Background: Cholecystectomy is commonly performed in general surgery. Despite guidelines recommending chemical thromboprophylaxis in the perioperative period, the most appropriate time for its initiation is unknown. Here, we investigated whether timing of chemoprophylaxis affected venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding rates postcholecystectomy. Methods: Retrospective review of all elective cholecystectomies performed between 1 January 2018 and 30 June 2019, across seven Victorian hospitals. Clinical VTE was defined as imaging-proven symptomatic disease within 30 days of surgery. Major bleeding was defined as the need for blood transfusion, surgical intervention or >20 g/L fall in haemoglobin from baseline. Results: A total of 1744 cases were reviewed. Chemoprophylaxis was given early (pre-or intra-operatively), post-operatively or not given in 847 (48.6%), 573 (32.9%) and 324 (18.6%) patients, respectively. This varied significantly between surgeons, fellows, trainees and institutions. Clinical VTE occurred in 5 (0.3%) patients and was not associated with chemoprophylaxis timing. Bleeding occurred in 42 (2.4%) patients. Of this, half were major events, requiring surgical control in 5 (11.9%) patients and blood transfusion in 9 (21.4%) patients. Bleeding also extended length of stay (mean (SD), 3.1 (4.0) versus 1.4 (2.2) days, P < 0.001). One bleeding-related mortality was recorded. Importantly, when compared with post-operative (risk ratio 1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.21-1.62) and no (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.03-1.35) chemoprophylaxis, early usage significantly increased bleeding risk and independently predicted its occurrence. Conclusions: Perioperative chemoprophylaxis is variable among patients undergoing elective cholecystectomy. The rate of clinical VTE post-cholecystectomy is low. Early chemoprophylaxis increases bleeding risk without an appreciable additional protection from VTE.
Background: Despite guidelines recommending perioperative thromboprophylaxis for patients undergoing general surgery, we have observed significant variations in its practice. This may compromise patient safety. Here, we quantify the heterogeneity of perioperative thromboprophylaxis across all major general surgical operations, and place them in relation to their risk of bleeding and venous thromboembolism. Methods: Retrospective review of all elective major general surgeries performed between 1 January 2018 and 30 June 2019 across seven Victorian hospitals was conducted. Results: A total of 5912 patients who underwent 6628 procedures were reviewed. Significant heterogeneity was found in the use of chemoprophylaxis, timing of its initiation, type of anticoagulant administered and application of extended chemoprophylaxis. These variations were observed within the same procedure, and between different surgeries and subspecialties. Contrastingly, there was minimal heterogeneity with the use of mechanical thromboprophylaxis. Oesophago-gastric, liver and colorectal cancer resections had the highest thromboembolic risk. Breast, oesophago-gastric, liver, pancreas and colon cancer resections had the highest bleeding risk. Conclusion: Perioperative chemoprophylaxis across general surgery is highly variable. This study has highlighted key areas of variance. Our findings also enable surgeons to compare their practices, and provide baseline data to inform future efforts towards optimizing thromboprophylaxis for general surgical patients.
Background Abdominal visceral resections incur relatively higher rates of postoperative bleeding and venous thromboembolism (VTE). While guidelines recommend the use of perioperative chemical thromboprophylaxis, the most appropriate time for its initiation is unknown. Here, we investigated whether early (before skin closure) versus postoperative commencement of chemoprophylaxis affected VTE and bleeding rates following abdominal visceral resection. Methods Retrospective review of all elective abdominal visceral resections undertaken between January 1, 2018, and June 30, 2019, across four tertiary-referral hospitals. Major bleeding was defined as the need for blood transfusion, reintervention, or > 20 g/L fall in hemoglobin from baseline. Clinical VTE was defined as imaging-proven symptomatic disease < 30 days post-surgery. Results A total of 945 cases were analyzed. Chemoprophylaxis was given early in 265 (28.0%) patients and postoperatively in 680 (72.0%) patients. Mean chemoprophylaxis exposure doses were similar between the two groups. Clinical VTE developed in 14 (1.5%) patients and was unrelated to chemoprophylaxis timing. Postoperative bleeding occurred in 71 (7.5%) patients, with 57 (80.3%) major bleeds, requiring blood transfusion in 48 (67.6%) cases and reintervention in 31 (43.7%) cases. Bleeding extended length-of-stay (median (IQR), 12 (7–27) versus 7 (5–11) days, p < 0.001). Importantly, compared to postoperative chemoprophylaxis, early administration significantly increased the risk of bleeding (10.6% versus 6.3%, RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.05–1.93, p = 0.038) and independently predicted its occurrence. Conclusions The risk of bleeding following elective abdominal visceral resections is substantial and is higher than the risk of clinical VTE. Compared with early chemoprophylaxis, postoperative initiation reduces bleeding risk without an increased risk of clinical VTE.
Background: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a complex therapeutic procedure that is complicated by pancreatitis in 3-5% of cases. The aim of this study is to determine whether a 4-h post-ERCP serum lipase level is superior to the serum amylase level in predicting the occurrence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Methods: We performed a retrospective review of prospectively collected data on 543 consecutive patients undergoing therapeutic ERCP at a single centre. Serum lipase and amylase levels were measured at 4-h post-procedure and were recorded as a factor of the upper limit of normal: amylase factor (AF) and lipase factor (LF). Sensitivity and specificity were compared using receiver-operating characteristics and the Youden index (YI). Results: A total of 506 procedures were considered for analysis. PEP occurred in 19 patients (3.8%). A LF of <10 was useful for the exclusion of PEP with a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 94%, YI = 0.94. In contrast, an AF <3 yielded a sensitivity of 79% and specificity of 94%, YI = 0.73. Conclusion: Serum lipase measured at 4-h post-ERCP better excludes PEP than serum amylase measured at the same time point. Patients with a LF <10 may be safely considered for same-day discharge.
Purpose Accurate assessment of Gleason grade is essential to guiding prostate cancer management. Not all healthcare systems have universal access to prostate MRI. We investigated whether transperineal (TP) prostate biopsies provide more accurate Gleason grading than transrectal (TR) biopsies in MRI-naïve patients. Methods Consecutive patients undergoing TP and TR systematic prostate needle biopsies from 2011 to 2018 were analysed. Patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) within 180 days of biopsies were included. Patients undergoing MRI prior to biopsies were excluded. Pathological concordance, incidence of Gleason upgrading, and correlation coefficients among biopsies and RP Gleason grade were compared. A sub-analysis for concordance in anterior prostate tumours was conducted. Results 262 patients were included (112 TP; 150 TR), the median age was 63 years, and median time from biopsy to RP was 68 days. Concordance with RP histology for TP was 65% compared to 49% for TR (p = 0.011). Biopsy technique predicted RP concordance independent of the number of cores. Gleason upgrading occurred following 24% of TP versus 33% of TR biopsies. In anterior and apical tumours, upgrading occurred in 19% of TP biopsies and 38% of TR biopsies (p = 0.027). Conclusion This study suggests TP approach to prostate biopsies result in improved histological grade accuracy in men whom MRI is not available, even after controlling for number of cores. TP approach also resulted in less upgrading for lesions in the anterior and apical prostate compared to TR.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.