Low Molecular Weight Heparin and Prevention of Postoperative Thrombosis in Abdominal Surgery

Primary prevention of venous thromboembolism with low molecular weight heparins in surgical patients – 2024: Council of Experts resolution

On March 15, 2024, in Moscow, the Russian Phlebological Association and the National Association of Specialists in Thrombosis, Clinical Hemostasiology and Hemorheology organized a meeting of the Council of Experts during the Russian Forum on Thrombosis and Hemostasis on the acute issues of venous thromboembolism (VTE) primary prevention using low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) in surgical patients with different body weight. The participants reviewed the relevance and prevalence of this problem in surgical practice, discussed risk factors and the frequency of VTE development, including bleeding in the postoperative period, and the Caprini risk score for complications. The discussion also focused on standard and personalized LMWH doses for primary prophylaxis of VTE in the perioperative period in surgical patients, depending on body weight, and the role of laboratory tests, including assessment of LMWH anti-Xa activity for monitoring the efficacy and safety of VTE primary prevention in clinical practice.

Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Inpatients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients are three times more likely to develop venous thromboembolism (VTE), and guidelines recommend prophylaxis during all hospitalizations. In this systematic review, we sought to assess for the benefits and risks of VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized IBD patients.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched MEDLINE and others up to 2/2022, for studies on IBD inpatients treated with prophylactic anticoagulation during hospitalization, compared to no prophylaxis. Primary efficacy and safety outcomes were any VTE and major bleeding, respectively. Results were pooled using random-effects models, calculating odds ratios (OR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The ROBINS-I tool was used to assess bias.

RESULTS

We extracted data from 18 observational studies and 2 randomized-trial subgroups. The studies were highly variable regarding the included populations, interventions, and outcome definitions. Meta-analysis of all studies showed a nonsignificant effect of prophylaxis on VTEs (OR: 0.97 [95% CI: 0.49-1.95]). An analysis of eight lower-risk-of-bias studies showed a significant reduction in VTEs (OR: 0.27 [95% CI: 0.13-0.55], number needed to treat (NNT) 34.8 [95% CI: 26.8-49.8]). A significant protective effect persisted in several subgroups. Major bleeding was reported in three studies and showed a significant increase with prophylaxis (OR: 2.02 [95% CI: 1.11-3.67], number needed to harm (NNH) 113.6 [95% CI: 40.7-very-large-number]).

CONCLUSION

In studies with lower-risk-of-bias, a significant reduction in VTEs was shown in patients treated with VTE prophylaxis (NNT = 35), which should be carefully considered against an increased major-bleeding risk (NNH = 114). However, current data are limited and randomized trials dedicated to IBD inpatients would aid in understating whether universal prophylaxis should be recommended.

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

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.

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

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).

Anticoagulation for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism in people with cancer

BACKGROUND

Compared with people without cancer, people with cancer who receive anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism (VTE) are more likely to develop recurrent VTE.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of three types of parenteral anticoagulants (i.e. fixed-dose low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), adjusted-dose unfractionated heparin (UFH), and fondaparinux) for the initial treatment of VTE in people with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search in the following major databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via Ovid) and Embase (via Ovid). We also handsearched conference proceedings, checked references of included studies, and searched for ongoing studies. This update of the systematic review is based on the findings of a literature search conducted on 14 August 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of LMWH, UFH, and fondaparinux in people with cancer and objectively confirmed VTE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardised form, we extracted data - in duplicate - on study design, participants, interventions, outcomes of interest, and risk of bias. Outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality, symptomatic VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, and thrombocytopenia. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 11,484 identified citations, 3073 were unique citations and 15 RCTs fulfilled the eligibility criteria, none of which were identified in the latest search. These trials enrolled 1615 participants with cancer and VTE: 13 compared LMWH with UFH; one compared fondaparinux with UFH and LMWH; and one compared dalteparin with tinzaparin, two different types of low molecular weight heparin. The meta-analyses showed that LMWH may reduce mortality at three months compared to UFH (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.10; risk difference (RD) 57 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 101 fewer to 17 more; low certainty evidence) and may reduce VTE recurrence slightly (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.76; RD 30 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 70 fewer to 73 more; low certainty evidence). There were no data available for bleeding outcomes, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, or thrombocytopenia. The study comparing fondaparinux with heparin (UFH or LMWH) found that fondaparinux may increase mortality at three months (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.81; RD 43 more per 1000, 95% CI 24 fewer to 139 more; low certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference in recurrent VTE (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.54; RD 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 52 fewer to 63 more; low certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference in major bleeding (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.66; RD 12 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 40 fewer to 44 more; low certainty evidence), and probably increases minor bleeding (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.66; RD 42 more per 1000, 95% CI 10 fewer to 132 more; moderate certainty evidence). There were no data available for postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, or thrombocytopenia. The study comparing dalteparin with tinzaparin found that dalteparin may reduce mortality slightly (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.73; RD 33 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 135 fewer to 173 more; low certainty evidence), may reduce recurrent VTE (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.16; RD 47 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 77 fewer to 98 more; low certainty evidence), may increase major bleeding slightly (RR 2.19, 95% CI 0.20 to 23.42; RD 20 more per 1000, 95% CI 14 fewer to 380 more; low certainty evidence), and may reduce minor bleeding slightly (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.21; RD 24 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 95 fewer to 164 more; low certainty evidence). There were no data available for postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, or thrombocytopenia.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is probably superior to UFH in the initial treatment of VTE in people with cancer. Additional trials focusing on patient-important outcomes will further inform the questions addressed in this review. The decision for a person with cancer to start LMWH therapy should balance the benefits and harms and consider the person's values and preferences.

American Society of Hematology 2021 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: prevention and treatment in patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication among patients with cancer. Patients with cancer and VTE are at a markedly increased risk for morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in their decisions about the prevention and treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

METHODS

ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The guideline development process was supported by updated or new systematic evidence reviews. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations.

