Systematic review of the venous thromboembolism risk assessment models used in aesthetic plastic surgery.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
A reliable venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk assessment model (RAM) can assist surgeons in identifying patients who would benefit from VTE prophylaxis. This systematic review was aimed at summarising the current available evidence on VTE RAMs used in aesthetic plastic surgery.Methods
A comprehensive search was performed in the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases to include primary studies describing VTE RAMs in aesthetic plastic surgery from 1946 to February 2019. The objective was to compare the different VTE RAMs described for aesthetic plastic surgery to recommend a reliable model to stratify patients.Results
Of the 557 articles identified in the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases, six articles were included in the final review. Five different RAMs were used in the included studies: Caprini 2005 RAM, Caprini 2010 RAM, Davison-Caprini 2004 RAM, the American Society of Anaesthesiologist's (ASA) physical status grading system and a tool developed by Wes et al. The difference in risk weightage amongst the tools along with the VTE incidences for different categories was compared. The Caprini 2005 RAM was the most widely reported tool and validated in plastic surgery patients.Conclusion
Amongst the five different tools currently used, the Caprini 2005 RAM was the most widely reported. This tool was validated in plastic surgery patients and reported to be a sensitive and reliable tool for VTE risk stratification; therefore, current data support its use until further higher quality evidence becomes available. Because of the heterogeneity of the data and low quality of the current evidence, a definitive recommendation cannot be made on the best VTE RAM for patients undergoing aesthetic plastic surgery. This paper highlights the need for randomised controlled trials evaluating the various RAMs which are essential to support future recommendations and guidelines.
SUBMITTER: White AJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8427088 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionHospital-acquired thrombosis accounts for a large proportion of all venous thromboembolism (VTE), with significant morbidity and mortality. This subset of VTE can be reduced through accurate risk assessment and tailored pharmacological thromboprophylaxis. This systematic review aimed to determine the comparative accuracy of risk assessment models (RAMs) for predicting VTE in patients admitted to hospital.MethodsA systematic search was performed across five electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library) from inception to February 2021. All primary validation studies were eligible if they examined the accuracy of a multivariable RAM (or scoring system) for predicting the risk of developing VTE in hospitalised inpatients. Two or more reviewers independently undertook study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessments using the PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool) tool. We used narrative synthesis to summarise the findings.ResultsAmong 6355 records, we included 51 studies, comprising 24 unique validated RAMs. The majority of studies included hospital inpatients who required medical care (21 studies), were undergoing surgery (15 studies) or receiving care for trauma (4 studies). The most widely evaluated RAMs were the Caprini RAM (22 studies), Padua prediction score (16 studies), IMPROVE models (8 studies), the Geneva risk score (4 studies) and the Kucher score (4 studies). C-statistics varied markedly between studies and between models, with no one RAM performing obviously better than other models. Across all models, C-statistics were often weak (<0.7), sometimes good (0.7-0.8) and a few were excellent (>0.8). Similarly, estimates for sensitivity and specificity were highly variable. Sensitivity estimates ranged from 12.0% to 100% and specificity estimates ranged from 7.2% to 100%.ConclusionAvailable data suggest that RAMs have generally weak predictive accuracy for VTE. There is insufficient evidence and too much heterogeneity to recommend the use of any particular RAM.Prospero registration numberSteve Goodacre, Abdullah Pandor, Katie Sworn, Daniel Horner, Mark Clowes. A systematic review of venous thromboembolism RAMs for hospital inpatients. PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020165778. Available from https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=165778https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=165778.
| S-EPMC8323381 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the comparative accuracy of risk assessment models (RAMs) to identify women during pregnancy and the early postnatal period who are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE).DesignSystematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and two research registers were searched until February 2021.Eligibility criteriaAll validation studies that examined the accuracy of a multivariable RAM (or scoring system) for predicting the risk of developing VTE in women who are pregnant or in the puerperium (within 6 weeks post-delivery).Data extraction and synthesisTwo authors independently selected and extracted data. Risk of bias was appraised using PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool). Data were synthesised without meta-analysis.ResultsSeventeen studies, comprising 19 externally validated RAMs and 1 internally validated model, met the inclusion criteria. The most widely evaluated RAMs were the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists guidelines (six studies), American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidelines (two studies), Swedish Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology guidelines (two studies) and the Lyon score (two studies). In general, estimates of sensitivity and specificity were highly variable with sensitivity estimates ranging from 0% to 100% for RAMs that were applied to antepartum women to predict antepartum or postpartum VTE and 0% to 100% for RAMs applied postpartum to predict postpartum VTE. Specificity estimates were similarly diverse ranging from 28% to 98% and 5% to 100%, respectively.ConclusionsAvailable data suggest that external validation studies have weak designs and limited generalisability, so estimates of prognostic accuracy are very uncertain.Prospero registration numberCRD42020221094.
| S-EPMC9562726 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTranexamic acid (TXA) is an antifibrinolytic that has become widely used in aesthetic facial plastic surgery, although its efficacy has not been well investigated.ObjectivesTo evaluate the existing evidence for use of TXA in aesthetic facial plastic surgery, highlighting routes of administration, dosing, surgical applications, and clinical outcomes.MethodsSystematic review of primary literature evaluating TXA in aesthetic facial plastic surgery.ResultsEleven studies met inclusion criteria: 8 prospective randomized controlled trials, 2 retrospective case series/cohort studies, and 1 clinical opinion. Six studies evaluated TXA in rhinoplasty, 4 in rhytidectomy, and 1 in blepharoplasty. Significant reductions in intraoperative blood loss were found in 5 rhinoplasty studies. Three rhinoplasty and 2 rhytidectomy studies found significantly reduced postoperative edema and ecchymosis. One rhinoplasty and 1 rhytidectomy study reported reduced operative time and time to achieve hemostasis. One rhytidectomy study reported reduced postoperative drain output and faster time to drain removal. No studies reported an adverse outcome directly related to TXA.ConclusionsExisting literature investigating TXA in aesthetic facial plastic surgery is sparse with varying levels of evidence and heterogeneous data. Literature suggests systemic TXA reduces intraoperative blood loss during rhinoplasty, although the clinical significance of this blood loss reduction is unclear. TXA may also reduce postoperative edema and/or ecchymosis in rhytidectomy and rhinoplasty, although the lack of validated grading scales yields insufficient evidence to support this claim. Topical and subcutaneously injected TXA are emerging administration routes in rhytidectomy, with evidence suggesting TXA mixed with tumescent may reduce postoperative drain output, thereby expediting drain removal.Level of evidence 2
| S-EPMC7671246 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceVenous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, is the number 1 cause of preventable death in surgical patients. Current guidelines from the American College of Chest Physicians provide VTE prevention recommendations that are specific to individual surgical subspecialties; however, no guidelines exist for otolaryngology.ObjectiveTo examine the rate of VTE for various otolaryngology procedures compared with an established average-risk field (general surgery) and low-risk field (plastic surgery).Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study compared the rate of VTE after different otolaryngology procedures with those of general and plastic surgery in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program from January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2013. We used univariate and multivariable logistic regression analysis of clinical characteristics, cancer status, and Caprini score to compare different risk stratification of patients. Data analysis was performed from May 1, 2016, to April 1, 2017.ExposureSurgery.Main outcomes and measuresThirty-day rate of VTE.ResultsA total of 1?295?291 patients, including 31?896 otolaryngology patients (mean [SD] age, 53.9 [16.7] years; 14 260 [44.7%] male; 21 603 [67.7%] white), 27?280 plastic surgery patients (mean [SD] age, 50.5 [13.9] years; 4835 [17.7%] male; 17 983 [65.9%] white), and 1?236?115 general surgery patients (mean [SD] age, 54.9 [17.2] years; 484 985 [39.2%] male; 867 913 [70.2%] white) were compared. The overall 30-day rate of VTE was 0.5% for otolaryngology compared with 0.7% for plastic surgery and 1.2% for general surgery. We identified a high-risk group for VTE in otolaryngology (n?