Jennifer Travieso1, Neil Kamdar2, Daniel M Morgan3, Sawsan As-Sanie3, Sara R Till3. 1. Department of Women's Health, Dell Medical School, The University of Texas at Austin (Dr. Travieso), Austin, Texas. Electronic address: jtravieso@austin.utexas.edu. 2. Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation (Mr. Kamdar). 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Drs. Morgan, As-Sanie, and Till), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the addition of pharmacologic prophylaxis to mechanical prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism (VTE) is associated with changes in perioperative outcomes in hysterectomy for benign indications. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative database. PATIENTS: Patients who underwent hysterectomy between July 2012 and June 2015 when VTE prophylaxis data were collected. INTERVENTIONS: Patients who received mechanical prophylaxis alone were compared with those receiving dual prophylaxis (mechanical and pharmacologic). Minimally invasive surgeries (MIS) included laparoscopic, vaginal, robotic-assisted, and laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomies and were analyzed separately from abdominal (ABD) hysterectomy. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Propensity score matching was used to minimize confounding because of the differences in demographic and perioperative characteristics. The primary outcome was estimated blood loss (EBL). The secondary outcomes were operative time, postoperative blood transfusion, VTE, surgical site infection, reoperation, readmission, and death. There were 1803 matched pairs in the MIS analysis. In the ABD hysterectomy analysis, 2:1 matching was used with a total of 1168 patients receiving mechanical prophylaxis alone matched to 616 patients receiving dual prophylaxis. EBL was higher by 54.5 mL (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.9-92.1) in those receiving dual prophylaxis in the ABD hysterectomy analysis but did not differ between groups in the MIS analysis. Operative time was significantly longer with dual prophylaxis in both MIS (18.3 minutes; 95% CI, 13.8-22.8) and ABD (15.3 minutes; 95% CI, 9.0-21.6) surgical approaches. There was no difference in other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: The addition of pharmacologic prophylaxis to mechanical prophylaxis in benign hysterectomy was associated with longer operative time, regardless of surgical approach and increased EBL in ABD hysterectomy. Given very low rates of VTE, no difference in other perioperative outcomes, and possible harm, it seems reasonable to encourage individualized rather than routine use of pharmacologic prophylaxis in patients undergoing benign hysterectomy receiving mechanical prophylaxis.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the addition of pharmacologic prophylaxis to mechanical prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism (VTE) is associated with changes in perioperative outcomes in hysterectomy for benign indications. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative database. PATIENTS: Patients who underwent hysterectomy between July 2012 and June 2015 when VTE prophylaxis data were collected. INTERVENTIONS: Patients who received mechanical prophylaxis alone were compared with those receiving dual prophylaxis (mechanical and pharmacologic). Minimally invasive surgeries (MIS) included laparoscopic, vaginal, robotic-assisted, and laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomies and were analyzed separately from abdominal (ABD) hysterectomy. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Propensity score matching was used to minimize confounding because of the differences in demographic and perioperative characteristics. The primary outcome was estimated blood loss (EBL). The secondary outcomes were operative time, postoperative blood transfusion, VTE, surgical site infection, reoperation, readmission, and death. There were 1803 matched pairs in the MIS analysis. In the ABD hysterectomy analysis, 2:1 matching was used with a total of 1168 patients receiving mechanical prophylaxis alone matched to 616 patients receiving dual prophylaxis. EBL was higher by 54.5 mL (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.9-92.1) in those receiving dual prophylaxis in the ABD hysterectomy analysis but did not differ between groups in the MIS analysis. Operative time was significantly longer with dual prophylaxis in both MIS (18.3 minutes; 95% CI, 13.8-22.8) and ABD (15.3 minutes; 95% CI, 9.0-21.6) surgical approaches. There was no difference in other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: The addition of pharmacologic prophylaxis to mechanical prophylaxis in benign hysterectomy was associated with longer operative time, regardless of surgical approach and increased EBL in ABD hysterectomy. Given very low rates of VTE, no difference in other perioperative outcomes, and possible harm, it seems reasonable to encourage individualized rather than routine use of pharmacologic prophylaxis in patients undergoing benign hysterectomy receiving mechanical prophylaxis.
Authors: T H I Brummer; A Heikkinen; J Jalkanen; J Fraser; J Mäkinen; E Tomás; T Seppälä; J Sjöberg; P Härkki Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2012-03-14 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Tatiana Catanzarite; Sujata Saha; Matthew A Pilecki; John Y S Kim; Magdy P Milad Journal: J Minim Invasive Gynecol Date: 2015-06-10 Impact factor: 4.137
Authors: William H Geerts; Graham F Pineo; John A Heit; David Bergqvist; Michael R Lassen; Clifford W Colwell; Joel G Ray Journal: Chest Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Elisabeth Erekson; Regan L Murchison; Kristen A Gerjevic; Vivienne T Meljen; Kris Strohbehn Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Elisa M Jorgensen; Anjie Li; Anna M Modest; Katherine Leung; Tiffany A Moore Simas; Hye-Chun Hur Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 7.661