-
Injury Dec 2023Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major complication of trauma. Currently, there are few studies summarising the evidence for prophylaxis in trauma settings. This review... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major complication of trauma. Currently, there are few studies summarising the evidence for prophylaxis in trauma settings. This review provides evidence for the use of VTE prophylactic interventions in trauma patients to produce evidence-based guidelines.
METHODS
A PRISMA-compliant review was conducted from Sep 2021 to June 2023, using Embase, Medline and Google Scholar. The inclusion criteria were: randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) in English published after 2000 of adult trauma patients comparing VTE prophylaxis interventions, with a sample size higher than 20. The network analysis was conducted using RStudio. The results of the pairwise comparisons were presented in the form of a league table. The quality of evidence and heterogeneity sensitivity were assessed. The primary outcome focused on venous thromboembolism (VTE), and examined deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) as separate entities. The secondary outcomes included assessments of bleeding and mortality. PROSPERO registration: CRD42021266393.
RESULTS
Of the 7,948 search results, 23 studies with a total of 21,312 participants fulfilled screening criteria, which included orthopaedic, spine, solid organ, brain, spinal cord, and multi-region trauma. Of the eight papers comparing chemical prophylaxis medications in patients with hip or lower limb injuries, fondaparinux and enoxaparin were found to be significantly superior to placebo in respect of prevention of DVT, with no increased risk of bleeding. Regarding mechanical prophylaxis, meta-analysis of two studies of inferior vena cava filters failed to provide significant benefits to major trauma patients.
CONCLUSION
Enoxaparin and fondaparinux are safe and effective options for VTE prevention in trauma patients, with fondaparinux being a cheaper and easier administration option between the two. Inconclusive results were found in mechanical prophylaxis, requiring more larger-scale RCTs.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Venous Thromboembolism; Enoxaparin; Fondaparinux; Network Meta-Analysis; Anticoagulants; Pulmonary Embolism; Hemorrhage; Multiple Trauma
PubMed: 37865011
DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2023.111078 -
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Oct 2023Hospitalisation and surgery are major risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) and graduated compression stockings (GCS)... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Hospitalisation and surgery are major risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) and graduated compression stockings (GCS) are common mechanical prophylaxis devices used to prevent VTE. This review compares the safety and efficacy of IPC and GCS used singularly and in combination for surgical patients.
METHODS
Ovid Medline and Pubmed were searched in a systematic review of the literature, and relevant articles were assessed against eligibility criteria for inclusion along PRISMA guidelines.
RESULTS
This review is a narrative description and critical analysis of available evidence. Fourteen articles were included in this review after meeting the criteria. Results of seven studies comparing the efficacy of IPC versus GCS had high heterogeneity but overall suggested IPC was superior to GCS. A further seven studies compared the combination of IPC and GCS versus GCS alone, the results of which suggest that combination mechanical prophylaxis may be superior to GCS alone in high-risk patients. No studies compared combination therapy to IPC alone. IPC appeared to have a superior safety profile, although it had a worse compliance rate and the quality of evidence was poor. The addition of pharmacological prophylaxis may make mechanical prophylaxis superfluous in the post-operative setting.
CONCLUSION
IPC may be superior to GCS when used as a single prophylactic device. A combination of IPC and GCS may be more efficacious than GCS alone for high-risk patients. Further high-quality research is needed focusing on clinical relevance, safety and comparing combination mechanical prophylaxis to IPC alone, particularly in high-risk surgical settings when pharmacological prophylaxis is contraindicated.
Topics: Humans; Venous Thromboembolism; Intermittent Pneumatic Compression Devices; Stockings, Compression; Combined Modality Therapy; Risk Factors
PubMed: 37851108
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-023-03142-6 -
American Journal of Obstetrics and... Apr 2024This study aimed to provide procedure-specific estimates of the risk of symptomatic venous thromboembolism and major bleeding in the absence of thromboprophylaxis,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to provide procedure-specific estimates of the risk of symptomatic venous thromboembolism and major bleeding in the absence of thromboprophylaxis, following gynecologic cancer surgery.
DATA SOURCES
We conducted comprehensive searches on Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for observational studies. We also reviewed reference lists of eligible studies and review articles. We performed separate searches for randomized trials addressing effects of thromboprophylaxis and conducted a web-based survey on thromboprophylaxis practice.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Observational studies enrolling ≥50 adult patients undergoing gynecologic cancer surgery procedures reporting absolute incidence for at least 1 of the following were included: symptomatic pulmonary embolism, symptomatic deep vein thrombosis, symptomatic venous thromboembolism, bleeding requiring reintervention (including reexploration and angioembolization), bleeding leading to transfusion, or postoperative hemoglobin <70 g/L.
