Canadian Urological Association guideline: Perioperative thromboprophylaxis and management of anticoagulation

In-Hospital Venous Thromboembolism and Pulmonary Embolism After Major Urologic Cancer Surgery

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to test for temporal trends of in-hospital venous thromboembolism (VTE) and pulmonary embolism (PE) after major urologic cancer surgery (MUCS).

METHODS

In the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database (2010-2019), this study identified non-metastatic radical cystectomy (RC), radical prostatectomy (RP), radical nephrectomy (RN), and partial nephrectomy (PN) patients. Temporal trends of VTE and PE and multivariable logistic regression analyses (MLR) addressing VTE or PE, and mortality with VTE or PE were performed.

RESULTS

Of 196,915 patients, 1180 (1.0%) exhibited VTE and 583 (0.3%) exhibited PE. The VTE rates increased from 0.6 to 0.7% (estimated annual percentage change [EAPC] + 4.0%; p = 0.01). Conversely, the PE rates decreased from 0.4 to 0.2% (EAPC - 4.5%; p = 0.01). No difference was observed in mortality with VTE (EAPC - 2.1%; p = 0.7) or with PE (EAPC - 1.2%; p = 0.8). In MLR relative to RP, RC (odds ratio [OR] 5.1), RN (OR 4.5), and PN (OR 3.6) were associated with higher VTE risk (all p < 0.001). Similarly in MLR relative to RP, RC (OR 4.6), RN (OR 3.3), and PN (OR 3.9) were associated with higher PE risk (all p < 0.001). In MLR, the risk of mortality was higher when VTE or PE was present in RC (VTE: OR 3.7, PE: OR  4.8; both p < 0.001) and RN (VTE: OR 5.2, PE: OR  8.3; both p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

RC, RN, and PN predisposes to a higher VTE and PE rates than RP. Moreover, among RC and RN patients with either VTE or PE, mortality is substantially higher than among their VTE or PE-free counterparts.

Establishment of Prediction Models for Venous Thromboembolism in Non-Oncological Urological Inpatients - A Single-Center Experience

Purpose

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) comprises deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), which can lead to death. VTE is an insidious disease with no specific symptoms and overlooked readily. We aimed to establish prediction models for VTE in non-oncological urological inpatients to aid urologists to better identify VTE patients.

Patients and Methods

A retrospective analysis of 1453 inpatients was carried out. The risk factors for VTE had been clarified in our previous study. A stepwise regression method was used to screen the relevant influencing factors for VTE and construct a logistic regression prediction model to predict VTE. To validate the accuracy of the model, data from 291 patients from another cohort were used for external validation.

Results

A total of 1453 inpatients were enrolled. Five potential risk factors (previous VTE; treatment with anticoagulants or anti-platelet agents before hospital admission; D-dimer ≥0.89 μg/mL; lower-extremity swelling; chest symptoms) were selected by multivariable analysis with p < 0.05. These five risk factors were used to build a logistic regression prediction model. When p < 0.1 in the multivariable logistic regression model, two additional risk factors were added: Caprini score ≥5 and complications, and all seven risk factors were used to build another prediction model. Internal verification showed the cutoff values, sensitivity, and specificity of the two models to be 0.02474, 0.941, 0.816 (model 1) and 0.03824, 0.941, and 0.820 (model 2), respectively. Both models had good predictive ability, but prediction accuracy was 43.0% for both when using the data of the additional 291 inpatients in the two models.

Conclusion

Two novel prediction models were built to predict VTE in non-oncological urological inpatients. This is a new method for VTE screening, and internal validation showed a good performance. External validation results were suboptimal but may provide clues for subsequent VTE screening.

Benefits and harms of direct oral anticoagulation and low molecular weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials

OBJECTIVE

To systematically compare the effect of direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis on the benefits and harms to patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), up to August 2021.

