Timing of symptomatic venous thromboembolism after surgery: meta-analysis

Risk of thrombosis and bleeding in gynecologic cancer surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis

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.

Timing of Major Postoperative Bleeding Among Patients Undergoing Surgery

Importance

Although major bleeding is among the most common and prognostically important perioperative complications, the relative timing of bleeding events is not well established. This information is critical for preventing bleeding complications and for informing the timing of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis.

Objective

To determine the timing of postoperative bleeding among patients undergoing surgery for up to 30 days after surgery.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This is a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study. Patients aged 45 years or older who underwent inpatient noncardiac surgery were recruited in 14 countries between 2007 and 2013, with follow-up until December 2014. Data analysis was performed from June to July 2023.

Exposure

Noncardiac surgery requiring overnight hospital admission.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome (postoperative major bleeding) was a composite of the timing of the following bleeding outcomes: (1) bleeding leading to transfusion, (2) bleeding leading to a postoperative hemoglobin level less than 7 g/dL, (3) bleeding leading to death, and (4) bleeding associated with reintervention. Each of the components of the composite primary outcome (1-4) and bleeding independently associated with mortality after noncardiac surgery, which was defined as a composite of outcomes 1 to 3, were secondary outcomes.

Results

Among 39 813 patients (median [IQR] age, 63.0 [54.8-72.5] years; 19 793 women [49.7%]), there were 5340 major bleeding events (primary outcome) in 4638 patients (11.6%) within the first 30 days after surgery. Of these events, 42.7% (95% CI, 40.9%-44.6%) occurred within 24 hours after surgery, 77.7% (95% CI, 75.8%-79.5%) by postoperative day 7, 88.3% (95% CI, 86.5%-90.2%) by postoperative day 14, and 94.6% (95% CI, 92.7%-96.5%) by postoperative day 21. Within 48 hours of surgery, 56.2% of major bleeding events, 56.2% of bleeding leading to transfusion, 56.1% of bleeding independently associated with mortality after noncardiac surgery, 51.8% of bleeding associated with hemoglobin less than 7 g/dL, and 51.8% of bleeding associated with reintervention had occurred.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, of the major postoperative bleeding events in the first 30 days, more than three-quarters occurred during the first postoperative week. These findings are useful for researchers for the planning future clinical research and for clinicians in prevention of bleeding-related surgical complications and in decision-making regarding starting of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis after surgery.

Risk of thrombosis and bleeding in gynecologic noncancer surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to provide procedure-specific estimates of the risk for symptomatic venous thromboembolism and major bleeding in noncancer gynecologic surgeries.

DATA SOURCES

We conducted comprehensive searches on Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Furthermore, we performed separate searches for randomized trials that addressed the effects of thromboprophylaxis.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Eligible studies were observational studies that enrolled ≥50 adult patients who underwent noncancer gynecologic surgery procedures and that reported the absolute incidence of at least 1 of the following: symptomatic pulmonary embolism, symptomatic deep vein thrombosis, symptomatic venous thromboembolism, bleeding that required reintervention (including re-exploration and angioembolization), bleeding that led to transfusion, or postoperative hemoglobin level <70 g/L.

METHODS

A teams of 2 reviewers independently assessed eligibility, performed data extraction, and evaluated the risk of bias of the eligible articles. We adjusted the reported estimates for thromboprophylaxis and length of follow-up and used the median value from studies to determine the cumulative incidence at 4 weeks postsurgery stratified by patient venous thromboembolism risk factors and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to rate the evidence certainty.