RESULTS

Recommendations address mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients with cancer, those undergoing a surgical procedure, and ambulatory patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. The recommendations also address the use of anticoagulation for the initial, short-term, and long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Strong recommendations include not using thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients receiving cancer chemotherapy at low risk of VTE and to use low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. Conditional recommendations include using thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients with cancer, LMWH or fondaparinux for surgical patients with cancer, LMWH or direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) in ambulatory patients with cancer receiving systemic therapy at high risk of VTE and LMWH or DOAC for initial treatment of VTE, DOAC for the short-term treatment of VTE, and LMWH or DOAC for the long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

American Society of Hematology 2019 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: prevention of venous thromboembolism in surgical hospitalized patients

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common source of perioperative morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) intend to support decision making about preventing VTE in patients undergoing surgery.

METHODS

ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline-development process, including performing systematic reviews. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on 30 recommendations, including for major surgery in general (n = 8), orthopedic surgery (n = 7), major general surgery (n = 3), major neurosurgical procedures (n = 2), urological surgery (n = 4), cardiac surgery and major vascular surgery (n = 2), major trauma (n = 2), and major gynecological surgery (n = 2).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients undergoing major surgery in general, the panel made conditional recommendations for mechanical prophylaxis over no prophylaxis, for pneumatic compression prophylaxis over graduated compression stockings, and against inferior vena cava filters. In patients undergoing total hip or total knee arthroplasty, conditional recommendations included using either aspirin or anticoagulants, as well as for a direct oral anticoagulant over low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). For major general surgery, the panel suggested pharmacological prophylaxis over no prophylaxis, using LMWH or unfractionated heparin. For major neurosurgery, transurethral resection of the prostate, or radical prostatectomy, the panel suggested against pharmacological prophylaxis. For major trauma surgery or major gynecological surgery, the panel suggested pharmacological prophylaxis over no prophylaxis.

Anticoagulation for perioperative thromboprophylaxis in people with cancer

BACKGROUND

The choice of the appropriate perioperative thromboprophylaxis for people with cancer depends on the relative benefits and harms of different anticoagulants.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the evidence for the relative efficacy and safety of anticoagulants for perioperative thromboprophylaxis in people with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

This update of the systematic review was based on the findings of a comprehensive literature search conducted on 14 June 2018 that included a major electronic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2018, Issue 6), MEDLINE (Ovid), and Embase (Ovid); handsearching of conference proceedings; checking of references of included studies; searching for ongoing studies; and using the 'related citation' feature in PubMed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled people with cancer undergoing a surgical intervention and assessed the effects of low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) to unfractionated heparin (UFH) or to fondaparinux on mortality, deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), bleeding outcomes, and thrombocytopenia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardized form, we extracted data in duplicate on study design, participants, interventions outcomes of interest, and risk of bias. Outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality, PE, symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE), asymptomatic DVT, major bleeding, minor bleeding, postphlebitic syndrome, health related quality of life, and thrombocytopenia. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach (GRADE Handbook).

MAIN RESULTS

Of 7670 identified unique citations, we included 20 RCTs with 9771 randomized people with cancer receiving preoperative prophylactic anticoagulation. We identified seven reports for seven new RCTs for this update.The meta-analyses did not conclusively rule out either a beneficial or harmful effect of LMWH compared with UFH for the following outcomes: mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 1.07; risk difference (RD) 9 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 19 fewer to 4 more; moderate-certainty evidence), PE (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.47; RD 3 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 5 fewer to 3 more; moderate-certainty evidence), symptomatic DVT (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.69; RD 3 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 7 fewer to 7 more; moderate-certainty evidence), asymptomatic DVT (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.05; RD 11 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 23 fewer to 4 more; low-certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.48; RD 0 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 10 fewer to 15 more; moderate-certainty evidence), minor bleeding (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.33; RD 1 more per 1000, 95% CI 34 fewer to 47 more; moderate-certainty evidence), reoperation for bleeding (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.50; RD 4 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 22 fewer to 26 more; moderate-certainty evidence), intraoperative transfusion (mean difference (MD) -35.36 mL, 95% CI -253.19 to 182.47; low-certainty evidence), postoperative transfusion (MD 190.03 mL, 95% CI -23.65 to 403.72; low-certainty evidence), and thrombocytopenia (RR 3.07, 95% CI 0.32 to 29.33; RD 6 more per 1000, 95% CI 2 fewer to 82 more; moderate-certainty evidence). LMWH was associated with lower incidence of wound hematoma (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.92; RD 26 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 39 fewer to 7 fewer; moderate-certainty evidence). The meta-analyses found the following additional results: outcomes intraoperative blood loss (MD -6.75 mL, 95% CI -85.49 to 71.99; moderate-certainty evidence); and postoperative drain volume (MD 30.18 mL, 95% CI -36.26 to 96.62; moderate-certainty evidence).In addition, the meta-analyses did not conclusively rule out either a beneficial or harmful effect of LMWH compared with Fondaparinux for the following outcomes: any VTE (DVT or PE, or both; RR 2.51, 95% CI 0.89 to 7.03; RD 57 more per 1000, 95% CI 4 fewer to 228 more; low-certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.23; RD 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 16 fewer to 7 more; low-certainty evidence), minor bleeding (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.05; RD 8fewer per 1000, 95% CI 33 fewer to 52 more; low-certainty evidence), thrombocytopenia (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.30; RD 14 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 20 fewer to 48 more; low-certainty evidence), any PE (RR 3.13, 95% CI 0.13 to 74.64; RD 2 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 78 more; low-certainty evidence) and postoperative drain volume (MD -20.00 mL, 95% CI -114.34 to 74.34; low-certainty evidence) AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference between perioperative thromboprophylaxis with LMWH versus UFH and LMWH compared with fondaparinux in their effects on mortality, thromboembolic outcomes, major bleeding, or minor bleeding in people with cancer. There was a lower incidence of wound hematoma with LMWH compared to UFH.

