Yoon Ju Jung1, Ho Seok Seo1, Cho Hyun Park1, Hae Myung Jeon1, Ji-Il Kim2, Hyeon Woo Yim3, Kyo Young Song1. 1. Division of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Seoul St Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. Division of Vascular and Transplantation Surgery, Department of Surgery, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 3. Clinical Research Coordinating Center of Catholic Medical Center, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
Importance: The guidelines by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American Society for Clinical Oncology recommend the routine use of thromboprophylaxis for patients with gastric adenocarcinoma. However, many physicians in Asian countries use venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis much less often because of the perceived lower VTE incidence in this population. Objectives: To evaluate the incidence of postgastrectomy VTE in Korean patients with gastric adenocarcinoma, and to identify the complications and evaluate the efficacy and safety of VTE prevention methods. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Optimal Prophylactic Method for Venous ThromboembolismAfter Gastrectomy in Korean Patients (PROTECTOR) randomized clinical trial was conducted between August 1, 2011, and March 31, 2015. Patients with histologically confirmed gastric adenocarcinoma presenting to a single center (Seoul St Mary's Hospital in Seoul, South Korea) were enrolled. Patients were randomized to either an intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC)-only group or an IPC+low-molecular-weight (LMW) heparin sodium group. The data were analyzed on intention-to-treat and per protocol bases. Data analysis was performed from April 1, 2016, to October 30, 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Venous thromboembolism incidence was the primary outcome. Postoperative complications, particularly those associated with VTE prophylaxis methods, were the secondary end point. Results: Of the 682 patients enrolled and randomized, 447 (65.5%) were male and 245 (34.5%) were female, with a mean (SD) age of 57.67 (12.94) years. Among the 666 patients included in the analysis, the overall incidence of VTE was 2.1%. The incidence of VTE was statistically significantly higher in the IPC-only group compared with the IPC+LMW heparin group (3.6%; 95% CI, 2.05%-6.14% vs 0.6%; 95% CI, 0.17%-2.18%; P = .008). Among the 14 patients (2.1%) with VTE, 13 were asymptomatic and received a deep vein thrombosis diagnosis, whereas 1 patient received a symptomatic pulmonary thromboembolism diagnosis. The overall incidence of bleeding complications was 5.1%. The incidence of bleeding complications was significantly higher in the IPC+LMW heparin group compared with the IPC-only group (9.1% vs 1.2%; P < .001). No cases of VTE-associated mortality were noted. Conclusions and Relevance: Use of IPC alone is inferior to the use of IPC+LMW heparin in preventing postoperative VTE. Because LMW heparin is associated with a high bleeding risk, further study is needed to stratify the patients at high risk for perioperative development of VTE. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01448746.
RCT Entities:
Importance: The guidelines by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American Society for Clinical Oncology recommend the routine use of thromboprophylaxis for patients with gastric adenocarcinoma. However, many physicians in Asian countries use venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis much less often because of the perceived lower VTE incidence in this population. Objectives: To evaluate the incidence of postgastrectomy VTE in Korean patients with gastric adenocarcinoma, and to identify the complications and evaluate the efficacy and safety of VTE prevention methods. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Optimal Prophylactic Method for Venous Thromboembolism After Gastrectomy in Korean Patients (PROTECTOR) randomized clinical trial was conducted between August 1, 2011, and March 31, 2015. Patients with histologically confirmed gastric adenocarcinoma presenting to a single center (Seoul St Mary's Hospital in Seoul, South Korea) were enrolled. Patients were randomized to either an intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC)-only group or an IPC+low-molecular-weight (LMW) heparin sodium group. The data were analyzed on intention-to-treat and per protocol bases. Data analysis was performed from April 1, 2016, to October 30, 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Venous thromboembolism incidence was the primary outcome. Postoperative complications, particularly those associated with VTE prophylaxis methods, were the secondary end point. Results: Of the 682 patients enrolled and randomized, 447 (65.5%) were male and 245 (34.5%) were female, with a mean (SD) age of 57.67 (12.94) years. Among the 666 patients included in the analysis, the overall incidence of VTE was 2.1%. The incidence of VTE was statistically significantly higher in the IPC-only group compared with the IPC+LMW heparin group (3.6%; 95% CI, 2.05%-6.14% vs 0.6%; 95% CI, 0.17%-2.18%; P = .008). Among the 14 patients (2.1%) with VTE, 13 were asymptomatic and received a deep vein thrombosis diagnosis, whereas 1 patient received a symptomatic pulmonary thromboembolism diagnosis. The overall incidence of bleeding complications was 5.1%. The incidence of bleeding complications was significantly higher in the IPC+LMW heparin group compared with the IPC-only group (9.1% vs 1.2%; P < .001). No cases of VTE-associated mortality were noted. Conclusions and Relevance: Use of IPC alone is inferior to the use of IPC+LMW heparin in preventing postoperative VTE. Because LMW heparin is associated with a high bleeding risk, further study is needed to stratify the patients at high risk for perioperative development of VTE. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01448746.
Authors: H S Y Liu; B C S Kho; J C W Chan; F M F Cheung; K Y Lau; F P T Choi; W C Wu; T K Yau Journal: Hong Kong Med J Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 2.227
Authors: Brian Buchberg; Hossein Masoomi; Kristelle Lusby; John Choi; Andrew Barleben; Cheryl Magno; John Lane; Ninh Nguyen; Steven Mills; Michael J Stamos Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2011-06
Authors: M T Nurmohamed; F R Rosendaal; H R Büller; E Dekker; D W Hommes; J P Vandenbroucke; E Briët Journal: Lancet Date: 1992-07-18 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Kyo Young Song; Han Mo Yoo; Eun Young Kim; Ji-Il Kim; Hyeon Woo Yim; Hae Myung Jeon; Cho Hyun Park Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-07-11 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Sunita Rehal; Tim P Morris; Katherine Fielding; James R Carpenter; Patrick P J Phillips Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-10-07 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Stavros Kakkos; George Kirkilesis; Joseph A Caprini; George Geroulakos; Andrew Nicolaides; Gerard Stansby; Daniel J Reddy Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2022-01-28
Authors: Lara A Kahale; Charbel F Matar; Ibrahim Tsolakian; Maram B Hakoum; Maddalena Barba; Victor Ed Yosuico; Irene Terrenato; Francesca Sperati; Holger Schünemann; Elie A Akl Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-10-08
Authors: David R Anderson; Gian Paolo Morgano; Carole Bennett; Francesco Dentali; Charles W Francis; David A Garcia; Susan R Kahn; Maryam Rahman; Anita Rajasekhar; Frederick B Rogers; Maureen A Smythe; Kari A O Tikkinen; Adolph J Yates; Tejan Baldeh; Sara Balduzzi; Jan L Brożek; Itziar Etxeandia- Ikobaltzeta; Herman Johal; Ignacio Neumann; Wojtek Wiercioch; Juan José Yepes-Nuñez; Holger J Schünemann; Philipp Dahm Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2019-12-10
Authors: Gary H Lyman; Marc Carrier; Cihan Ay; Marcello Di Nisio; Lisa K Hicks; Alok A Khorana; Andrew D Leavitt; Agnes Y Y Lee; Fergus Macbeth; Rebecca L Morgan; Simon Noble; Elizabeth A Sexton; David Stenehjem; Wojtek Wiercioch; Lara A Kahale; Pablo Alonso-Coello Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2021-02-23
Authors: Ka-Won Kang; Ji Yoon Lee; Byung-Hyun Lee; Min Ji Jeon; Eun Sang Yu; Dae Sik Kim; Se Ryeon Lee; Chul Won Choi; Yong Park; Hwa Jung Sung; Byung Soo Kim Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-03-08 Impact factor: 4.241