=?3625) that included free or regional tissue transfer, laryngectomy, composite resection, skull base surgery, and incision and drainage. High-risk otolaryngology patients experienced similar rates of VTE as general surgery patients across all Caprini risk levels. Low-risk otolaryngology patients (n?=?28?271) experienced lower rates of VTE than plastic surgery patients across all Caprini risk levels. Malignant tumors were associated with VTE; however, the rates varied by cancer type and were 11-fold greater for cancers of the upper aerodigestive tract compared with thyroid cancers (odds ratio, 10.97; 95% CI, 7.38-16.31). Venous thromboembolism was associated with a 14-fold higher 30-day mortality among otolaryngology patients (5.1% mortality with VTE vs 0.4% mortality without VTE; difference, 4.7%; 95% CI of the difference, 2.2%-9.3%).Conclusions and relevanceMost patients undergoing otolaryngology procedures are at low risk of VTE, indicating that guidelines for a low-risk population could be adapted to otolaryngology. Patients undergoing high-risk otolaryngology procedures should be considered as candidates for more aggressive VTE prophylaxis.
| S-EPMC5833590 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionVenous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication in patients with cancer and has a determining role in the disease prognosis. The risk is significantly increased with certain types of cancer, such as lung cancer. Partly due to difficulties in managing haemorrhage in outpatient settings, anticoagulant prophylaxis is only recommended for ambulatory patients at high risk of VTE. This requires a precise VTE risk assessment in individual patients. Although VTE risk assessment models have been developed and updated in recent years, there are conflicting reports on the effectiveness of such risk prediction models in patient management. The aim of this systematic review is to gain a better understanding of the available VTE risk assessment tools for ambulatory patients with lung cancer and compare their predictive performance.Methods and analysisA systematic review will be conducted using MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science databases from inception to 30 September 2021, to identify all reports published in English describing VTE risk prediction models which have included adult ambulatory patients with primary lung cancer for model development and/or validation. Two independent reviewers will conduct article screening, study selection, data extraction and quality assessment of the primary studies. Any disagreements will be referred to a third researcher to resolve. The included studies will be assessed for risk of bias and applicability. The Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies will be used for data extraction and appraisal. Data from similar studies will be used for meta-analysis to determine the incidence of VTE and the performance of the risk models.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required. We will disseminate the results in a peer-reviewed journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42021245907.
| S-EPMC8638451 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:To review studies developing or validating a prognostic model for individual venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence risk following cessation of therapy for a first unprovoked VTE. Prediction of recurrence risk is crucial to informing patient prognosis and treatment decisions. The review aims to determine whether reliable prognostic models exist and, if not, what further research is needed within the field. DESIGN:Bibliographic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library) were searched using index terms relating to the clinical field and prognosis. Screening of titles, abstracts and subsequently full texts was conducted by 2 reviewers independently using predefined criteria. Quality assessment and critical appraisal of included full texts was based on an early version of the PROBAST (Prediction study Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool) for risk of bias and applicability in prognostic model studies. SETTING:Studies in any setting were included. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary outcome for the review was the predictive accuracy of identified prognostic models in relation to VTE recurrence risk. RESULTS:3 unique prognostic models were identified including the HERDOO2 score, Vienna prediction model and DASH score. Quality assessment highlighted the Vienna, and DASH models were developed with generally strong methodology, but the HERDOO2 model had many methodological concerns. Further, all models were considered at least at moderate risk of bias, primarily due to the need for further external validation before use in practice. CONCLUSIONS:Although the Vienna model shows the most promise (based on strong development methodology, applicability and having some external validation), none of the models can be considered ready for use until further, external and robust validation is performed in new data. Any new models should consider the inclusion of predictors found to be consistently important in existing models (sex, site of index event, D-dimer), and take heed of several methodological issues identified through this review. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42013003494.
