Extended versus inpatient thromboprophylaxis with heparins following major open abdominopelvic surgery for malignancy: a systematic review of efficacy and safety

Abstract

Background

Patients undergoing open abdominopelvic procedures for malignancy are at high risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE). This risk can be mitigated with prophylaxis; however, optimum duration in this population remains unknown. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review of contemporary literature on the use of heparin thromboprophylaxis following major open pelvic surgery for malignancy, comparing the efficacy and safety of extended duration to inpatient treatment.

Methods

A study protocol describing search strategy and inclusion and exclusion criteria was developed and registered with PROSPERO. A literature review was conducted in accordance with the protocol.

Results

Literature review identified only 4 studies directly comparing extended and inpatient duration prophylaxis, with a combined population of 3198 and 3135 patients for VTE rate and bleeding events, respectively. Despite many studies reporting lower VTE rates in patients receiving extended prophylaxis, no statistically significant difference in rates of postoperative VTE ( p = 0.18) or bleeding complications ( p = 0.43) was identified between patients receiving extended duration prophylaxis and those receiving inpatient only prophylaxis.

Conclusion

On the review of contemporary literature, no significant difference was found in rates of postoperative VTE or bleeding complications between patients receiving extended duration heparin VTE prophylaxis and those receiving inpatient prophylaxis after open abdominopelvic surgery for malignancy.

This raises the question of how extended duration prophylaxis has become common practice in this population, and whether this needs to be re-evaluated.