METHODS
Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility, performed data extraction, and evaluated risk of bias of eligible articles. We adjusted the reported estimates for thromboprophylaxis and length of follow-up and used the median value from studies to determine cumulative incidence at 4 weeks postsurgery stratified by patient venous thromboembolism risk factors. The GRADE approach was applied to rate evidence certainty.
RESULTS
We included 188 studies (398,167 patients) reporting on 37 gynecologic cancer surgery procedures. The evidence certainty was generally low to very low. Median symptomatic venous thromboembolism risk (in the absence of prophylaxis) was <1% in 13 of 37 (35%) procedures, 1% to 2% in 11 of 37 (30%), and >2.0% in 13 of 37 (35%). The risks of venous thromboembolism varied from 0.1% in low venous thromboembolism risk patients undergoing cervical conization to 33.5% in high venous thromboembolism risk patients undergoing pelvic exenteration. Estimates of bleeding requiring reintervention varied from <0.1% to 1.3%. Median risks of bleeding requiring reintervention were <1% in 22 of 29 (76%) and 1% to 2% in 7 of 29 (24%) procedures.
CONCLUSION
Venous thromboembolism reduction with thromboprophylaxis likely outweighs the increase in bleeding requiring reintervention in many gynecologic cancer procedures (eg, open surgery for ovarian cancer and pelvic exenteration). In some procedures (eg, laparoscopic total hysterectomy without lymphadenectomy), thromboembolism and bleeding risks are similar, and decisions depend on individual risk prediction and values and preferences regarding venous thromboembolism and bleeding.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Female; Anticoagulants; Venous Thromboembolism; Postoperative Complications; Hemorrhage; Thrombosis; Neoplasms
PubMed: 37827272
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2023.10.006 -
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.... Oct 2023Severe acute burn injuries represent a challenge to the reconstructive surgeon. Free flap reconstruction might be required in cases of significant critical structure...
BACKGROUND
Severe acute burn injuries represent a challenge to the reconstructive surgeon. Free flap reconstruction might be required in cases of significant critical structure exposure and soft tissue deficits, when local options are unavailable. This study aimed to determine the free flap complication rate in acute burn patients.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted and reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines and registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews database (CRD42023404478). The following databases were accessed: Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. The primary outcome was the free flap failure rate.
RESULTS
The study identified 31 articles for inclusion. A total of 427 patients (83.3% men, 16.7% women) accounting for 454 free flaps were included. The mean patient age was 36.21 [95% confidence interval (CI), 31.25-41.16]. Total free flap loss rate was 9.91% [95% CI, 7.48%-13.02%], and partial flap loss was 4.76% [95% CI, 2.66%-8.39%]. The rate of venous thrombosis was 6.41% [95% CI, 3.90%-10.36%] and arterial thrombosis was 5.08% [95% CI, 3.09%-8.26%]. Acute return to the operating room occurred in 20.63% [16.33%-25.71%] of cases. Stratified by body region, free flaps in the lower extremity had a failure rate of 8.33% [95% CI, 4.39%-15.24%], whereas in the upper extremity, the failure rate was 6.74% [95% CI, 3.95%-11.25%].
CONCLUSION
This study highlights the high risk of free flap complications and failure in acute burn patients.
PubMed: 37817922
DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000005311 -
Archivio Italiano Di Urologia,... Oct 2023Renal artery infarction (RI) is the presence of blood clot in the main renal artery or its branches causing complete or partial obstruction of the blood supply. Its...
AIM
Renal artery infarction (RI) is the presence of blood clot in the main renal artery or its branches causing complete or partial obstruction of the blood supply. Its etiology is either related with disorders of the renal vasculature or with cardiovascular diseases. Recently, the SARSCoV- 2 virus is an emerging cause of thromboembolic events and the incidence of RI is anticipated to increase after the pandemic.
METHODS
A systematic review based on COVID-19 associated RI was conducted.
PROTOCOL
A systematic review of the Medline/Pubmed and Scopus databases was conducted in accordance to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (the PRISMA statement). Search strategy and information sources: A hand-search was performed using the terms "SARS-Cov-2" OR "COVID-19" AND "renal thrombosis" OR "renal infarction" OR "renal "thromboembolism".
