Abstract Objective To systematically compare the effect of direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis on the benefits and harms to patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. Design Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Data sources Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), up to August 2021. Review methods Randomised controlled trials in adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery were selected, comparing low molecular weight heparin (prophylactic (low) or higher dose) with direct oral anticoagulants or with no active treatment. Main outcomes were symptomatic venous thromboembolism, symptomatic pulmonary embolism, and major bleeding. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used for network meta-analyses. Abstracts and full texts were screened independently in duplicate. Data were abstracted on study participants, interventions, and outcomes, and risk of bias was assessed independently in duplicate. Frequentist network meta-analysis with multivariate random effects models provided odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals, and GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation) assessments indicated the certainty of the evidence. Results 68 randomised controlled trials were included (51 orthopaedic, 10 general, four gynaecological, two thoracic, and one urological surgery), involving 45 445 patients. Low dose (odds ratio 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.67) and high dose (0.19, 0.07 to 0.54) low molecular weight heparin, and direct oral anticoagulants (0.17, 0.07 to 0.41) reduced symptomatic venous thromboembolism compared with no active treatment, with absolute risk differences of 1-100 per 1000 patients, depending on baseline risks (certainty of evidence, moderate to high). None of the active agents reduced symptomatic pulmonary embolism (certainty of evidence, low to moderate). Direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin were associated with a 2-3-fold increase in the odds of major bleeding compared with no active treatment (certainty of evidence, moderate to high), with absolute risk differences as high as 50 per 1000 in patients at high risk. Compared with low dose low molecular weight heparin, high dose low molecular weight heparin did not reduce symptomatic venous thromboembolism (0.57, 0.26 to 1.27) but increased major bleeding (1.87, 1.06 to 3.31); direct oral anticoagulants reduced symptomatic venous thromboembolism (0.53, 0.32 to 0.89) and did not increase major bleeding (1.23, 0.89 to 1.69). Conclusions Direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin reduced venous thromboembolism compared with no active treatment but probably increased major bleeding to a similar extent. Direct oral anticoagulants probably prevent symptomatic venous thromboembolism to a greater extent than prophylactic low molecular weight heparin. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42018106181.

/pdf/benefits-and-harms-of-direct-oral-anticoagulation-and-low-21mv1y0m.pdf

Benefits and harms of direct oral anticoagulation and low molecular weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials

BACKGROUND
The timing at which venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurs after major surgery has major implications for the optimal duration of thromboprophylaxis. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the timing of postoperative VTE up to 4 weeks after surgery.


METHODS
A systematic search of MEDLINE, Scopus, and CINAHL databases was performed between 1 January 2009 and 1 April 2022. Prospective studies that recruited patients who underwent a surgical procedure and reported at least 20 symptomatic, postoperative VTE events by time were included. Two reviewers independently selected studies according to the eligibility criteria, extracted data, and evaluated risk of bias. Data were analysed with a Poisson regression model, and the GRADE approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence.


RESULTS
Some 6258 studies were evaluated, of which 22 (11 general, 5 urological, 4 mixed, and 2 orthopaedic postoperative surgical populations; total 1 864 875 patients and 24 927 VTE events) were eligible. Pooled evidence of moderate certainty showed that 47.1 per cent of the VTE events occurred during the first, 26.9 per cent during the second, 15.8 per cent during the third, and 10.1 per cent during the fourth week after surgery. The timing of VTE was consistent between individual studies.


CONCLUSION
Although nearly half of symptomatic VTE events in first 4 weeks occur during the first postoperative week, a substantial number of events occur several weeks after surgery. These data will inform clinicians and guideline developers about the duration of postoperative thromboprophylaxis.

/pdf/timing-of-symptomatic-venous-thromboembolism-after-surgery-2ljoo4o2.pdf

Timing of symptomatic venous thromboembolism after surgery: meta-analysis.

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.

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

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.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.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.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.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.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. 

Risk of Thrombosis and Bleeding in Gynecologic Cancer Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Simple Summary Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the second leading cause of death in cancer patients. Gynecological cancer patients are considered at high risk of VTE and of bleeding due to the intrinsic nature of the tumor itself. Prevention of VTE in this special subgroup of cancer patients is a current topic of interest since there are no standardized protocols. This review aimed to summarize the protocols for VTE prevention in gynecological cancer patients given by the selected national and international guidelines in order to help the clinicians to identify patients who would benefit from VTE prophylaxis during daily practice. Abstract (1) Background: This review aimed to summarize the indications for venous thromboembolic (VTE) events’ prophylaxis in a gynecological cancer population, according to the most recent guidelines. (2) Methods: A systematic review of the guidelines in PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, EMBASE, and CINHAL regarding VTE prevention in gynecological cancer patients was conducted according to PRISMA criteria. We compared the recommendations given by oncological and hematological societies regarding VTE prevention in gynecological cancer patients published from January 2010 through March 2021. We searched for the following keywords: “venous thromboembolism prevention”, “cancer”, and “guidelines”. The AGREE II checklist was used to critically analyze the guidelines’ quality. (3) Results: There were 1003 documents available; 14 met the inclusion criteria, 5 were excluded and, eventually, the guidelines of 10 societies were evaluated. (4) Conclusions: The guidelines agree that low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and fondaparinux achieve better results in VTE prevention in gynecological cancer patients. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) can be used to prevent VTE in outpatients and high-risk medical patients after discharge. VTE risk scores should be applied to all oncological patients to identify those who would benefit from a prevention program. More attention should be paid to mechanical prophylactic methods due to the high bleeding risk of gynecological cancer patients.

/pdf/a-systematic-review-of-the-guidelines-on-venous-1rwtcvbp.pdf

A Systematic Review of the Guidelines on Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Gynecologic Oncology

Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding are serious and potentially fatal complications of surgical procedures. Pharmacological thromboprophylaxis decreases the risk of VTE but increases the risk of major post-operative bleeding. The decision to use pharmacologic prophylaxis therefore represents a trade-off that critically depends on the incidence of VTE and bleeding in the absence of prophylaxis. These baseline risks vary widely between procedures, but their magnitude is uncertain. Systematic reviews addressing baseline risks are scarce, needed, and require innovations in methodology. Indeed, systematic summaries of these baseline risk estimates exist neither in general nor gynecologic surgery. We will fill this knowledge gap by performing a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the procedure-specific and patient risk factor stratified risk estimates in general and gynecologic surgeries. Methods We will perform comprehensive literature searches for observational studies in general and gynecologic surgery reporting symptomatic VTE or bleeding estimates. Pairs of methodologically trained reviewers will independently assess the studies for eligibility, evaluate the risk of bias by using an instrument developed for this review, and extract data. We will perform meta-analyses and modeling studies to adjust the reported risk estimates for the use of thromboprophylaxis and length of follow up. We will derive the estimates of risk from the median estimates of studies rated at the lowest risk of bias. The primary outcomes are the risk estimates of symptomatic VTE and major bleeding at 4 weeks post-operatively for each procedure stratified by patient risk factors. We will apply the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate evidence certainty. Discussion This series of systematic reviews, modeling studies, and meta-analyses will inform clinicians and patients regarding the trade-off between VTE prevention and bleeding in general and gynecologic surgeries. Our work advances the standards in systematic reviews of surgical complications, including assessment of risk of bias, criteria for arriving at the best estimates of risk (including modeling of the timing of events and dealing with suboptimal data reporting), dealing with subgroups at higher and lower risk of bias, and use of the GRADE approach. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42021234119.

/pdf/systematic-reviews-of-observational-studies-of-risk-of-1goymbgfzu.pdf

Systematic reviews of observational studies of Risk of Thrombosis and Bleeding in General and Gynecologic Surgery (ROTBIGGS): introduction and methodology

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Linglong Huang

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Systematic reviews of observational studies of Risk of Thrombosis and Bleeding in General and Gynecologic Surgery (ROTBIGGS): introduction and methodology