Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Kawasaki Medical School, 577 Matsushima, Kurashiki, Okayama, 701-0192, Japan.
Fukuyama City Hospital, Fukuyama, Japan.
J Anesth. 2019 Feb;33(1):90-95. doi: 10.1007/s00540-018-2591-8. Epub 2018 Nov 27.
In contrast to that in a nonoperative setting, it has been shown that perioperative administration of aspirin did not decrease the rate of death or myocardial infarction but increased major bleeding risk. Since these conflicting results might be due to concurrent use of anticoagulants and a lower thrombotic risk of patients, this cohort study was carried out for patients at a high thrombotic risk without concurrent use of anticoagulants.
Medical records for patients who underwent major abdominal malignancy surgery and who were on a preoperative antiplatelet regimen were reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups according to perioperative antiplatelet management: administration of all preoperative antiplatelet agent-suspended (no aspirin) group and only aspirin administration-continued (aspirin) group. The incidence of symptomatic thromboembolic events, frequency of exogenous blood transfusion within 30 days after surgery and the amount of intraoperative bleeding were compared between the two groups.
After propensity score matching, 105 patients of each group were matched. The incidence of perioperative thromboembolic events in the no-aspirin group was significantly higher than that in the aspirin group [7/105 (6.7%) vs 0/105 (0%), 95% CI 1.44-∞, P = 0.016]. In contrast, neither the frequency of exogenous transfusion [21.0% vs 11.4%, 95% CI 0.88-4.38 P = 0.110] nor the amount of intraoperative bleeding [median (interquartile range), ml: 230 (70-500) vs 208 (50-500), P = 0.325] was different between the two groups.
Although the sample size is relatively small, our findings suggest that continuation of aspirin administration is likely to reduce the thrombotic risk but unlikely to increase the bleeding risk of patients who undergo major abdominal surgery for malignancy.
与非手术环境相比,已经表明围手术期给予阿司匹林并未降低死亡率或心肌梗死发生率,但增加了大出血风险。由于这些相互矛盾的结果可能是由于同时使用抗凝剂和患者的血栓形成风险较低,因此在没有同时使用抗凝剂的高血栓形成风险患者中进行了这项队列研究。
回顾接受大腹部恶性肿瘤手术且术前接受抗血小板治疗的患者的病历。根据围手术期抗血小板管理将患者分为两组:所有术前抗血小板药物停药(无阿司匹林)组和仅阿司匹林继续使用(阿司匹林)组。比较两组之间症状性血栓栓塞事件的发生率、术后 30 天内外源性输血的频率和术中出血量。
在进行倾向评分匹配后,每组匹配了 105 例患者。无阿司匹林组围手术期血栓栓塞事件的发生率明显高于阿司匹林组[7/105(6.7%)比 0/105(0%),95%CI 1.44-∞,P=0.016]。相反,外源性输血的频率[21.0%比 11.4%,95%CI 0.88-4.38,P=0.110]和术中出血量[中位数(四分位距),ml:230(70-500)比 208(50-500),P=0.325]在两组之间无差异。
尽管样本量相对较小,但我们的发现表明,继续使用阿司匹林可能会降低血栓形成风险,但不太可能增加接受恶性肿瘤大腹部手术的患者的出血风险。