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
all types of publications (case reports, case series, letters to the editor, short communications) were evaluated for relevance. Inclusion criteria were: confirmed SARS-Cov-2 infection irrespectively of the age, diagnosis of RI during or after the onset of viral infection, and exclusion of other potential causes of thromboembolic event except of SARS-Cov-2. Patients with renal transplantation were also considered. Study criteria selection: after checking for relevance based on the title and the abstract, the full texts of the selected papers were retrieved and were further evaluated. Duplicated and irrelevant cases were excluded. Any disagreement was resolved by consensus with the involvement of a third reviewer. Quality of studies: The assessment of the quality case reports was based on four different domains: selection, ascertainment, casualty and reporting. Each paper was classified as "Good", "Moderate" and "Poor" for any of the four domains. Data extractions: Crucial data for the conduct of the study were extracted including: age, sex, time from SARS-Cov-2 infection till RI development, medical history, previous or current antithrombotic protection or treatment, laterality and degree of obstruction, other sites of thromboembolism, treatment for thromboembolism and SARS-Cov-2 and final outcome.
DATA ANALYSIS
methods of descriptive statistics were implicated for analysis and presentation of the data.
RESULTS
The systematic review retrieved 35 cases in 33 reports. In most cases, RI was diagnosed within a month from the SARSCov- 2 infection albeit 17 out of 35 patients were receiving or had recently received thromboprophylaxis. Right, left, bilateral and allograft obstruction was diagnosed in 7, 15, 8 and 5 patients respectively. 17 cases experienced additional extrarenal thromboembolism primarily in aorta, spleen, brain and lower limbs. Low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) (usually 60-80 mg enoxaparine bid) was the primary treatment, followed by combinations of unfractionated heparin and salicylic acid, apixaban and rivaraxaban, warfarin, acenocoumarol or clopidogrel. Kidney replacement therapy was offered to five patients while invasive therapies with thrombus aspiration or catheter directed thrombolysis were performed in two. Regarding the outcomes, five of the patients died. The total renal function was preserved in 17 cases and renal impairment with or without hemodialysis was recorded in 5 patients, two of them having lost their kidney allografts.
LIMITATIONS
The majority of included studies are of moderate quality. The results and the conclusions are based on case-reports only and crucial data are dissimilarly presented or missing through the relevant publications.
CONCLUSIONS
Thromboprophylaxis may not offer adequate protection against SARS-Cov-2 induced thrombosis. Most patients could be effectively treated with conservative measures, while in more severe cases aggressive treatment could be recommended.
IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS
Therapeutic doses of LMWH could be considered for protection against RI in SARS-Cov-2 cases. Interventional treatment could be offered in a minority of more severe cases after carful balancing the risks and benefits.
Topics: Humans; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Anticoagulants; Heparin; Renal Artery; Venous Thromboembolism; Thrombosis; Infarction
PubMed: 37791549
DOI: 10.4081/aiua.2023.11625 -
BMC Cancer Oct 2023Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common postoperative complication in patients undergoing surgery for gastric cancer (GC). Although VTE incidence may vary among... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common postoperative complication in patients undergoing surgery for gastric cancer (GC). Although VTE incidence may vary among cancers, guidelines rarely stratify preventive methods for postoperative VTE by cancer type. The risk of VTE in patients undergoing surgery for GC remains unclear.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to determine the risk of VTE after GC surgery and discuss the clinical value of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in these cases. Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for articles published from their inception to September 2022.
RESULTS
Overall, 13 studies (111,936 patients) were included. The overall 1-month incidence of VTE, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and pulmonary embolism (PE) after GC surgery was 1.8% (95% CI, 0.8-3.1%; I²=98.5%), 1.2% (95% CI, 0.5-2.1%; I²=96.1%), and 0.4% (95% CI, 0.1-1.1%; I²=96.3%), respectively. The prevalence of postoperative VTE was comparable between Asian and Western populations (1.8% vs. 1.8%; P > 0.05). Compared with mechanical prophylaxis alone, mechanical plus pharmacological prophylaxis was associated with a significantly lower 1-month rate of postoperative VTE and DVT (0.6% vs. 2.9% and 0.6% vs. 2.8%, respectively; all P < 0.05), but not PE (P > 0.05). The 1-month postoperative incidence of VTE was not significantly different between laparoscopic and open surgery (1.8% vs. 4.3%, P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION
Patients undergoing GC surgery do not have a high risk of VTE. The incidence of VTE after GC surgery is not significantly different between Eastern and Western patients. Mechanical plus pharmacological prophylaxis is more effective than mechanical prophylaxis alone in postoperative VTE prevention. The VTE risk is comparable between open and laparoscopic surgery for GC.
