Dataset Information

Outcomes following pancreatic surgery using three different thromboprophylaxis regimens.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Postpancreatectomy haemorrhage (PPH) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) are serious complications following pancreatic surgery. The aim was to assess the timing, occurrence and predictors of PPH and VTE.

Methods

Elective pancreatic resections undertaken in a single university hospital between November 2013 and September 2017 were assessed. Three intervals were reviewed, each with a different routine regimen of nadroparin: 2850 units once daily (single dose) administered in hospital only, or 5700 units once daily (double dose) or 2850 units twice daily (split dose) administered in hospital and continued for 6 weeks after surgery. Clinically relevant PPH (CR-PPH) was classified according to International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery criteria. VTE was defined according to a number of key diagnostic criteria within 6 weeks of surgery. Cox regression analyses were performed to test the hypotheses that the double-dose group would experience more PPH than the other two groups, the single-dose group would experience more VTE than the other two groups, and the split-dose group would experience the fewest adverse events (PPH or VTE).

Results

In total, 240 patients were included, 80 per group. The double-dose group experienced significantly more CR-PPH (hazard ratio (HR) 2·14, 95 per cent c.i. 1·16 to 3·94; P = 0·015). More relaparotomies due to CR-PPH were performed in the double-dose group (16 versus 3·8 per cent; P = 0·002). The single-dose group did not experience more VTE (HR 1·41, 0·43 to 4·62; P = 0·570). The split dose was not associated with fewer adverse events (HR 0·77, 0·41 to 1·46; P = 0·422). Double-dose low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), high BMI and pancreatic fistula were independent predictors of CR-PPH.

Conclusion

A double dose of LMWH prophylaxis continued for 6 weeks after pancreatic resection was associated with a twofold higher rate of CR-PPH, resulting in four times more relaparotomies. Patients receiving a single daily dose of LMWH in hospital only did not experience a higher rate of VTE.

SUBMITTER: Hanna-Sawires RG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6593975 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAlthough outcome of surgical resection of liver metastases from pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) has been extensively studied, little is known about surgery for locally advanced PNETs; it was listed recently by the European neuroendocrine tumor society as a major unmet need.ObjectiveTo evaluate the outcome of patients who underwent surgery for locally aggressive PNETs.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective single-center case series reviewed consecutive patients who underwent resection of T3/T4 PNETs at a single academic institution. Data collection occurred from 2003 to 2018. Data analysis was performed in August 2019.Main outcomes and measuresDisease-free survival (primary outcome) and overall mortality (secondary outcome) were assessed with Kaplan-Meier analysis. Recurrence risk (secondary outcome, defined as identification of tumor recurrence on imaging) was assessed with Cox proportional hazard models adjusting for covariates.ResultsIn this case series, 99 patients with locally advanced nondistant metastatic PNET (56 men [57%]) with a mean (SEM) age of 57.0 (1.4) years and a mean (SEM) follow-up of 5.3 (0.1) years underwent surgically aggressive resections. Of those, 4 patients (4%) underwent preoperative neoadjuvant treatment (including peptide receptor radionuclide therapy and chemotherapy); 18 patients (18%) underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy, 68 patients (69%) had distal or subtotal pancreatic resection, 10 patients (10%) had total resection, and 3 patients (3%) had other pancreatic procedures. Additional organ resection was required in 86 patients (87%): spleen (71 patients [71%]), major blood vessel (17 patients [17%]), bowel (2 patients [2%]), stomach (4 patients [4%]), and kidney (2 patients [2%]). Five-year disease-free survival was 61% (61 patients) and 5-year overall survival was 91% (91 patients). Of those living, 75 patients (76%) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score of less than or equal to 1 at last followup. Lymph node involvement (HR, 7.66; 95% CI, 2.78-21.12; P < .001), additional organ resected (HR, 6.15; 95% CI, 1.61-23.55; P = .008), and male sex (HR, 3.77; 95% CI, 1.68-8.97; P = .003) were associated with increased risk of recurrence. Functional tumors had a lower risk of recurrence (HR, 0.23; CI, 0.06-0.89; P = .03). Required resection of blood vessels was not associated with a significant increase recurrence risk.Conclusions and relevanceIn this case series, positive lymph node involvement and resection of organs with tumor involvement were associated with an increased recurrence risk. These subgroups may require adjuvant systemic treatment. These findings suggest that patients with locally advanced PNETs who undergo surgical resection have excellent disease-free and overall survival.

Project description:IntroductionThrombotic complications of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have received considerable attention. Although numerous conflicting findings have compared escalated thromboprophylaxis doses with a standard dose to prevent thrombosis, there is a paucity of literature comparing clinical outcomes in three different anticoagulation dosing regimens. Thus, we investigated the effectiveness and safety profiles of standard, intermediate, and high-anti-coagulation dosing strategies in COVID-19 critically ill patients.MethodologyThis retrospective multicenter cohort study of intensive care unit (ICU) patients from the period of April 2020 to August 2021 in four Saudi Arabian centers. Inclusion criteria were age ≥ 18 years, diagnosis with severe or critical COVID-19 infection, and receiving prophylactic anticoagulant dose within 24-48 h of ICU admission. The primary endpoint was a composite of thrombotic events, with mortality rate and minor or major bleeding serving as secondary endpoints. We applied survival analyses with a matching weights procedure to control for confounding variables in the three arms.ResultsA total of 811 patient records were reviewed, with 551 (standard-dose = 192, intermediate-dose = 180, and high-dose = 179) included in the analysis. After using weights matching, we found that the standard-dose group was not associated with an increase in the composite thrombotic events endpoint when compared to the intermediate-dose group {19.8 vs. 25%; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) =1.46, [95% confidence of interval (CI), 0.94-2.26]} or when compared to high-dose group [19.8 vs. 24%; aHR = 1.22 (95% CI, 0.88-1.72)]. Also, there were no statistically significant differences in overall in-hospital mortality between the standard-dose and the intermediate-dose group [51 vs. 53.4%; aHR = 1.4 (95% CI, 0.88-2.33)] or standard-dose and high-dose group [51 vs. 61.1%; aHR = 1.3 (95% CI, 0.83-2.20)]. Moreover, the risk of major bleeding was comparable in all three groups [standard vs. intermediate: 4.8 vs. 2.8%; aHR = 0.8 (95% CI, 0.23-2.74); standard vs. high: 4.8 vs. 9%; aHR = 2.1 (95% CI, 0.79-5.80)]. However, intermediate-dose and high-dose were both associated with an increase in minor bleeding incidence with aHR = 2.9 (95% CI, 1.26-6.80) and aHR = 3.9 (95% CI, 1.73-8.76), respectively.ConclusionAmong COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU, the three dosing regimens did not significantly affect the composite of thrombotic events and mortality. Compared with the standard-dose regimen, intermediate and high-dosing thromboprophylaxis were associated with a higher risk of minor but not major bleeding. Thus, these data recommend a standard dose as the preferred regimen.