Anticoagulation for people with cancer and central venous catheters

BACKGROUND

Central venous catheter (CVC) placement increases the risk of thrombosis in people with cancer. Thrombosis often necessitates the removal of the CVC, resulting in treatment delays and thrombosis-related morbidity and mortality. This is an update of the Cochrane Review published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in people with cancer with a CVC.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature search in May 2018 that included a major electronic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), and Embase (Ovid); handsearching of conference proceedings; checking of references of included studies; searching for ongoing studies; and using the 'related citation' feature in PubMed. This update of the systematic review was based on the findings of a literature search conducted on 14 May 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of unfractionated heparin (UFH), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), vitamin K antagonists (VKA), or fondaparinux or comparing the effects of two of these anticoagulants in people with cancer and a CVC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardized form, we extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Outcomes included all-cause mortality, symptomatic catheter-related venous thromboembolism (VTE), pulmonary embolism (PE), major bleeding, minor bleeding, catheter-related infection, thrombocytopenia, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach (Balshem 2011).

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen RCTs (23 papers) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. These trials enrolled 3420 participants. Seven RCTs compared LMWH to no LMWH (six in adults and one in children), six RCTs compared VKA to no VKA (five in adults and one in children), and three RCTs compared LMWH to VKA in adults.LMWH versus no LMWHSix RCTs (1537 participants) compared LMWH to no LMWH in adults. The meta-analyses showed that LMWH probably decreased the incidence of symptomatic catheter-related VTE up to three months of follow-up compared to no LMWH (risk ratio (RR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 0.81; risk difference (RD) 38 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 13 fewer to 52 fewer; moderate-certainty evidence). However, the analysis did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of LMWH on mortality at three months of follow-up (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.26; RD 14 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 36 fewer to 20 more; low-certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.06 to 36.28; RD 0 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 35 more; very low-certainty evidence), minor bleeding (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.92; RD 14 more per 1000, 95% CI 16 fewer to 79 more; low-certainty evidence), and thrombocytopenia (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.33; RD 5 more per 1000, 95% CI 35 fewer to 58 more; low-certainty evidence).VKA versus no VKAFive RCTs (1599 participants) compared low-dose VKA to no VKA in adults. The meta-analyses did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of low-dose VKA compared to no VKA on mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.55; RD 1 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 34 fewer to 52 more; low-certainty evidence), symptomatic catheter-related VTE (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.64; RD 31 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 62 fewer to 51 more; low-certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 7.14, 95% CI 0.88 to 57.78; RD 12 more per 1000, 95% CI 0 fewer to 110 more; low-certainty evidence), minor bleeding (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.26; RD 15 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 30 fewer to 13 more; low-certainty evidence), premature catheter removal (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.24; RD 29 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 114 fewer to 202 more; low-certainty evidence), and catheter-related infection (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.85; RD 71 more per 1000, 95% CI 109 fewer to 356; low-certainty evidence).LMWH versus VKAThree RCTs (641 participants) compared LMWH to VKA in adults. The available evidence did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of LMWH relative to VKA on mortality (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.59; RD 6 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 41 fewer to 56 more; low-certainty evidence), symptomatic catheter-related VTE (RR 1.83, 95% CI 0.44 to 7.61; RD 15 more per 1000, 95% CI 10 fewer to 122 more; very low-certainty evidence), PE (RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.74 to 3.92; RD 35 more per 1000, 95% CI 13 fewer to 144 more; low-certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 3.11, 95% CI 0.13 to 73.11; RD 2 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 72 more; very low-certainty evidence), or minor bleeding (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.20 to 4.61; RD 1 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 21 fewer to 95 more; very low-certainty evidence). The meta-analyses showed that LMWH probably increased the risk of thrombocytopenia compared to VKA at three months of follow-up (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.39; RD 149 more per 1000, 95% CI 43 fewer to 300 more; moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence was not conclusive for the effect of LMWH on mortality, the effect of VKA on mortality and catheter-related VTE, and the effect of LMWH compared to VKA on mortality and catheter-related VTE. We found moderate-certainty evidence that LMWH reduces catheter-related VTE compared to no LMWH. People with cancer with CVCs considering anticoagulation should balance the possible benefit of reduced thromboembolic complications with the possible harms and burden of anticoagulants.

Anticoagulation for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism in people with cancer

BACKGROUND

Compared with people without cancer, people with cancer who receive anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism (VTE) are more likely to develop recurrent VTE.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of three types of parenteral anticoagulants (i.e. fixed-dose low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), adjusted-dose unfractionated heparin (UFH), and fondaparinux) for the initial treatment of VTE in people with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