| S-EPMC4861103 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveVenous thromboembolism (VTE) is reported to occur in up to 33% of patients undergoing major vascular surgery. Despite this high incidence, patients inconsistently receive timely VTE chemoprophylaxis. The true incidence of VTE among patients receiving delayed VTE chemoprophylaxis is unknown. We sought to identify the association of VTE chemoprophylaxis timing on VTE risk, postoperative transfusion rates, and 30-day mortality and morbidity in patients undergoing major open vascular surgery.MethodsPatients undergoing major open vascular surgery (open abdominal aortic aneurysm [oAAA] repair, aortofemoral bypass, and lower extremity infrainguinal bypass [LEB]) were identified using the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative (MSQC) between July 2012 and June 2015. The VTE rate was compared between patients receiving early versus delayed VTE chemoprophylaxis. VTE chemoprophylaxis delay was defined as therapy initiation more than 24 hours after surgery. The risk-adjusted association of the chemoprophylaxis timing and VTE development was determined using multivariable logistic regression. Blood transfusion rates, 30-day mortality, and postoperative complications were compared across groups.ResultsA total of 2421 patients underwent major open vascular surgery, including 196 oAAA repair, 259 aortofemoral bypass, and 1966 LEB. The overall incidence of 30-day VTE was 1.40%, ranging from 1.12% for LEB to 3.57% for oAAA repair. Among patients receiving early VTE chemoprophylaxis, the rate of VTE was 0.78% versus 2.26% among those with a delay in VTE chemoprophylaxis (P = .002). When accounting for the preoperative risk of VTE, delayed chemoprophylaxis was associated with a significantly higher risk of VTE (odds ratio, 2.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-5.06; P = .024). The early VTE chemoprophylaxis group was associated with a significantly decreased risk of bleeding compared with those with a delay (14.31% vs 18.90%; P = .002). Overall 30-day mortality and postoperative complications were similar with the exception of an associated higher rate of infectious complications in the delayed VTE chemoprophylaxis group, including superficial surgical site infection (6.00% vs 4.06%; P = .028), pneumonia (3.25% vs 1.85%; P = .028), urinary tract infection (2.95% vs 1.57%; P = .020), and severe sepsis (3.05% vs 1.71%; P = .029).ConclusionsAlthough patients undergoing major open vascular surgery have a low risk of VTE at baseline, there is a significantly greater risk of developing VTE among patients who have a delay in the administration of VTE chemoprophylaxis. Postoperative transfusion rates were significantly lower among patients receiving early chemoprophylaxis. There were no differences in the 30-day mortality and postoperative complications, except for infectious complications. Given these findings, surgeons should consider early chemoprophylaxis in the postoperative setting after major open vascular surgery without contraindication.
| S-EPMC5741504 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVitamin K antagonists (VKA) are the most widely used anticoagulants, and bridging is commonly administered during periprocedural VKA interruption. Given the unclear benefits and risks of periprocedural bridging in patients with previous venous thromboembolism, we aimed to assess recurrent venous thromboembolism and bleeding outcomes with and without bridging in this population.MethodsWe performed a systematic review searching the PubMed and Embase databases from inception to December 7, 2017 for randomized and nonrandomized studies that included adults with previous venous thromboembolism requiring VKA interruption to undergo an elective procedure, and that reported venous thromboembolism or bleeding outcomes. Quality of evidence was graded by consensus.ResultsWe included 28 cohort studies (20 being single-arm cohorts) with, overall, 6915 procedures for analysis. In 27 studies reporting perioperative venous thromboembolism outcomes, the pooled incidence of recurrent venous thromboembolism with bridging was 0.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4%-1.2%) and 0.5% (95% CI, 0.3%-0.8%) without bridging. Eighteen studies reported major or nonmajor bleeding outcomes. The pooled incidence of any bleeding was 3.9% (95% CI, 2.0%-7.4%) with bridging and 0.4% (95% CI, 0.1%-1.7%) without bridging. In bridged patients at high thromboembolic risk, the pooled incidence for venous thromboembolism was 0.8% (95% CI, 0.3%-2.5%) and 7.5% (95% CI, 3.1%-17.4%) for any bleeding. Quality of available evidence was very low, primarily due to a high risk of bias of included studies.ConclusionsPeriprocedural bridging increases the risk of bleeding compared with VKA interruption without bridging, without a significant difference in periprocedural venous thromboembolism rates.
