Gynecologic oncology · 2024
Is pharmacologic venous Thromboprophylaxis necessary for patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery for endometrial Cancer? A systematic review and Meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание 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.
Chen Hengxi, Chen Yali, Zheng Ai, Tan Xin, Han Ling
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Given the low incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in endometrial cancer patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery, coupled with the existing uncertainties within guidelines regarding pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in this area, there is an urgent need for a comprehensive literature review. This review aims to evaluate the necessity of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis in these patients.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched from inception to March 10, 2024. The analysis was performed using R version 4.2.3.
RESULTS: Seven studies involving 3931 endometrial cancer patients were included in the analysis. Meta-analysis results revealed that within 30 days postoperatively, the incidence of VTE was 0.51% (5 out of 990) in the pharmacologic prophylaxis group and 0.70% (7 out of 995) in the mechanical prophylaxis group, with a relative risk (RR) of 1.14 (95% CI 0.19-6.95), indicating no significant difference between the groups. Additionally, within the same timeframe, the incidence of VTE was 0.37% (4 out of 1083) in the extended pharmacologic prophylaxis group and 1.14% (4 out of 352) in the non-extended pharmacologic prophylaxis group, yielding an RR of 0.41 (95% CI 0.11-1.54), again showing no significant difference between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicates that routine pharmacological VTE prophylaxis may not be imperative for endometrial cancer patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery, as mechanical prophylaxis alone seems to be efficacious. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that a subset of high-risk patients may derive benefit from pharmacological prophylaxis or even extended regimens. Nonetheless, the absence of a validated risk prediction model for identifying such patients underscores the need for further research in this area.
PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: CRD 42024516595.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched from inception to March 10, 2024. The analysis was performed using R version 4.2.3.
RESULTS: Seven studies involving 3931 endometrial cancer patients were included in the analysis. Meta-analysis results revealed that within 30 days postoperatively, the incidence of VTE was 0.51% (5 out of 990) in the pharmacologic prophylaxis group and 0.70% (7 out of 995) in the mechanical prophylaxis group, with a relative risk (RR) of 1.14 (95% CI 0.19-6.95), indicating no significant difference between the groups. Additionally, within the same timeframe, the incidence of VTE was 0.37% (4 out of 1083) in the extended pharmacologic prophylaxis group and 1.14% (4 out of 352) in the non-extended pharmacologic prophylaxis group, yielding an RR of 0.41 (95% CI 0.11-1.54), again showing no significant difference between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicates that routine pharmacological VTE prophylaxis may not be imperative for endometrial cancer patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery, as mechanical prophylaxis alone seems to be efficacious. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that a subset of high-risk patients may derive benefit from pharmacological prophylaxis or even extended regimens. Nonetheless, the absence of a validated risk prediction model for identifying such patients underscores the need for further research in this area.
PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: CRD 42024516595.