly increased venous thromboembolism risk in patients in control groups versus treatment groups (RR 2·74, 95% CrI 2·32-3·31, p<0·0001). The meta-analysis established that the causal effect of venous thromboembolism prevention on mortality was null (control group mortality was 3391 [9·8%] of 34 537 patients; treatment group mortality was 3498 [9·8%] of 35 795 patients [RR 1·01, 95% CrI 0·97-1·06; p=0·58]) with low heterogeneity (τ 0·02, 95% CrI 0·00-0·07, p=0·89). Patients in control groups had more pulmonary embolism (RR 2·22, 95% CrI 1·78-2·89, p<0·0001) and fatal pulmonary embolism (1·58, 1·14-2·19, p=0·01), but less major bleeding (0·60, 0·47-0·75, p<0·0001) than those in treatment groups. A meta-analysis with the additional 34 negative studies yielded similar results for all endpoints except fatal pulmonary embolism, where evidence of an effect was weaker (1·42, 1·05-1·91, p=0·02). INTERPRETATION The perception that venous thromboembolism is a common cause of mortality should be revised considering the null effect of venous thromboembolism prevention on mortality. Our findings call into question the use of composite endpoints in venous thromboembolism-prevention trials and provide rationale for de-escalation trials. FUNDING None.
Collapse
|