4.6 Review

Extended perioperative thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer

Journal

THROMBOSIS AND HAEMOSTASIS
Volume 100, Issue 6, Pages 1176-1180

Publisher

SCHATTAUER GMBH-VERLAG MEDIZIN NATURWISSENSCHAFTEN
DOI: 10.1160/TH08-04-0218

Keywords

Cancer; heparins; surgery; prophylaxis; thrombosis

Funding

  1. European Commission: The human factor, mobility and Marie Curie Actions
  2. Scientist Reintegration [IGR 42192]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We systematically reviewed the literature to compare the relative efficacy and safety of extended versus limited duration heparin for perioperative thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer. We followed the Cochrane Collaboration systematic review methodology and searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI the Web of Science, and CENTRAL. The outcomes of interest included mortality, symptomatic deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism, and bleeding. We evaluated the quality of evidence by outcome using the GRADE approach. Of 3,986 identified citations, we included three randomized clinical trials using low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). The quality of evidence for mortality, DVT, and major bleeding was low. There was no significant difference between extended (4 weeks) and limited duration thromboprophylaxis in terms of death at three months (relative risk [RR]=0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.12-1.94), or major bleeding at four weeks (RR=2.94; 95% CI 0.12-71.85). An extended regimen was associated with a significantly lower risk of asymptomatic DVT (RR=0.21; 95% Cl 0.05-0.94). No data was available for symptomatic DVT In conclusion, there is limited and low-quality evidence that extended duration LMWH for perioperative thromboprophylaxis reduces DVT in patients with cancer undergoing major abdominal or pelvic surgery. More and better quality evidence is needed to justify extended regimens.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available