REVIEW METHODS

Randomised controlled trials in adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery were selected, comparing low molecular weight heparin (prophylactic (low) or higher dose) with direct oral anticoagulants or with no active treatment. Main outcomes were symptomatic venous thromboembolism, symptomatic pulmonary embolism, and major bleeding. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used for network meta-analyses. Abstracts and full texts were screened independently in duplicate. Data were abstracted on study participants, interventions, and outcomes, and risk of bias was assessed independently in duplicate. Frequentist network meta-analysis with multivariate random effects models provided odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals, and GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation) assessments indicated the certainty of the evidence.

RESULTS

68 randomised controlled trials were included (51 orthopaedic, 10 general, four gynaecological, two thoracic, and one urological surgery), involving 45 445 patients. Low dose (odds ratio 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.67) and high dose (0.19, 0.07 to 0.54) low molecular weight heparin, and direct oral anticoagulants (0.17, 0.07 to 0.41) reduced symptomatic venous thromboembolism compared with no active treatment, with absolute risk differences of 1-100 per 1000 patients, depending on baseline risks (certainty of evidence, moderate to high). None of the active agents reduced symptomatic pulmonary embolism (certainty of evidence, low to moderate). Direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin were associated with a 2-3-fold increase in the odds of major bleeding compared with no active treatment (certainty of evidence, moderate to high), with absolute risk differences as high as 50 per 1000 in patients at high risk. Compared with low dose low molecular weight heparin, high dose low molecular weight heparin did not reduce symptomatic venous thromboembolism (0.57, 0.26 to 1.27) but increased major bleeding (1.87, 1.06 to 3.31); direct oral anticoagulants reduced symptomatic venous thromboembolism (0.53, 0.32 to 0.89) and did not increase major bleeding (1.23, 0.89 to 1.69).

CONCLUSIONS

Direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin reduced venous thromboembolism compared with no active treatment but probably increased major bleeding to a similar extent. Direct oral anticoagulants probably prevent symptomatic venous thromboembolism to a greater extent than prophylactic low molecular weight heparin.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42018106181.

Thromboprophylaxis practice patterns and beliefs among physicians treating patients with abdominopelvic cancers at a Canadian centre

Background

There is inadequate high-quality evidence on thromboprophylaxis for patients undergoing surgery for abdominopelvic cancer. We surveyed physicians who treat patients with abdominopelvic cancer to determine current thromboprophylaxis practice patterns and to determine where research is needed.

Methods

We created an online survey with questions on thromboprophylaxis topics, including type of thromboprophylaxis used, timing of initial thromboprophylaxis dose, use of thromboprophylaxis during chemotherapy, use of extended-duration thromboprophylaxis and areas for future research. The survey questions were reviewed by external content experts to ensure they were appropriate and relevant. Surgeons, thrombosis experts and medical oncologists who manage patients with abdominopelvic cancers at 1 large Canadian academic centre were invited to complete the survey between January and April 2019.

Results

Of the 57 physicians invited, 42 (74%) completed the survey, including 27 surgeons (response rate 79%), 9 thrombosis experts (response rate 75%) and 6 medical oncologists (response rate 55%). Most surgeons (22 [82%]) reported using mechanical thromboprophylaxis, whereas only 1 thrombosis expert (11%) recommended mechanical thromboprophylaxis. There was substantial variability in the timing of the initial dose of thromboprophylaxis, with 9/10 urologists (90%) and all 7 general surgeons giving the first dose intraoperatively, and three-quarters of thoracic surgeons (3/4 [75%]), gynecologists (3/4 [75%]) and thrombosis experts (7/9 [78%]) starting thromboprophylaxis after surgery. All medical oncologists believed chemotherapy increases the risk of venous thromboembolism, but 4 (67%) reported that they do not routinely prescribe thromboprophylaxis owing to bleeding concerns. Most respondents (35/38 [92%]) felt there was a need for more research on thromboprophylaxis and indicated willingness to participate in future clinical trials.

Conclusion

Variability exists in contemporary thromboprophylaxis practice patterns among physicians treating patients with abdominopelvic cancer. Future research is needed to standardize care and improve outcomes for patients.