A comprehensive search included a major electronic search of the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2018, Issue 1), MEDLINE (via Ovid) and Embase (via Ovid); handsearching of conference proceedings; checking of references of included studies; use of the 'related citation' feature in PubMed; and a search for ongoing studies. This update of the systematic review was based on the findings of a literature search conducted on 14 January 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of LMWH, UFH, and fondaparinux in people with cancer and objectively confirmed VTE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardized form, we extracted data in duplicate on study design, participants, interventions outcomes of interest, and risk of bias. Outcomes of interested included all-cause mortality, symptomatic VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, and thrombocytopenia. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 15440 identified citations, 7387 unique citations, 15 RCTs fulfilled the eligibility criteria. These trials enrolled 1615 participants with cancer and VTE: 13 compared LMWH with UFH enrolling 1025 participants, one compared fondaparinux with UFH and LMWH enrolling 477 participants, and one compared dalteparin with tinzaparin enrolling 113 participants. The meta-analysis of mortality at three months included 418 participants from five studies and that of recurrent VTE included 422 participants from 3 studies. The findings showed that LMWH likely decreases mortality at three months compared to UFH (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.10; risk difference (RD) 57 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 101 fewer to 17 more; moderate certainty evidence), but did not rule out a clinically significant increase or decrease in VTE recurrence (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.76; RD 30 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 70 fewer to 73 more; moderate certainty evidence).The study comparing fondaparinux with heparin (UFH or LMWH) did not exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of fondaparinux on mortality at three months (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.81; RD 43 more per 1000, 95% CI 24 fewer to 139 more; moderate certainty evidence), recurrent VTE (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.54; RD 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 52 fewer to 63 more; moderate certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.66; RD 12 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 40 fewer to 44 more; moderate certainty evidence), or minor bleeding (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.66; RD 42 more per 1000, 95% CI 10 fewer to 132 more; moderate certainty evidence)The study comparing dalteparin with tinzaparin did not exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of dalteparin on mortality (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.73; RD 33 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 135 fewer to 173 more; low certainty evidence), recurrent VTE (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.16; RD 47 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 77 fewer to 98 more; low certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 2.19, 95% CI 0.20 to 23.42; RD 20 more per 1000, 95% CI 14 fewer to 380 more; low certainty evidence), or minor bleeding (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.21; RD 24 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 95 fewer to 164 more; low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

LMWH is possibly superior to UFH in the initial treatment of VTE in people with cancer. Additional trials focusing on patient-important outcomes will further inform the questions addressed in this review. The decision for a person with cancer to start LMWH therapy should balance the benefits and harms and consider the person's values and preferences.

Oral anticoagulation in people with cancer who have no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation

BACKGROUND

Oral anticoagulants may improve the survival of people with cancer through both an antitumor effect and antithrombotic effect, yet increase the risk of bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral anticoagulants in ambulatory people with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, immunotherapy or radiotherapy, but otherwise have no standard therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature search in February 2016 that included a major electronic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid); handsearching of conference proceedings; checking of references of included studies; a search for ongoing studies; and using the 'related citation' feature in PubMed. As part of the living systematic review approach, we are running continual searches and will incorporate new evidence rapidly after it is identified. This update of the systematic review is based on the findings of a literature search conducted on 14 December 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of vitamin K antagonist (VKA) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) in ambulatory people with cancer. These participants are typically undergoing systemic anticancer therapy, possibly including chemotherapy, target therapy, immunotherapy or radiotherapy, but otherwise have no standard therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardized form, we extracted data in duplicate on study design, participants, intervention outcomes of interest and risk of bias. Outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE), symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), major bleeding, minor bleeding and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach (GRADE Handbook).

MAIN RESULTS

Of 8545 identified citations, including 7668 unique citations, 16 papers reporting on 7 RCTs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. These trials enrolled 1486 participants. The oral anticoagulant was warfarin in six of these RCTs and apixaban in the seventh RCT. The comparator was either placebo or no intervention. The meta-analysis of the studies comparing VKA to no VKA did not rule out a clinically significant increase or decrease in mortality at one year (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.03; risk difference (RD) 29 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 75 fewer to 17 more; moderate certainty evidence). One study assessed the effect of VKA on thrombotic outcomes. The study did not rule out a clinically significant increase or decrease in PE when comparing VKA to no VKA (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.58; RD 0 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 6 fewer to 98 more; very low certainty evidence), but found that VKA compared to no VKA likely decreases the incidence of DVT (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.42; RD 35 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 38 fewer to 16 more; low certainty evidence). VKA increased both major bleeding (RR 2.93, 95% CI 1.86 to 4.62; RD 107 more per 1000, 95% CI 48 more to 201 more; moderate certainty evidence) and minor bleeding (RR 3.14, 95% CI 1.85 to 5.32; RD 167 more per 1000, 95% CI 66 more to 337 more; moderate certainty evidence).The study assessing the effect of DOAC compared to no DOAC did not rule out a clinically significant increase or decrease in mortality at three months (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.56; RD 51 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 65 fewer to 104 more; low certainty evidence), PE (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.91; RD 28 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 33 fewer to 97 more; low certainty evidence), symptomatic DVT (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.32; RD 93 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 100 fewer to 32 more; low certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.91; RD 28 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 33 fewer to 97 more; low certainty evidence); and minor bleeding (RR 4.43, 95% CI 0.25 to 79.68; RD 0 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 0 fewer to 8 more; low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The existing evidence does not show a mortality benefit from oral anticoagulation in people with cancer but suggests an increased risk for bleeding.Editorial note: this is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence, as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Parenteral anticoagulation in ambulatory patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Anticoagulation may improve survival in patients with cancer through a speculated anti-tumour effect, in addition to the antithrombotic effect, although may increase the risk of bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of parenteral anticoagulants in ambulatory patients with cancer who, typically, are undergoing chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, immunotherapy or radiotherapy, but otherwise have no standard therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation.

SEARCH METHODS

A comprehensive search included (1) a major electronic search (February 2016) of the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1946 to February 2016; accessed via OVID) and Embase (1980 to February 2016; accessed via OVID); (2) handsearching of conference proceedings; (3) checking of references of included studies; (4) use of the 'related citation' feature in PubMed and (5) a search for ongoing studies in trial registries. As part of the living systematic review approach, we are running searches continually and we will incorporate new evidence rapidly after it is identified. This update of the systematic review is based on the findings of a literature search conducted on 14 August, 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of parenteral anticoagulation in ambulatory patients with cancer. Typically, these patients are undergoing chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, immunotherapy or radiotherapy, but otherwise have no standard therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardized form we extracted data in duplicate on study design, participants, interventions outcomes of interest, and risk of bias. Outcomes of interested included all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE), symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), major bleeding, minor bleeding, and quality of life. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach (GRADE handbook).

