Urology · 2020
Effect of Continued Perioperative Anticoagulant Therapy on Bleeding Outcomes Following Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Kubota Masashi, Matsuoka Takashi, Yamasaki Toshinari, Kokubun Hidetoshi, Hagimoto Hiroki, Murata Shiori, Makita Noriyuki, Suzuki Issei, Abe Yohei, Tohi Yoichiro, Tsutsumi Naofumi, Inoue Koji, Kawakita Mutsushi
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of continued perioperative anticoagulant drug administration on bleeding and complications in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.
METHODS: Between January 2014 and January 2020, 620 patients with prostate cancer underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomies and were retrospectively reviewed. Fourteen patients who discontinued antithrombotic therapy were excluded. Among the 606 included patients, 31 continued anticoagulant therapy during the perioperative phase (anticoagulant group). The anticoagulant group outcomes were compared with those of patients who continued clopidogrel and prasugrel (thienopyridine group = 13), aspirin monotherapy (aspirin group = 61), and no chronic antithrombotic agent (control group = 501). The primary outcome was the incidence of bleeding complications requiring transfusion, additional intervention, or readmission. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of thrombotic complications, estimated blood loss, and overall complication rates.
RESULTS: Among the 31 patients in the anticoagulant group, 20 (65%) used directed oral anticoagulants, 11 (35%) used warfarin, and 5 used combined aspirin. Only 1 (3%) patient in the anticoagulant group required postoperative transfusion, and none required additional interventions or readmission. No significant differences were detected between the anticoagulant and other groups (anticoagulant vs thienopyridine, aspirin, and control groups) regarding bleeding complications (3% vs 8%, P = .51; 0%, P = .34; 0.4%, P = .17, respectively), thrombotic complications (3% vs 0%, P = .70; 2%, P = .56; 0.2%, P = .11, respectively), estimated blood loss (200 vs 100 mL, P = .63; 175 mL, P = .64; 165 mL, P = .74, respectively), or other high-grade complications (6% vs 0%, P = .49; 2%, P = .26; 3%, P = .24, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Perioperative continuation of anticoagulant use is feasible for patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.
METHODS: Between January 2014 and January 2020, 620 patients with prostate cancer underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomies and were retrospectively reviewed. Fourteen patients who discontinued antithrombotic therapy were excluded. Among the 606 included patients, 31 continued anticoagulant therapy during the perioperative phase (anticoagulant group). The anticoagulant group outcomes were compared with those of patients who continued clopidogrel and prasugrel (thienopyridine group = 13), aspirin monotherapy (aspirin group = 61), and no chronic antithrombotic agent (control group = 501). The primary outcome was the incidence of bleeding complications requiring transfusion, additional intervention, or readmission. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of thrombotic complications, estimated blood loss, and overall complication rates.
RESULTS: Among the 31 patients in the anticoagulant group, 20 (65%) used directed oral anticoagulants, 11 (35%) used warfarin, and 5 used combined aspirin. Only 1 (3%) patient in the anticoagulant group required postoperative transfusion, and none required additional interventions or readmission. No significant differences were detected between the anticoagulant and other groups (anticoagulant vs thienopyridine, aspirin, and control groups) regarding bleeding complications (3% vs 8%, P = .51; 0%, P = .34; 0.4%, P = .17, respectively), thrombotic complications (3% vs 0%, P = .70; 2%, P = .56; 0.2%, P = .11, respectively), estimated blood loss (200 vs 100 mL, P = .63; 175 mL, P = .64; 165 mL, P = .74, respectively), or other high-grade complications (6% vs 0%, P = .49; 2%, P = .26; 3%, P = .24, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Perioperative continuation of anticoagulant use is feasible for patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AgedAnticoagulantsAntithrombinsAspirinBlood TransfusionClopidogrelContinuity of Patient CareHumansIncidenceMalePerioperative CarePlatelet Aggregation InhibitorsPostoperative HemorrhagePrasugrel HydrochlorideProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesRobotic Surgical ProceduresThrombosisWarfarin