Topics: Humans; Venous Thromboembolism; Anticoagulants; Stomach Neoplasms; Pulmonary Embolism; Postoperative Complications; Risk Factors
PubMed: 37789268
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-023-11424-x -
BMC Gastroenterology Oct 2023Budd-Chiari syndrome (BCS) results when the outflow of the hepatic vein (HV) is obstructed. BCS patients exhibiting an accessory HV (AHV) that is dilated but obstructed... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Budd-Chiari syndrome (BCS) results when the outflow of the hepatic vein (HV) is obstructed. BCS patients exhibiting an accessory HV (AHV) that is dilated but obstructed can achieve significant alleviation of liver congestion after undergoing AHV recanalization. This meta-analysis was developed to explore the clinical efficacy of AHV recanalization in patients with BCS.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
PubMed, Embase, and Wanfang databases were searched for relevant studies published as of November 2022, and RevMan 5.3 and Stata 12.0 were used for pooled endpoint analyses.
RESULTS
Twelve total studies were identified for analysis. Pooled primary clinical success, re-stenosis, 1- and 5-year primary patency, 1- and 5-year secondary patency, 1-year overall survival (OS), and 5-year OS rates of patients in these studies following AHV recanalization were 96%, 17%, 91%, 75%, 98%, 91%, 97%, and 96%, respectively. Patients also exhibited a significant reduction in AHV pressure after recanalization relative to preoperative levels (P < 0.00001). Endpoints exhibiting significant heterogeneity among these studies included, AHV pressure (I = 95%), 1-year primary patency (I = 51.2%), and 5-year primary patency (I = 62.4%). Relative to HV recanalization, AHV recanalization was related to a lower rate of re-stenosis (P = 0.002) and longer primary patency (P < 0.00001), but was not associated with any improvements in clinical success (P = 0.88) or OS (P = 0.29) relative to HV recanalization.
CONCLUSIONS
The present meta-analysis highlights AHV recanalization as an effective means of achieving positive long-term outcomes in patients affected by BCS, potentially achieving better long-term results than those associated with HV recanalization.
Topics: Humans; Hepatic Veins; Budd-Chiari Syndrome; Constriction, Pathologic; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37784064
DOI: 10.1186/s12876-023-02969-z -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Sep 2023: Post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) is a common and debilitating sequela of lower limb deep vein thrombosis (DVT). There is significant heterogeneity in reported PTS... (Review)
Review
: Post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) is a common and debilitating sequela of lower limb deep vein thrombosis (DVT). There is significant heterogeneity in reported PTS incidence due to lack of standardised diagnostic criteria. This review aimed to develop diagnostic criteria for PTS and subsequently refine the reported incidence and severity. : PRISMA principles were followed; however, the review was not registered. The Cochrane CENTRAL database, MEDLINE, Embase, the NHS NICE Healthcare Databases Advanced Search interface, and trial registers including isrctn.com and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for studies addressing areas of interest (PTS definition, epidemiology, assessment). An experienced Clinical Librarian undertook the systematic searches, and two independent reviewers agreed on the relevance of the papers. Conflicts were resolved through panel review. Evidence quality was assessed using a modified Coleman scoring system and weighted according to their relevance to the aforementioned areas of interest. : A total of 339 abstracts were retrieved. A total of 33 full-text papers were included in this review. Following qualitative analysis, four criteria were proposed to define PTS: (1) a proven thrombotic event on radiological assessment; (2) a minimum 24-month follow-up period after an index DVT; (3) assessment with a validated score; and (4) evidence of progression of venous insufficiency from baseline. Four papers conformed to our PTS definition criteria, and the incidence of mild to moderate PTS ranged from 7 to 36%. On reviewing the studies which utilised the recommended Villalta scale, PTS incidence narrowed further to 23-36%. Incidence and severity reached a plateau at 24 months. : Four diagnostic criteria were developed from qualitative synthesis. When these criteria were applied to the literature, the range of reported PTS incidence narrowed. These four criteria may standardise PTS diagnosis in future studies, facilitating the pooling of data for meta-analysis and synthesis of higher levels of evidence.
PubMed: 37762837
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12185896 -
Annals of Surgery Jan 2024To compare the rate of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in surgical inpatients with pharmacological thromboprophylaxis and additional graduated compression stockings (GCSs)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Impact of Graduated Compression Stockings in Addition to Pharmacological Thromboprophylaxis for Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Surgical Inpatients.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the rate of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in surgical inpatients with pharmacological thromboprophylaxis and additional graduated compression stockings (GCSs) versus pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alone.