MAIN RESULTS

Of 6947 identified citations, 18 RCTs fulfilled the eligibility criteria. These trials enrolled 9575 participants. Trial registries' searches identified nine registered but unpublished trials, two of which were labeled as 'ongoing trials'. In all included RCTs, the intervention consisted of heparin (either unfractionated heparin or low molecular weight heparin). Overall, heparin appears to have no effect on mortality at 12 months (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.03; risk difference (RD) 10 fewer per 1000; 95% CI 35 fewer to 15 more; moderate certainty of evidence) and mortality at 24 months (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.01; RD 8 fewer per 1000; 95% CI 31 fewer to 8 more; moderate certainty of evidence). Heparin therapy reduces the risk of symptomatic VTE (RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.68; RD 30 fewer per 1000; 95% CI 36 fewer to 22 fewer; high certainty of evidence), while it increases in the risks of major bleeding (RR 1.30; 95% 0.94 to 1.79; RD 4 more per 1000; 95% CI 1 fewer to 11 more; moderate certainty of evidence) and minor bleeding (RR 1.70; 95% 1.13 to 2.55; RD 17 more per 1000; 95% CI 3 more to 37 more; high certainty of evidence). Results failed to confirm or to exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of heparin on thrombocytopenia (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.27; RD 33 fewer per 1000; 95% CI 66 fewer to 28 more; moderate certainty of evidence); quality of life (moderate certainty of evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Heparin appears to have no effect on mortality at 12 months and 24 months. It reduces symptomatic VTE and likely increases major and minor bleeding. Future research should further investigate the survival benefit of different types of anticoagulants in patients with different types and stages of cancer. The decision for a patient with cancer to start heparin therapy should balance the benefits and downsides, and should integrate the patient's values and preferences.Editorial note:This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence, as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

A Randomised Trial to Compare the Effect of Pre- or Postoperative Nandroparin on Blood Loss during Elective Caesarean Section

Objective:

To compare operative blood loss following caesarean section in relation to the timing of administration of nandroparin, given to prevent perioperative deep vein thrombosis.

Patients:

Forty-four patients undergoing scheduled, primary elective caesarean section in full-term singleton pregnancies were included in this study.

Interventions:

A prospective randomised trial was performed, in which 2850 IU of nandroparin was administered either 12 h prior to or 12 h following surgery.

Outcome measures:

Haemoglobin and haematocrit levels, as indirect measures of blood loss, were compared in the two groups before and 2 days after surgery.

Findings:

Both groups were composed of 22 women. No significant differences between the outcome measures were observered.

Conclusions:

Nandroparin can safely be administered 12 h before planned caesarean section without significantly increasing blood loss.

Low-molecular-weight heparin and unfractionated heparin in prophylaxis against deep vein thrombosis in critically ill patients undergoing major surgery

The objective of the present study was to compare the efficacy and safety of low-dose unfractionated heparin (UFH) and a low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) as prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism in critically ill surgical patients undergoing major surgery. This was a randomized prospective study in which critically ill patients scheduled to undergo major elective surgery were allocated to receive subcutaneously either LMWH once daily and a placebo injection containing sterile 0.9% normal saline or 5000 IU UFH twice daily subcutaneously. Each patient was evaluated postoperatively clinically and confirmed by Doppler study for development of deep vein thrombosis (DVT). One hundred and fifty-six patients completed the protocol. There was similar efficacy of UFH as compared with LMWH in the prophylaxis of DVT. There was also no statistically significant difference in the incidence of major complications in the heparin group as compared with the LMWH group. However, minor hemorrhagic complications such as wound hematoma and surgical site bleeding were significantly more in the heparin group as compared with the LMWH group. Both UFH 5000 units subcutaneously twice daily and LMWH 40 mg once daily provide highly effective and well tolerated prophylaxis for critically ill surgical patients. Considering the advantage of once-daily dosing, a wider adoption of prophylaxis with LMWH may be justified on the basis of patient acceptability and saving of nursing time.

Unexpected complication of massive intraoperative pulmonary embolism following elective sigmoidectomy in the supine position

We describe a case of massive intraoperative pulmonary thromboembolism during elective sigmoidectomy in the supine position. During recovery from anesthesia, the patient developed hemodynamic compromise and severe hypoxemia. Intravenous inotropes and mechanical ventilation were instituted. The abrupt onset of symptoms and the pulmonary artery catheter, chest radiograph, and transesophageal echocardiography findings suggested massive pulmonary thromboembolism as a possible cause of the hemodynamic compromise and hypoxemia. Emergent angiography could not be carried out due to the patient's poor clinical status. Lack of experience in performing embolectomy, along with contraindication for thrombolysis, imposed the use of intravenous heparin and hemodynamic support as the only appropriate therapeutic modality. After 2 days' aggressive hemodynamic and ventilatory support, the patient had an uneventful course, and was discharged from the intensive care unit (ICU) 14 days later.

Venous thromboembolism: a review of risk and prevention in colorectal surgery patients

Hospitalization for surgery has a high risk of developing venous thromboembolism, a condition that encompasses both deep-vein thrombosis and its potentially fatal complication, pulmonary embolism. Colorectal surgery implies a specific high risk for postoperative thromboembolic complications relative to other general surgery. This may be a result of pelvic dissection, the perioperative positioning of these patients, or the presence of additional risk factors common to this patient group, such as cancer, advanced age, or inflammatory bowel disease. The potential impact of venous thromboembolism and the need for effective thromboprophylaxis often are underestimated in these patients. Recommendations for thromboprophylaxis in colorectal surgery patients are based on the American College of Chest Physicians guidelines for thrombosis prevention in general surgery patients, with treatment stratified according to the type of surgery and additional venous thromboembolism risk factors present. Prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin is recommended for colorectal surgery patients classified as moderate to high risk. The small number of studies focusing specifically on colorectal patients, or on cancer or abdominal surgery patients with a colorectal subgroup, has shown that both low-molecular-weight heparin and unfractionated heparin can effectively reduce the incidence of venous thromboembolism. Low-molecular-weight heparin has the practical advantage of once-daily administration and shows a lower risk of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. This review will assess the risk of venous thromboembolism in colorectal surgery patients and discuss current evidence-based guidelines and recommendations for prevention of venous thromboembolism.

