Key result
Comprehensive combined pharmacotherapy yields an absolute ~0.9% reduction in acute venous thrombosis in surgical patients.
Why the study?
The comparative outcomes of comprehensive combined versus standard pharmacotherapy for preventing venous thromboembolic complications in surgical patients at extremely high risk required assessment.
Does comprehensive combined pharmacotherapy reduce venous thromboembolic complications compared to standard pharmacotherapy in surgical patients with an extremely high risk of their development?
Does comprehensive combined pharmacotherapy reduce venous thromboembolic complications compared to standard pharmacotherapy in surgical patients with an extremely high risk of their development?
Comprehensive combined pharmacotherapy appears promising in surgical patients at extremely high risk for venous thromboembolism, decreasing acute venous thrombosis risk by 0.9% with no pulmonary embolism and fewer bleeding events compared to standard therapy.
The paper presents comparative assessment of the results of comprehensive combined and standard pharmacotherapy in the most grave surgical patients – those with extremely high risk of development of the venous thromboembolic complications. According to the results obtained the comprehensive combined pharmacotherapy is the most promising approach: the risk of acute venous thrombosis decreases by 0.9%, pulmonary embolism does not occur and bleedings caused by pharmacological impact on various biological substrates of the endothelial function are less frequent
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Баринов et al. (2026) studied Venous thromboembolic complications in surgical patients. Comprehensive combined pharmacotherapy vs. Standard pharmacotherapy was evaluated on Acute venous thrombosis (ARR 0.9%). Comprehensive combined pharmacotherapy decreased acute venous thrombosis risk by 0.9% and prevented pulmonary embolism compared to standard pharmacotherapy in high-risk surgical patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: