Key result
Adding anticoagulation to IPC fails to reduce VTE after laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery.
Why the study?
The efficacy and safety of anticoagulant prophylaxis to prevent postoperative venous thromboembolism during laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery in Japanese patients was unknown.
Does the addition of anticoagulation therapy to intermittent pneumatic compression reduce postoperative VTE incidence in Japanese patients undergoing elective laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer?
RCT (n=302)
randomly assigned
Yes
Does the addition of anticoagulation therapy to intermittent pneumatic compression reduce postoperative VTE incidence in Japanese patients undergoing elective laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer?
Absolute Event Rate: 2.76% vs 5.1%
p-value: p=0.293
The addition of pharmacological anticoagulation to intermittent pneumatic compression did not significantly reduce the incidence of postoperative VTE in Japanese patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery.
Adding anticoagulation to IPC did not reduce VTE after laparoscopic CRC surgery; challenges routine pharmacological prophylaxis in Japanese patients and supports IPC alone for most.
Aim To investigate the efficacy and safety of anticoagulant prophylaxis to prevent postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) during laparoscopic colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery, which is unknown in Japanese patients. Methods We conducted this randomized controlled trial at nine institutions in Japan from 2011 to 2015. It included 302 eligible patients aged 20 years or older who underwent elective laparoscopic surgery for CRC. Patients were randomly assigned to an intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) therapy group or to an IPC + anticoagulation therapy group. Anticoagulation therapy comprised fondaparinux or enoxaparin for postoperative VTE prophylaxis. Postoperative VTE was diagnosed based on enhanced multi‐detector helical computed tomography. The primary endpoint was VTE incidence, including asymptomatic cases, the secondary endpoint was incidence of major bleeding, and we conducted an intention‐to‐treat analysis. This study is registered in UMINCTR (UMIN000008435). Results Postoperative VTE incidence was 5.10% with IPC therapy (n = 157) and 2.76% with IPC + anticoagulant therapy (n = 145; P = .293). We identified no symptomatic VTE cases. The major bleeding rates were 1.27% with IPC alone and 1.38% with the combination (P = .936). The overall bleeding rates were 7.69% for enoxaparin and 13.6% for fondaparinux (P = .500), and there were no bleeding‐related deaths. Conclusion Anticoagulant prophylaxis did not reduce the incidence of VTE and the incidence of major bleeding was comparable between the two groups. Usefulness of perioperative anticoagulation was not demonstrated in this study. Pharmacological prophylaxis must be restricted in Japanese patients with higher risk of VTE.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hata et al. (2019) conducted an RCT in colorectal cancer (n=302). IPC + anticoagulation therapy (fondaparinux or enoxaparin) vs. intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) therapy was evaluated on VTE incidence, including asymptomatic cases (p=0.293). IPC plus anticoagulant therapy did not significantly reduce VTE incidence compared to IPC alone (2.76% vs 5.10%, P=0.293) in Japanese patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: