Alison Laws1,2,3, Kathryn Anderson1,2, Jiani Hu4, Kathleen McLean1,2, Lara Novak1,2, Laura S Dominici1,2, Faina Nakhlis1,2, Matthew Carty5, Stephanie Caterson5, Yoon Chun5, Margaret Duggan1,2, William Barry4, Nathan Connell6, Mehra Golshan1,2, Tari A King7,8. 1. Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Breast Oncology Program, Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. 4. Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Division of Plastic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 6. Division of Hematology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 7. Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. Tking7@bwh.harvard.edu. 8. Breast Oncology Program, Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center, Boston, MA, USA. Tking7@bwh.harvard.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Guidelines for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis are not well-established for breast surgery patients. An individualized VTE prophylaxis protocol using the Caprini score was adopted at our institution for patients undergoing mastectomy ± implant-based reconstruction. In this study, we report our experience during the first year of implementation. METHODS: In August 2016, we adopted a VTE prophylaxis protocol for patients undergoing mastectomy ± implant-based reconstruction. We used the Caprini score, a validated risk assessment tool for VTE, to determine each patient's perioperative prophylaxis regimen. Detailed chart review was performed to record patient and treatment details, the Caprini score, pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis administration, and 30-day incidence of VTE and bleeding complications. We performed univariate analysis to identify factors associated with protocol compliance. RESULTS: Overall, 522 patients met the inclusion criteria. Median age was 51 years, 486 (93.1%) patients had malignancy, 234 (44.8%) underwent bilateral mastectomy, and 350 (67.0%) underwent reconstruction. Caprini scores ranged from 2 to 11, with 431 (82.6%) patients having a score from 5 to 7. Overall protocol compliance was 60.5%, and was associated with bilateral mastectomy (p = 0.02), reconstruction (p = 0.03), and longer procedures (p < 0.001). The rate of VTE was 0.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.03-1.1%), rate of reoperation for hematoma was 2.7% (95% CI 1.6-4.5%), and rate of blood transfusion was 0.4% (95% CI 0.1-1.4%). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of an individualized VTE prophylaxis protocol for patients undergoing mastectomy ± implant-based reconstruction is safe and feasible. Despite a high-risk cohort, the incidence of VTE was very low and bleeding complications were consistent with reported rates for breast surgery. Continued evaluation of this strategy is warranted.
BACKGROUND: Guidelines for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis are not well-established for breast surgery patients. An individualized VTE prophylaxis protocol using the Caprini score was adopted at our institution for patients undergoing mastectomy ± implant-based reconstruction. In this study, we report our experience during the first year of implementation. METHODS: In August 2016, we adopted a VTE prophylaxis protocol for patients undergoing mastectomy ± implant-based reconstruction. We used the Caprini score, a validated risk assessment tool for VTE, to determine each patient's perioperative prophylaxis regimen. Detailed chart review was performed to record patient and treatment details, the Caprini score, pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis administration, and 30-day incidence of VTE and bleeding complications. We performed univariate analysis to identify factors associated with protocol compliance. RESULTS: Overall, 522 patients met the inclusion criteria. Median age was 51 years, 486 (93.1%) patients had malignancy, 234 (44.8%) underwent bilateral mastectomy, and 350 (67.0%) underwent reconstruction. Caprini scores ranged from 2 to 11, with 431 (82.6%) patients having a score from 5 to 7. Overall protocol compliance was 60.5%, and was associated with bilateral mastectomy (p = 0.02), reconstruction (p = 0.03), and longer procedures (p < 0.001). The rate of VTE was 0.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.03-1.1%), rate of reoperation for hematoma was 2.7% (95% CI 1.6-4.5%), and rate of blood transfusion was 0.4% (95% CI 0.1-1.4%). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of an individualized VTE prophylaxis protocol for patients undergoing mastectomy ± implant-based reconstruction is safe and feasible. Despite a high-risk cohort, the incidence of VTE was very low and bleeding complications were consistent with reported rates for breast surgery. Continued evaluation of this strategy is warranted.
Authors: Tonatiuh Flores; Florian J Jaklin; Alexander Rohrbacher; Klaus F Schrögendorfer; Konstantin D Bergmeister Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-02-03 Impact factor: 4.241