TY - JOUR
T1 - Venous thromboembolic prophylaxis after a hepatic resection
T2 - Patterns of care among liver surgeons
AU - Weiss, Matthew J.
AU - Kim, Yuhree
AU - Ejaz, Aslam
AU - Spolverato, Gaya
AU - Haut, Elliott R.
AU - Hirose, Kenzo
AU - Wolfgang, Christopher L.
AU - Choti, Michael A.
AU - Pawlik, Timothy M.
N1 - Funding Information:
The email was sent to 414 recipients, 297 recipients opened the email, and 200 responded. Demographic and practice characteristics of the respondents are given in . The majority of respondents (88%) practiced at academic centres, and 55% were in practice ≥10 years. The overwhelming majority of respondents were male (91%) and practiced in the United States (81%). Surgical training varied: 34% surgical oncology, 24% transplant, 24% HPB, 13% combined HPB/transplant and 5% no fellowship training. Most respondents (67%) reported that the majority (>50%) of their clinical practice involved HPB surgery. Respondents reported performing a median of four [interquartile range (IQR) 2–5] liver resections per month, with half (50%) of the resections being major (≥3 segments) (IQR 34–70). Table 1
PY - 2014
Y1 - 2014
N2 - Introduction: No consensus exists for post-hepatectomy venous thromboembolic (VTE) prophylaxis. Factors impacting VTE prophylaxis patterns among hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgeons were defined. Method: Surgeons were invited to complete a web-based survey on VTE prophylaxis. The impact of physician and clinical factors was analysed. Results: Two hundred responses were received. Most respondents were male (91%) and practiced at academic centres (88%) in the United States (80%). Surgical training varied: HPB (24%), transplantation (24%), surgical oncology (34%), HPB/transplantation (13%), or no specialty (5%). Respondents estimated VTE risk was higher after major (6%) versus minor (3%) resections. Although 98% use VTE prophylaxis, there was considerable variability: sequential compression devices (SCD) (91%), unfractionated heparin Q12h (31%) and Q8h (32%), and low-molecular weight heparin (39%). While 88% noted VTE prophylaxis was not impacted by operative indication, 16% stated major resections reduced their VTE prophylaxis. Factors associated with the decreased use of pharmacologic prophylaxis included: elevated international normalized ratio (INR) (74%), thrombocytopaenia (63%), liver insufficiency (58%), large EBL (46%) and complications (8%). Forty-seven per cent of respondents wait until ≥post-operative day 1 (POD1) and 35% hold pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis until no signs of coagulopathy. A minority (14%) discharge patients on pharmacologic prophylaxis. While 81% have institutional VTE guidelines, 79% believe hepatectomy-specific guidelines would be helpful. Conclusion: There is considerable variation regarding VTE prophylaxis among liver surgeons. While most HPB surgeons employ VTE prophylaxis, the methods, timing and purported contraindications differ significantly.
AB - Introduction: No consensus exists for post-hepatectomy venous thromboembolic (VTE) prophylaxis. Factors impacting VTE prophylaxis patterns among hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgeons were defined. Method: Surgeons were invited to complete a web-based survey on VTE prophylaxis. The impact of physician and clinical factors was analysed. Results: Two hundred responses were received. Most respondents were male (91%) and practiced at academic centres (88%) in the United States (80%). Surgical training varied: HPB (24%), transplantation (24%), surgical oncology (34%), HPB/transplantation (13%), or no specialty (5%). Respondents estimated VTE risk was higher after major (6%) versus minor (3%) resections. Although 98% use VTE prophylaxis, there was considerable variability: sequential compression devices (SCD) (91%), unfractionated heparin Q12h (31%) and Q8h (32%), and low-molecular weight heparin (39%). While 88% noted VTE prophylaxis was not impacted by operative indication, 16% stated major resections reduced their VTE prophylaxis. Factors associated with the decreased use of pharmacologic prophylaxis included: elevated international normalized ratio (INR) (74%), thrombocytopaenia (63%), liver insufficiency (58%), large EBL (46%) and complications (8%). Forty-seven per cent of respondents wait until ≥post-operative day 1 (POD1) and 35% hold pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis until no signs of coagulopathy. A minority (14%) discharge patients on pharmacologic prophylaxis. While 81% have institutional VTE guidelines, 79% believe hepatectomy-specific guidelines would be helpful. Conclusion: There is considerable variation regarding VTE prophylaxis among liver surgeons. While most HPB surgeons employ VTE prophylaxis, the methods, timing and purported contraindications differ significantly.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84927797498&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84927797498&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/hpb.12278
DO - 10.1111/hpb.12278
M3 - Article
C2 - 24888461
AN - SCOPUS:84927797498
VL - 16
SP - 892
EP - 898
JO - HPB
JF - HPB
SN - 1365-182X
IS - 10
ER -