Clinical Value Evaluation of Perioperative Prophylactic Anticoagulation Therapy for Lung Cancer Patients.
10.3779/j.issn.1009-3419.2018.10.06
- Author:
Hui XU
1
;
Hu LIAO
1
;
Guowei CHE
1
;
Kun ZHOU
1
;
Mei YANG
1
;
Lunxu LIU
1
Author Information
1. Department of Thoracic Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Lung neoplasms;
Perioperative prophylactic anticoagulation;
Pulmonary embolism
- MeSH:
Adult;
Aged;
Anticoagulants;
pharmacology;
Female;
Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight;
pharmacology;
Humans;
Lung Neoplasms;
surgery;
Male;
Middle Aged;
Perioperative Period;
Postoperative Complications;
etiology;
prevention & control;
Retrospective Studies;
Safety;
Young Adult
- From:
Chinese Journal of Lung Cancer
2018;21(10):767-772
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND:The incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE) in lung cancer patients who underwent surgery increased during the perioperative period, and prophylactic anticoagulation therapy was important part of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS). However, the timing of preventive anticoagulation in patients with lung cancer remained controversial. This study was designed to investigate the safety and efficacy of perioperative prophylactic anticoagulation therapy for lung cancer patients.
METHODS:Retrospective research was conducted on 562 lung cancer patients who underwent video-assisted thoracoscopic (VATS) anatomic pulmonary resections in West China Hospital from June 2016 to December 2016. 56 patients were treated with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) anticoagulation 12 hours before operation until discharge, while the other 506 patients were treated with LMWH 24 hours after operation until discharge. The postoperative chest drainage volume, postoperative bleeding, pulmonary embolism incidence, and respiratory complications were analyzed.
RESULTS:(1) There were no significant differences in prothrombin time (PT), activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) and international normalized ratio (INR) between the pre-operation prophylactic anticoagulation group (PRE group) [(11.5±3.9) s, (27.8±3.5) s, (0.96±0.06) s] and the post-operation prophylactic anticoagulation group (POST group) [(11.4±1.4) s, (28.3±4.0) s, (0.98±0.07) s] (P=0.796, P=0.250, P=0.137), and there was no significant difference in Caprini score between the PRE group (3.1±1.8) and the POST group (3.3±1.5) (P=0.104). (2) There were no significant differences in anesthesia time and intraoperative bleeding between PRE group [(130.2±53.9) min, (76.8±49.3) mL] and POST group [(142.2±56.5) min, (73.7±41.6) mL] (P=0.067, P=0.201). (3) The total drainage volume in 72 hours after operation in PRE group [(728.1±505.7) mL] was significantly higher than that of POST group [(596.4±373.5) mL] (P=0.005), while there were no significant differences between the two groups in total postoperative drainage volume [(1,066.8±1,314.6) mL vs (907.8±999.8) mL, P=0.203]. (4) There were no significant differences between the two groups in pulmonary embolism incidence (1.785% vs 0.019%, P=0.525) and postoperative bleeding rates (1.785% vs 0.039%, P=0.300). (5) There were no significant differences between PRE group and POST group in subcutaneous emphysema incidence (1.785% vs 1.581%, P=0.989) and pulmonary infection rates (14.285% vs 6.324%, P=0.085).
CONCLUSIONS:The clinical value of preoperative prophylactic anticoagulation is equal to postoperative prophylactic anticoagulation for lung cancer patients.