Thromboprophylaxis in major abdominal surgery for cancer

AIMS

To review the epidemiology and pathogenesis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in surgical cancer patients, in addition to the use of thromboprophylaxis in major abdominal surgery, such as low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and fondaparinux.

METHODS

Systematic review of the literature, focussing on risk factors for VTE, parenteral methods of thromboprophylaxis, approaches to prolonged prophylaxis, and effects on patient survival.

FINDINGS

Patients with cancer undergoing abdominal surgery are at substantially higher risk for VTE than patients without cancer. Furthermore, prolonged thromboprophylaxis for up to 4 weeks is more effective than short-term administration in these high-risk patients. The concurrent use of graduated compression stockings has a synergistic effect on the reduction in VTE risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Thromboprophylaxis with LMWH has been shown to minimise the incidence of thromboembolic events, and is a well-established therapy worldwide. The American College of Chest Physicians recommends the routine use of thromboprophylaxis, with LMWH or unfractionated heparin, in patients with cancer who are undergoing surgical procedures, and the appropriate use of these thromboprophylactic agents has significant implications for the clinical care and quality of life of surgical patients with cancer.

Low-molecular-weight heparin for the prevention of postoperative venous thromboembolism after abdominal surgery: a review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To analyze the effect of low-molecular-weight heparin in abdominal surgery, which carries a significant risk of thrombosis, a risk further increased by cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

Searches in EMBASE and PubMed between 1980 and 2004 were conducted to identify studies of thromboprophylaxis in abdominal surgery patients. Sixteen comparative studies were identified. They showed that low-molecular-weight heparin is as effective as unfractionated heparin in reducing venous thromboembolism and, at appropriate doses, can reduce bleeding complications. In very-high-risk cancer patients, a higher dose of low-molecular-weight heparin may offer increased efficacy without increasing the risk of bleeding. Extending the standard 7-10-day low-molecular-weight heparin prophylaxis period may benefit certain high-risk patient groups.

SUMMARY

Patients undergoing abdominal surgery should be stratified according to thromboembolism risk and given prophylaxis accordingly. Low-molecular-weight heparin is a recommended alternative to unfractionated heparin in moderate- or high-risk patients. In patients with cancer, high doses of low-molecular-weight heparin may offer increased efficacy without increased bleeding, and an extended 4-week period of prophylaxis could be beneficial.

Systematic review of thromboprophylaxis in colorectal surgery -- an update

OBJECTIVE

The incidence of thromboembolism after colorectal surgery is higher than after general surgery. The aim of this paper is to update a systematic review addressing thrombosis prophylaxis in connection with colorectal surgery.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, abstract books and reference lists from reviews were searched without language restrictions for randomized controlled trials or clinical controlled trials comparing prophylactic interventions and/or placebo up til August 2003. Five hundred and fifty-eight studies were identified of which 19 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Data extraction was done by at least two of the authors. Outcome was deep venous thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism diagnosed by various methods.

RESULTS

Any kind of heparin is better than no treatment or placebo (11 studies) with a Peto Odds ratio (POR) at 0.32 (95% CI 0.20-0.53). Unfractionated heparin and low molecular weight heparin (4 studies) were equally effective POR 1.01 (95% CI 0.67-1.52). The combination of graduated compression stockings and LMWH is better than LMWH alone (2 studies) with a POR at 4.17 (95% CI 1.37-12.70).

CONCLUSION

The optimal thromboprophylaxis in colorectal surgery is the combination of graduated compression stockings and low-dose unfractionated heparin or low molecular weight heparin.

Pharmacologic profile of certoparin

The low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) are now not only used for the prophylaxis and treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), but also for the management of acute coronary syndromes. Beside these approved usages, the LMWHs have been developed for indications such as thrombotic and ischaemic stroke, cancer-associated thrombotic and vascular disorders, Alzheimer's disease and a variety of inflammatory disorders. In the United States, there are three approved LMWHs (enoxaparin, dalteparin and ardeparin). In Canada, reviparin and tinzaparin are also approved. The European Union has taken the lead; eight LMWHs are approved for various indications. Certoparin represents one of the earlier LMWHs used for DVT prophylaxis and treatment, with additional indications currently under development. Certoparin represents an isoamyl nitrite depolymerised LMWH with comparable structural characteristics to other nitrous acid depolymerised products such as nadroparin and reviparin. While comparable in structure to dalteparin, this agent differs in function due to a secondary purification process that is employed in the manufacture of dalteparin. The preclinical pharmacology of this drug has been extensively investigated. Although indication specific dosing and the optimisation of use in, for example, acute coronary syndromes and thrombotic stroke, may be require, certoparin represents a typical LMWH with comparable performance characteristics to some other agents. This chapter describes some of the preclinical and clinical pharmacologic characteristics of this drug. This information will be useful in designing clinical trials for newer indications of this drug.

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).

Low molecular weight heparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after abdominal surgery

Background

Abdominal surgery carries a significant risk of venous thrombosis, a risk further increased in patients with cancer.

Methods

Embase and Pubmed searches between 1980 and 2003, using the key words ‘heparin,’ ‘surgery,’ ‘abdominal or rectal or colorectal or rectum or colon’ and ‘clinical trial’, were conducted to identify studies of thromboprophylaxis in patients having abdominal surgery.