BACKGROUND
Surgical inpatients have elevated VTE risk; recent studies cast doubt on whether GCS confers additional protection against VTE, compared with pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alone.
METHODS
The review followed "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses" guidelines using a registered protocol (CRD42017062655). The MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched up to November 2022. Randomized trials reporting VTE rate after surgical procedures, utilizing pharmacological thromboprophylaxis, with or without GCS, were included. The rates of deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism, and VTE-related mortality were pooled through fixed and random effects.
RESULTS
In a head-to-head meta-analysis, the risk of DVT for GCS and pharmacological thromboprophylaxis was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.54-1.36) versus for pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alone (2 studies, 70 events, 2653 participants). The risk of DVT in pooled trial arms for GCS and pharmacological thromboprophylaxis was 0.54 (95% CI: 0.23-1.25) versus pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alone (33 trial arms, 1228 events, 14,108 participants). The risk of pulmonary embolism for GCS and pharmacological prophylaxis versus pharmacological prophylaxis alone was 0.71 (95% CI: 0.0-30.0) (27 trial arms, 32 events, 11,472 participants). There were no between-group differences in VTE-related mortality (27 trial arms, 3 events, 12,982 participants).
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence from head-to-head meta-analysis and pooled trial arms demonstrates no additional benefit for GCS in preventing VTE and VTE-related mortality. GCS confer a risk of skin complications and an economic burden; current evidence does not support their use for surgical inpatients.
Topics: Humans; Venous Thromboembolism; Anticoagulants; Stockings, Compression; Postoperative Complications; Inpatients; Pulmonary Embolism
PubMed: 37753655
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000006096 -
EClinicalMedicine Oct 2023The optimal duration of anticoagulation in patients with active cancer and venous thromboembolism (VTE) is unknown. Current clinical guidelines advocate anticoagulant...
The risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism after discontinuation of anticoagulant therapy in patients with cancer-associated thrombosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The optimal duration of anticoagulation in patients with active cancer and venous thromboembolism (VTE) is unknown. Current clinical guidelines advocate anticoagulant therapy for 3-6 months and to continue anticoagulant therapy for as long as the cancer is active. However, an adequate systematic review on the rate of recurrent VTE after discontinuation of anticoagulant therapy has not been performed.
METHODS
For this systemic review and meta-analysis, we searched Embase.com, Medline (Ovid), Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, from database inception to February 16, 2023, for studies on anticoagulant therapy in patients with cancer and the recurrence of venous thromboembolism after discontinuation of this therapy. We included randomised controlled trials and cohort studies published in English that reported on patients who met the following: cancer and a first VTE, completed at least 3 months of anticoagulant therapy, were followed after discontinuation of anticoagulant therapy, and with symptomatic recurrent VTE as an outcome during follow-up. Study-level data were requested from study authors. The primary outcome was the rate of recurrent VTE after discontinuation of anticoagulant therapy. A Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate the rate of recurrent VTE per 100 person-years for the pooled studies at different time intervals after discontinuation of anticoagulation therapy. We also calculated the cumulative VTE recurrence rate at different time intervals. Forest plots were mapped and the results were summarized by the median and 95% credible interval (CIs). This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021249060.
FINDINGS
Of 3856 studies identified in our search, 33 studies were identified for inclusion. After requesting study-level data, 14 studies involving 1922 patients with cancer-associated thrombosis were included. The pooled rate of recurrent VTE per 100 person-years after discontinuation of anticoagulant therapy was 14.6 events (95% credible interval 6.5-22.8) in the first three months, decreasing to 1.1 events (95% CI 0.3-2.1) in year 2-3, and 2.2 events (95% CI 0.0-4.4) in year 3-5 after discontinuation of anticoagulant therapy. The cumulative VTE recurrence rate was 28.3% (95% CI 15.6-39.6%) at 1 year; 31.1% (95% CI 16.5-43.8%) at 2 years; 31.9% (95% CI 16.8-45.0%) at 3 years; and 35.0% (95% CI 16.8-47.4%) at 5 years after discontinuation of anticoagulant therapy.
INTERPRETATION
This meta-analysis demonstrates a high rate of recurrent VTE over time after discontinuation of anticoagulant therapy in patients with cancer-associated thrombosis. Our results support the current clinical guidelines to continue anticoagulant therapy in patients with active cancer.
FUNDING
Erasmus MC.
PubMed: 37731937
DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102194