Surgery today · 2021
Continuation of aspirin perioperatively for lung resection: a propensity matched analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sakai Takashi, Aokage Keiju, Katsumata Shinya, Tane Kenta, Miyoshi Tomohiro, Tsuboi Masahiro
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To clarify the safety and effectiveness of continuing aspirin during the perioperative period of lung resection.
METHODS: We analyzed, retrospectively, consecutive patients who underwent lung resection between 2008 and 2017. To investigate the safety of aspirin continuation, patients who continued taking aspirin perioperatively (Group C) were matched to other patients (Group O), using a propensity score, and bleeding outcomes were compared. To assess the effect of aspirin interruption, Group C was matched to a group of patients whose aspirin regimen was interrupted (Group I), and the postoperative complications related to thromboembolism were compared.
RESULTS: Among 3393 patients, 52 continued on aspirin (Group C) perioperatively, whereas 184 had their aspirin discontinued (Group I). Comparing the matched cohorts extracted from Group C and Group O (n = 45), there were no significant differences in bleeding outcomes. Comparing the matched cohorts extracted from Group C and Group I (n = 40), group C had fewer postoperative complications related to thromboembolism (0% vs. 7.5%, p = 0.039).
CONCLUSION: Bleeding complications did not increase by continuing aspirin, but thromboembolic complications increased when the aspirin regimen was interrupted during the perioperative period of lung resection. Thus, in the absence of a prohibitive bleeding risk, the continuation of aspirin during the perioperative period of lung resection appears to be desirable.
METHODS: We analyzed, retrospectively, consecutive patients who underwent lung resection between 2008 and 2017. To investigate the safety of aspirin continuation, patients who continued taking aspirin perioperatively (Group C) were matched to other patients (Group O), using a propensity score, and bleeding outcomes were compared. To assess the effect of aspirin interruption, Group C was matched to a group of patients whose aspirin regimen was interrupted (Group I), and the postoperative complications related to thromboembolism were compared.
RESULTS: Among 3393 patients, 52 continued on aspirin (Group C) perioperatively, whereas 184 had their aspirin discontinued (Group I). Comparing the matched cohorts extracted from Group C and Group O (n = 45), there were no significant differences in bleeding outcomes. Comparing the matched cohorts extracted from Group C and Group I (n = 40), group C had fewer postoperative complications related to thromboembolism (0% vs. 7.5%, p = 0.039).
CONCLUSION: Bleeding complications did not increase by continuing aspirin, but thromboembolic complications increased when the aspirin regimen was interrupted during the perioperative period of lung resection. Thus, in the absence of a prohibitive bleeding risk, the continuation of aspirin during the perioperative period of lung resection appears to be desirable.