Results

A total of 16 comparative studies were identified. These show that low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is as effective as unfractionated heparin (UFH) in reducing venous thromboembolism after abdominal surgery and, at appropriate doses, can reduce bleeding complications. In very high-risk patients, a higher dose of LMWH may offer increased efficacy without increasing bleeding risk. Extending the standard 7–10-day period of prophylaxis may benefit certain high-risk groups; recent data show a significant benefit of 4-week enoxaparin thromboprophylaxis compared with a standard regimen, at no cost to safety.

Conclusion

Patients undergoing abdominal surgery should be stratified according to thromboembolism risk and managed accordingly. LMWH is a recommended alternative to UFH in moderate- or high-risk patients. In patients with cancer, high doses of LMWH may offer increased efficacy without increasing the bleeding risk and an extended 4-week period of prophylaxis appears beneficial.

Meta-analysis of low molecular weight heparin in the prevention of venous thromboembolism in general surgery

BACKGROUND

Low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) have become routine thromboprophylaxis in general surgery. However, their actual clinical effect, its magnitude relative to that of unfractionated heparin (UFH), and the optimal dose are still debated.

METHODS

A meta-analysis was performed of all available randomized trials in general surgery comparing LMWH with placebo or no treatment, or with UFH.

RESULTS

Comparison versus placebo or no treatment confirmed that the significant reduction in asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT) obtained with LMWH (n = 513; relative risk (RR) 0.28 (95 per cent confidence interval 0.14-0.54)) was associated with a significant reduction in clinical pulmonary embolism (n = 5456; RR 0.25 (0.08-0.79)) and clinical venous thromboembolism (VTE) (n = 4890; RR 0.29 (0.11-0.73)), and a trend towards a reduction in overall mortality rate. Comparison versus UFH showed a trend in favour of LMWH, with a significant reduction in clinical VTE (P = 0.049), a trend also found for cancer surgery. LMWH at doses below 3400 anti-Xa units seemed to be as effective as, and safer than, UFH, while higher doses yielded slightly superior efficacy but increased haemorrhagic risk, including that of major haemorrhage.

CONCLUSION

Asymptomatic DVT may be regarded as a reliable surrogate endpoint for clinical outcome in studies investigating thromboprophylaxis in general surgery. LMWH seems to be as effective and safe as UFH. Determination of the optimal dose regimen of LMWH for this indication requires further investigation.

Heparins and mechanical methods for thromboprophylaxis in colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Colorectal surgery implies higher risk of postoperative thromboembolic complications as deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) than general surgery. The best prophylaxis in general surgery is heparin and graded compression stockings. No systematic review on combination prophylaxis or on thrombosis prophylaxis in colorectal surgery has been published.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the incidence of postoperative thromboembolism after colorectal surgery using prophylactic methods focussing on heparins and mechanical methods alone and in combinations.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE back to 1970. Abstract books from major congresses were handsearched as were reference lists from previously performed reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCT or CCT comparing prophylactic interventions and/or placebo. Outcomes were ascending venography, 125 I-fibrinogen uptake test, ultrasound methods, pulmonary scintigraphy. Studies, using thermographic methods, other isotopic methods, plethysmographic methods, and purely clinical methods as the only diagnostic measure were excluded. 558 studies were identified - 477 were excluded. Only 3 of the identified studies focused exclusively on colorectal surgery. Studies of general surgery contain considerable numbers of colorectal patients. The authors of 66 studies in general and/or abdominal surgery were contacted for retrieving the results from the colorectal patients. Answers were received from very few. 19 studies entered this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All studies and all data extraction were performed independently by at least two of the authors. Outcome was deep venous thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism. Analysis of bleeding complications were unfeasible. 12 meaningful outcomes were analysed by means of the fixed effects model with Peto Odds Ratios.

MAIN RESULTS

Heparins versus no treatment: Any kind of heparincompared to no treatment or placebo (comparison 07.03, 11 studies). Heparin is better in preventing DVT and/or PE with a Peto Odds ratio at 0.32 (95% Confidence Interval 0.20-0.53) Unfractionated heparin versus low molecular weight heparin (comparison 08.03, 4 studies). The two treatments were found equally effective in preventing DVT and/or PE with a Peto Odds ratio 1.01 (95% Confidence Interval 0.67-1.52). Mechanical methods (comparison 10.3, 2 studies). The combination of graded compression stockings and LDH is better than LDH alone in preventing DVT and/or PE with a Peto Odds ratio at 4.17 (95% Confidence Interval 1.37-12.70).

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The optimal prophylaxis in colorectal surgery is the combination of graduated compression stockings and low-dose unfractionated heparin. The unfractionated heparin can be replaced with low molecular weight heparin.

PaO2 during anaesthesia and years of smoking predict late postoperative hypoxaemia and complications after upper abdominal surgery in patients without preoperative cardiopulmonary dysfunction

BACKGROUND

The incidence of late postoperative hypoxaemia and complications after upper abdominal surgery is 20-50% among cardiopulmonary healthy patients. Atelectasis development during anaesthesia and surgery is the main hypothesis to explain postoperative hypoxaemia. This study tested the predictive value of PaO2<19 kPa during combined general and thoracic epidural anaesthesia and the preoperative functional residual capacity (FRC) reduction in the 30 degree head tilt-down position for the development of late prolonged postoperative hypoxaemia, PaO2<8.5 kPa for a minimum of 3 out of 4 days, and other complications. Forty patients without cardiopulmonary morbidity, assessed by ECG, spirometry, FRC and diffusion capacity preoperatively, underwent upper abdominal surgery. PaO2 during anaesthesia and preoperative FRC reduction were compared to known risk factors for the development of hypoxaemia and complications: age, pack-years of smoking and duration of operation. The effect of optimizing pulmonary compliance with peroperative positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) on postoperative hypoxaemia and complications was evaluated in a blinded and randomized manner.

