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.
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.
Authors: R S McLeod; W H Geerts; K W Sniderman; C Greenwood; R C Gregoire; B M Taylor; R E Silverman; K G Atkinson; M Burnstein; J C Marshall; C J Burul; D R Anderson; T Ross; S R Wilson; P Barton Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Gunn E Vist; Regina Kunz; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Holger J Schünemann Journal: BMJ Date: 2008-04-26
Authors: Hari Nathan; John F P Bridges; Richard D Schulick; Andrew M Cameron; Kenzo Hirose; Barish H Edil; Christopher L Wolfgang; Dorry L Segev; Michael A Choti; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-01-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Aslam Ejaz; Gaya Spolverato; Yuhree Kim; Donald L Lucas; Brandyn Lau; Matthew Weiss; Fabian M Johnston; Marin Kheng; Marian Kheng; Kenzo Hirose; Christopher L Wolfgang; Elliott Haut; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2013-12-13 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Ryan S Turley; Srinevas K Reddy; Cynthia K Shortell; Bryan M Clary; John E Scarborough Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2012-06-30 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Jeffrey S Barton; Gordon M Riha; Jerome A Differding; Samantha J Underwood; Jodie L Curren; Brett C Sheppard; Rodney F Pommier; Susan L Orloff; Martin A Schreiber; Kevin G Billingsley Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2013-01-29 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: D Farge; P Debourdeau; M Beckers; C Baglin; R M Bauersachs; B Brenner; D Brilhante; A Falanga; G T Gerotzafias; N Haim; A K Kakkar; A A Khorana; R Lecumberri; M Mandala; M Marty; M Monreal; S A Mousa; S Noble; I Pabinger; P Prandoni; M H Prins; M H Qari; M B Streiff; K Syrigos; H Bounameaux; H R Büller Journal: J Thromb Haemost Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 5.824
Authors: Thomas A Aloia; William H Geerts; Bryan M Clary; Ryan W Day; Alan W Hemming; Luiz Carneiro D'Albuquerque; Charles M Vollmer; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Giles J Toogood Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: M Farzan Rashid; Terri L Jackson; Jheanell A Morgan; Franklin A Dwyer; Beth A Schrope; John A Chabot; Michael D Kluger Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2018-09-05 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Negar Pourjamal; Lauri I Lavikainen; Alex L E Halme; Rufus Cartwright; Kaisa Ahopelto; Gordon H Guyatt; Kari A O Tikkinen Journal: BJS Open Date: 2022-09-02