RESULTS

We included 131 studies (1,741,519 patients) that reported venous thromboembolism risk estimates for 50 gynecologic noncancer procedures and bleeding requiring reintervention estimates for 35 procedures. The evidence certainty was generally moderate or low for venous thromboembolism and low or very low for bleeding requiring reintervention. The risk for symptomatic venous thromboembolism varied from a median of <0.1% for several procedures (eg, transvaginal oocyte retrieval) to 1.5% for others (eg, minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy, 1.2%-4.6% across patient venous thromboembolism risk groups). Venous thromboembolism risk was <0.5% for 30 (60%) of the procedures; 0.5% to 1.0% for 10 (20%) procedures; and >1.0% for 10 (20%) procedures. The risk for bleeding the require reintervention varied from <0.1% (transvaginal oocyte retrieval) to 4.0% (open myomectomy). The bleeding requiring reintervention risk was <0.5% in 17 (49%) procedures, 0.5% to 1.0% for 12 (34%) procedures, and >1.0% in 6 (17%) procedures.

CONCLUSION

The risk for venous thromboembolism in gynecologic noncancer surgery varied between procedures and patients. Venous thromboembolism risks exceeded the bleeding risks only among selected patients and procedures. Although most of the evidence is of low certainty, the results nevertheless provide a compelling rationale for restricting pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis to a minority of patients who undergo gynecologic noncancer procedures.

Risk of Venous Thromboembolic Events After Surgery for Cancer

Importance

The risks and benefits of thromboprophylaxis therapy after cancer surgery are debated. Studies that determine thrombosis risk after cancer surgery with high accuracy are needed.

Objectives

To evaluate 1-year risk of venous thromboembolic events after major cancer surgery and how these events vary over time.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This register-based retrospective observational matched cohort study included data on the full population of Sweden between 1998 and 2016. All patients who underwent major surgery for cancer of the bladder, breast, colon or rectum, gynecologic organs, kidney and upper urothelial tract, lung, prostate, or gastroesophageal tract were matched in a 1:10 ratio with cancer-free members of the general population on year of birth, sex, and county of residence. Data were analyzed from February 13 to December 5, 2023.

Exposure

Major surgery for cancer.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcome was incidence of venous thromboembolic events within 1 year after the surgery. Crude absolute risks and risk differences of events within 1 year and adjusted time-dependent cause-specific hazard ratios (HRs) of postdischarge events were calculated.

Results

A total of 432 218 patients with cancer (median age, 67 years [IQR, 58-75 years]; 68.7% women) and 4 009 343 cancer-free comparators (median age, 66 years [IQR, 57-74 years]; 69.3% women) were included in the study. The crude 1-year cumulative risk of pulmonary embolism was higher among the cancer surgery population for all cancers, with the following absolute risk differences: for bladder cancer, 2.69 percentage points (95% CI, 2.33-3.05 percentage points); for breast cancer, 0.59 percentage points (95% CI 0.55-0.63 percentage points); for colorectal cancer, 1.57 percentage points (95% CI, 1.50-1.65 percentage points); for gynecologic organ cancer, 1.32 percentage points (95% CI, 1.22-1.41 percentage points); for kidney and upper urinary tract cancer, 1.38 percentage points (95% CI, 1.21-1.55 percentage points); for lung cancer, 2.61 percentage points (95% CI, 2.34-2.89 percentage points); for gastroesophageal cancer, 2.13 percentage points (95% CI, 1.89-2.38 percentage points); and for prostate cancer, 0.57 percentage points (95% CI, 0.49-0.66 percentage points). The cause-specific HR of pulmonary embolism comparing patients who underwent cancer surgery with matched comparators peaked just after discharge and generally plateaued 60 to 90 days later. At 30 days after surgery, the HR was 10 to 30 times higher than in the comparison cohort for all cancers except breast cancer (colorectal cancer: HR, 9.18 [95% CI, 8.03-10.50]; lung cancer: HR, 25.66 [95% CI, 17.41-37.84]; breast cancer: HR, 5.18 [95% CI, 4.45-6.05]). The hazards subsided but never reached the level of the comparison cohort except for prostate cancer. Similar results were observed for deep vein thrombosis.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cohort study found an increased rate of venous thromboembolism associated with cancer surgery. The risk persisted for about 2 to 4 months postoperatively but varied between cancer types. The increased rate is likely explained by the underlying cancer disease and adjuvant treatments. The results highlight the need for individualized venous thromboembolism risk evaluation and prophylaxis regimens for patients undergoing different surgery for different cancers.

Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of the Procedure-specific Risks of Thrombosis and Bleeding in General Abdominal, Colorectal, Upper Gastrointestinal, and Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery

OBJECTIVE

To provide procedure-specific estimates of symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) and major bleeding after abdominal surgery.

BACKGROUND

The use of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis represents a trade-off that depends on VTE and bleeding risks that vary between procedures; their magnitude remains uncertain.

METHODS

We identified observational studies reporting procedure-specific risks of symptomatic VTE or major bleeding after abdominal surgery, adjusted the reported estimates for thromboprophylaxis and length of follow-up, and estimated cumulative incidence at 4 weeks postsurgery, stratified by VTE risk groups, and rated evidence certainty.

RESULTS

After eligibility screening, 285 studies (8,048,635 patients) reporting on 40 general abdominal, 36 colorectal, 15 upper gastrointestinal, and 24 hepatopancreatobiliary surgery procedures proved eligible. Evidence certainty proved generally moderate or low for VTE and low or very low for bleeding requiring reintervention. The risk of VTE varied substantially among procedures: in general abdominal surgery from a median of <0.1% in laparoscopic cholecystectomy to a median of 3.7% in open small bowel resection, in colorectal from 0.3% in minimally invasive sigmoid colectomy to 10.0% in emergency open total proctocolectomy, and in upper gastrointestinal/hepatopancreatobiliary from 0.2% in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy to 6.8% in open distal pancreatectomy for cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

VTE thromboprophylaxis provides net benefit through VTE reduction with a small increase in bleeding in some procedures (eg, open colectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy), whereas the opposite is true in others (eg, laparoscopic cholecystectomy and elective groin hernia repairs). In many procedures, thromboembolism and bleeding risks are similar, and decisions depend on individual risk prediction and values and preferences regarding VTE and bleeding.

The Role of Tranexamic Acid in Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Tranexamic acid (TXA) is an essential procoagulant drug used in various intra- and postoperative situations. Its efficacy and safety profile in obese cases undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is still unresolved. Therefore, this meta-analysis evaluated and investigated the current intra- and postoperative effects and hazards of TXA on patients undergoing LSG. As for methodology, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and PubMed were thoroughly searched for relevant studies. Retrieved results were prepared for screening through Endnote, helping to identify eligible studies. Relevant patient characteristics and outcomes were extracted. The methodological quality of the relevant studies was appraised using the respected appraisal tool. Six studies of different designs were enrolled, comprising 753 cases that underwent LSG and administered TXA. Their mean BMI and age went from 37.3 to 56.25 kg/m2 and 33.5 to 43.25 years, respectively. Tranexamic acid significantly linked to reduction in intraoperative bleeding instances, operative blood loss, and operative duration, compared to placebo ((RR = 0.66, 95% CI [0.44, 0.98], P=0.04, I2 = 81%); (MD = -39.64, 95%CI [-75.49, -3.78], P=0.03, I2=94%); (MD=-5.84, 95%CI [-9.62, -2.05], P=0.003, I2=73%)). Tranexamic acid also significantly showed superiority regarding postoperative bleeding events and duration of hospitalization compared to the control group ((RR= 0.45, 95%CI [0.29, 0.69], P=0.0002, I2 =0%); (MD=-0.24, 95%CI [-0.32, -0.17], P< 0.0000, I2 =0%)). Moreover, follow-up of the enrolled patients for a minimum of three to six months resulted in no reported thromboembolic instances, suggesting a negligible risk for thromboembolism among patients undergoing LSG and receiving TXA. In conclusion, tranexamic acid demonstrates a robust safety and efficacy profile for its use in patients undergoing LSG, with no reported instances of thromboembolism. Variations in TXA administration regimens, bleeding definitions, procedural techniques, and potential confounding medications could not be accounted for, necessitating additional large-scale RCTs to address and bridge knowledge gaps.