| S-EPMC6588421 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe wide variety of operations that a plastic surgeon can deal with creates confusion regarding its proper scope. This confusion was observed in primary physicians as well as medical students. Increasing the perception of medical students toward plastic surgery can aid in career decision-making and early referral patterns. The aim of this study is to gauge a holistic overview of how medical students and interns perceive the plastic and aesthetic surgical specialty in King Faisal University and to suggest a recommended plan.MethodsAn online questionnaire was distributed equally to male and female medical students and interns in a local medical institute. The questionnaire constituted three sections; the first included the biographical data. The second is concerned with the different case scenarios and specialties to be chosen. The third is concerned with the previous clinical exposures. The data were analyzed by SPSS version 21. Between comparison, chi-square tests, Mann-Whitney U-test, and Kruskal-Wallis tests were applied. Normality tests were conducted using the Shapiro-Wilk's test.ResultsTwo hundred ninety-two students and interns have participated and completed the questionnaire. There were 189 males and 103 females. Plastic surgery was most commonly chosen in the following case scenarios; burn of the hand (74%), broken nose (64.7%), and cosmetic nose reshaping (80.8%). However, plastic surgery was infrequently chosen (selected by <30% of students) in many areas of hands and peripheral neuropathies (severed finger extensor tendon (26.4%), fractured scaphoid (12.7%), carpal tunnel syndrome (14.4%), brachial plexus injury (16.1%)). The most common source of information was the social media, and the least one is meeting with doctors and professors.ConclusionMedical students and interns lack a full view of plastic and reconstructive surgery, especially in hand and peripheral neuropathies. Improving the education of medical students and interns is recommended and needed.
| S-EPMC8558811 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionVenous thromboembolism (VTE) is a serious life-threatening complication in patients with gastric cancer. Abnormal coagulation function and tumour-related treatment may contribute to the occurrence of VTE. Many guidelines considered that surgical treatment would put patients with cancer at high risk of VTE, so positive prevention is needed. However, there are no studies that have systematically reviewed the postoperative risk and distribution of VTE in patients with gastric cancer. We thus conduct this systematic review to determine the risk of VTE in patients with gastric cancer undergoing surgery and provide some evidence for clinical decision-making.Methods and analysisStudies reporting the incidence of VTE after gastric cancer surgery will be included. Primary studies of randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, population-based surveys and cross-sectional studies are eligible for this review and only studies published in Chinese and English will be included. We will search the Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CBM, CNKI and Wanfang data from their inception to November 2019. Two reviewers will independently select studies and extract data. The quality of each included study will be assessed with tools corresponding to their study design. Meta-analysis will be used to pool the incidence data from included studies. Heterogeneity of the estimates across studies will be assessed, if necessary, a subgroup analysis will be performed to explore the source of heterogeneity. The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation method is applied to assess the level of evidence obtained from this systematic review.Ethics and disseminationThis proposed systematic review and meta-analysis is based on published data, and thus ethical approval is not required. The results of this review will be sought for publication.Prospero registration numberCRD42019144562.
| S-EPMC6955495 | biostudies-literature