Surgical Services, John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
Hunter Surgical Clinical Research Unit, John Hunter Hospital, New Lambton Heights, Australia.
BMC Surg. 2023 Sep 1;23(1):265. doi: 10.1186/s12893-023-02135-y.
Surgical prophylaxis for venous thrombo-embolic disease (VTE) includes risk assessment, chemical prophylaxis and mechanical prophylaxis (graduated compression stockings [GCS] and/or intermittent pneumatic compression devices [IPCD]). Although there is overwhelming evidence for the need and efficacy of VTE prophylaxis in patients at risk, only about a third of those who are at risk of VTE receive appropriate prophylaxis.
There is debate as to the best combination of VTE prophylaxis following abdominal surgery due to lack of evidence. The aim of this survey was to understand this gap between knowledge and practice.
In 2019 and 2020, a survey was conducted to investigate the current practice of venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis for major abdominal surgery, with a focus on colorectal resections. The study received ethics approval and involved distributing an 11-item questionnaire to members of two professional surgical societies: the Colorectal Surgical Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSSANZ) and the General Surgeons Australia (GSA).
From 214 surgeons: 100% use chemical prophylaxis, 68% do not use a risk assessment tool, 27% do not vary practice according to patient risk factors while > 90% use all three forms of VTE prophylaxis at some stage of treatment. Most surgeons do not vary practice between laparoscopic and open colectomy/major abdominal surgery and only 33% prescribe post-discharge chemical prophylaxis. 42% of surgeons surveyed had equipoise for a clinical trial on the use of IPCDs and the vast majority (> 95%) feel that IPCDs should provide at least a 2% improvement in VTE event rate in order to justify their routine use.
Most surgeons in Australia and New Zealand do not use risk assessment tools and use all three forms of prophylaxis regardless. Therfore there is a gap between practice and VTE prophylaxis for the use of mechanical prophylaxis options. Further research is required to determine whether dual modality mechanical prophylaxis is incrementally efficacious. Trial Registration- Not Applicable.
静脉血栓栓塞疾病(VTE)的外科预防措施包括风险评估、化学预防和机械预防(梯度压力袜[GCS]和/或间歇性气动压缩装置[IPC])。尽管有大量证据表明有必要且有效的 VTE 预防措施适用于有风险的患者,但只有大约三分之一有 VTE 风险的患者接受了适当的预防措施。
由于缺乏证据,对于腹部手术后最佳的 VTE 预防措施组合存在争议。本调查的目的是了解知识与实践之间的差距。
2019 年和 2020 年,进行了一项调查,以了解澳大利亚和新西兰(CSSANZ)结直肠外科协会和澳大利亚普通外科医生(GSA)这两个专业外科协会成员对主要腹部手术(重点是结直肠切除术)中静脉血栓栓塞(VTE)预防的当前实践。该研究获得了伦理批准,并涉及向 214 名外科医生分发了一份包含 11 个问题的问卷。
从 214 名外科医生中:100%使用化学预防措施,68%不使用风险评估工具,27%不根据患者的危险因素改变实践,而>90%在治疗的某个阶段使用所有三种形式的 VTE 预防措施。大多数外科医生在腹腔镜和开放式结肠切除术/主要腹部手术之间不改变实践,只有 33%在出院后开具化学预防药物。42%接受调查的外科医生对 IPCD 使用的临床试验持平衡态度,绝大多数(>95%)认为 IPCD 应至少使 VTE 事件率提高 2%,以证明其常规使用合理。
澳大利亚和新西兰的大多数外科医生不使用风险评估工具,并且无论如何都使用所有三种预防措施。因此,在机械预防措施的选择方面,实践与 VTE 预防之间存在差距。需要进一步研究以确定双重模式机械预防是否具有递增效果。试验注册-不适用。