RESULTS

Late prolonged postoperative hypoxaemia and other complications were found in 37% and 38% of the patients, respectively. Patients with PaO2>19 kPa during anaesthesia with F(I)O2=0.33 exhibited a risk, irrespective of PEEP status, of suffering late prolonged hypoxaemia of 0% (0;23) and patients with PaO2<19 kPa a risk of 52% (32;71), P<0.005. Having smoked more than 20 pack-years was associated with a 47% (19;75) higher incidence of postoperative complications than having smoked less than 20 pack-years, P<0.006.

CONCLUSIONS

PaO2 during anaesthesia and smoked pack-years provide new tools evaluating patients undergoing upper abdominal surgery in order to predict the patients who develop late postoperative hypoxaemia and complications.

Oral low-molecular weight heparin and delivery agent prevents jugular venous thrombosis in the rat

PURPOSE

Sodium N-[10-(2-hydroxybenzoyl)amino]decanoate (SNAD) is a novel carrier that allows the gastrointestinal absorption of low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH). The purpose of this experiment was to evaluate oral LMWH with SNAD for the prevention of deep venous thrombosis.

METHODS

Sixty Sprague-Dawley rats were equally assigned to five experimental groups: group 1 (control), oral saline solution; group 2, oral LMWH (15 mg/kg); group 3, oral SNAD (300 mg/kg); group 4, subcutaneous LMWH (5 mg/kg); and group 5, oral LMWH (15 mg/kg) and SNAD (300 mg/kg). After treatment, the jugular vein was isolated, occluded, and bathed in an ethanol and formalin solution for 2 minutes. Two hours later, the vessel was examined for patency, presence of thrombus, and thrombus weight. Serum measurement of anti-factor Xa activity was performed in a separate set of 30 rats, which were placed into the following four groups: group A, LMWH (5 mg/kg); group B, oral LMWH (15 mg/kg) and SNAD (300 mg/kg); group C, oral LMWH (15 mg/kg); and group D, SNAD (300 mg/kg).

RESULTS

The animals that underwent oral LMWH/SNAD therapy had a statistically significant decrease in visible thrombi. The thrombus weight of the oral LMWH/SNAD group was significantly less than the weights of all other groups, except the subcutaneous LMWH group. Anti-factor Xa levels were significantly elevated in the LMWH/SNAD group. There was no statistically significant difference between the data for the oral LMWH/SNAD group and the subcutaneous LMWH group.

CONCLUSION

The combination of oral LMWH and SNAD prevented deep venous thrombosis. The oral LMWH and SNAD therapy effected an increase in levels of anti-factor Xa.

Randomized, controlled trial of low molecular weight heparin vs. no deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis for major colon and rectal surgery in Asian patients

PURPOSE

Routine deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis is controversial in Asian patients, because deep venous thrombosis incidence was considered negligible. Because of recent reports of significantly higher incidences, a randomized, controlled trial was conducted to assess the effectiveness and complications of enoxaparin prophylaxis (low molecular weight heparins) in major colorectal surgery.

METHODS

Three hundred twenty consecutive patients were randomly assigned to control or low molecular weight heparins groups. Patients in the low molecular weight heparins group were given perioperative enoxaparin starting 12 hours before surgery. The surgeon (blinded) assessed for difficulties related to possible enoxaparin administration. Independent blinded observers performed daily clinical assessments and Doppler studies (at the 3rd and 5th postoperative day). Deep venous thrombosis was confirmed by duplex ultrasound, and pulmonary embolism was confirmed by lung scans or postmortem examinations.

RESULTS

Deep venous thrombosis developed in 5 of 169 (3 percent) controls and 0 of 134 low molecular weight heparins patients (P = 0.045). Three of the deep venous thrombosis patients had pulmonary embolism, which was fatal in one patient. The surgeons were unable to perceive any increased surgical difficulties in the low molecular weight heparins group. The bleeding-related complications were significantly higher in the low molecular weight heparins patients (controls, n = 3 (1.8 percent); low molecular weight heparins, n = 9 (6.7 percent)). However, apart from one subdural hematoma and two abdominal hemorrhages needing re-exploration, which also occurred in one of the controls, these complications were minor bruises at the wounds, drains, or injection sites.

CONCLUSION

Deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis is needed in Asian patients undergoing major colorectal surgery.

Venous thromboembolism and cancer

The association of thrombosis with malignant disease has been recognized for well over 100 years. Evidence from experimental and clinical studies indicates that the haemostatic system is involved in the growth, invasion and metastasis of tumours. Laboratory parameters of haemostasis are frequently deranged in patients with cancer and overt thrombosis is common spontaneously where it may be the first sign of malignancy or secondary to therapy. The mechanisms by which coagulation activation facilitates the malignant process remain to be completely elucidated, but it is clear that cells and proteins of the coagulation and fibrinolytic systems are involved at many steps in the processes of tumour growth and dissemination. The low-molecular-weight heparins with their well-proven safety and efficacy profiles offer unique modalities for the prevention and treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis. They may also play a role in overall mortality reduction in patients with malignant disease.

Low-molecular-weight heparin

Low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) are mixtures of heparin molecules in the range of 3000 to 10,000 daltons. As LMWHs of various manufacturers are all produced differently, they are not comparable to each other and are therefore considered to be individual products with different pharmacologic and clinical properties. All these agents have some common characteristics, however, such as a higher availability after subcutaneous administration and a longer biologic half-life. Numerous clinical trials have demonstrated that LMWHs are highly effective and safe for postsurgical prophylaxis of deep vein thrombosis (DVT); therefore, the LMWHs that are commercially available so far, are mainly approved in this indication. LMWHs are also effective in the prophylaxis of DVT in medical indications, as well as for the treatment of established DVT.