Advertisement

Extended duration chemoprophylaxis for venous thromboembolism following abdominopelvic oncologic surgery

  • John Kanitra
  • John Holtrop
  • Ali Jawad
  • Richard BerriEmail author
Article

Abstract

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, is the most common cause of 30-day morbidity in oncology patients following surgery due to their hypercoagulable state. To combat this, VTE prophylaxis with anticoagulation extending beyond hospital discharge, termed extended duration chemoprophylaxis (EDCP), has been proposed, with the most recent guidelines recommending 28 post-operative days of EDCP. However, the literature has demonstrated poor compliance to these recommendations. We extended the duration of EDCP to 28 days post hospital discharge, effectively creating a standard discharge prescription for all surgical oncology patients. Our aim is to assess our EDCP protocol on patient compliance and VTE rate following major oncologic resection. We performed a retrospective, single institution, cohort study that involved chart review and telephone survey on patients who underwent major open abdominopelvic oncologic resection. A total of 130 patients were included; 60 received EDCP and 68 did not. VTE rate for the EDCP cohort was 0% and 7.4% for the non-EDCP cohort (p = 0.04). 85% of patients were fully compliant with EDCP. No bleeding related complications with EDCP were identified. Our data is consistent with prior literature in demonstrating a lower VTE rate with EDCP without an increase in bleeding related complications and we have demonstrated that it is possible to achieve a high rate of patient compliance with EDCP.

Keywords

Venous thromboembolism Extended duration chemoprophylaxis Oncology Prophylaxis Low molecular weight heparin 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Karen Hagglund, MS, for her contributions with the statistical analysis of the data.

Author contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by JK, JH and AJ. The first draft of the manuscript was written by JK and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (Ascension St. John Hospital institutional review board; 1340191-1) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the telephone survey.

Supplementary material

11239_2019_2002_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (29 kb)
Electronic supplementary material 1 (XLSX 29 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Srinivasaiah N, Arsalani-Zadeh R, Monson JR (2012) Thrombo-prophylaxis in colorectal surgery: a National Questionnaire Survey of the members of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland. Colorectal Dis 14(7):e390–e393.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2012.02974.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Khalil J, Bensaid B, Elkacemi H, Afif M, Bensaid Y, Kebdani T, Benjaafar N (2015) Venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: an underestimated major health problem. World J Surg Oncol 13:204.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-015-0592-8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Agnelli G, Bolis G, Capussotti L, Scarpa RM, Tonelli F, Bonizzoni E, Moia M, Parazzini F, Rossi R, Sonaglia F, Valarani B, Bianchini C, Gussoni G (2006) A clinical outcome-based prospective study on venous thromboembolism after cancer surgery: the @RISTOS project. Ann Surg 243(1):89–95.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000193959.44677.48 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bottaro FJ, Elizondo MC, Doti C, Bruetman JE, Perez Moreno PD, Bullorsky EO, Ceresetto JM (2008) Efficacy of extended thrombo-prophylaxis in major abdominal surgery: what does the evidence show? A meta-analysis. Thromb Haemost 99(6):1104–1111.  https://doi.org/10.1160/TH07-12-0759 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Geerts WH, Pineo GF, Heit JA, Bergqvist D, Lassen MR, Colwell CW, Ray JG (2004) Prevention of venous thromboembolism: the seventh ACCP conference on antithrombotic and thrombolytic therapy. Chest 126(3 Suppl):338S–400S.  https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.126.3_suppl.338S CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lyman GH, Khorana AA, Kuderer NM, Lee AY, Arcelus JI, Balaban EP, Clarke JM, Flowers CR, Francis CW, Gates LE, Kakkar AK, Key NS, Levine MN, Liebman HA, Tempero MA, Wong SL, Prestrud AA, Falanga A, American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical P (2013) Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment in patients with cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol 31(17):2189–2204.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.49.1118 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    NICE (2018) Venous thromboembolism in over 16s: reducing the risk of hospital-acquired deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/NG89
  8. 8.
    Streiff MB (2019) Cancer-associated venous thromboembolic bisease. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/vte.pdf. Accessed 7 Jan 2019
  9. 9.
    Zipple M, Itenberg E (2018) Improving adherence to recommended venous thromboembolic prophylaxis in abdominal and pelvic oncologic surgery. Surgery 164(4):900–904.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2018.06.023 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Geahchan N, Basile M, Tohmeh M, registry D (2016) Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in patients undergoing abdominal and pelvic cancer surgery: adherence and compliance to ACCP guidelines in DIONYS registry. Springerplus 5(1):1541.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-3057-9 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barnard GA (1945) A new test for 2 × 2 tables. Nature 156(3954):177–177.  https://doi.org/10.1038/156177a0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ludbrook J (2008) Analysis of 2 × 2 tables of frequencies: matching test to experimental design. Int J Epidemiol 37(6):1430–1435.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyn162 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mehta C, Senchaudhuri P (2003) Conditional versus unconditional exact tests for comparing two binomials. Cytel Softw Corp 675:1–5Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ruff SM, Weber KT, Khader A, Conte C, Kadison A, Sullivan J, Wang J, Zaidi R, Deutsch GB (2019) Venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer undergoing surgical exploration. J Thromb Thrombolysis 47(2):316–323.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11239-018-1774-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryAscension St. John Hospital and Medical CenterDetroitUSA

Personalised recommendations