S. Abdul, C. Anstee, P. Villeneuve, Sebatien Gilbert, A. Seely, S. Sundaresan, D. Maziak
{"title":"在胸外科术后增强恢复后,是否常规需要序贯压迫装置?","authors":"S. Abdul, C. Anstee, P. Villeneuve, Sebatien Gilbert, A. Seely, S. Sundaresan, D. Maziak","doi":"10.1093/icvts/ivac165","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract OBJECTIVES The prominence of “enhanced recovery after surgery” (ERAS) protocols being adopted in thoracic surgery requires a re-evaluation of mechanical venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis guidelines. The goal of this study was to assess the role of sequential compression devices (SCD) in the prevention of VTEs such as deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism (PE) in thoracic surgical patients. METHODS We identified 200 patients who underwent elective oncological thoracic surgery between December 2018 and December 2020 in 2 cohorts—1 with SCDs and 1 without (i.e. non-SCD). All patients followed a standardized enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol. The quality of care provided by SCDs was evaluated by the incidence and severity of postoperative and follow-up VTEs. Cohorts were compared by the Caprini score (CS) and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) with a two one-sided t-test analysis. Secondary outcomes include perioperative characteristics and follow-up data. RESULTS Only 2 patients within the SCD group developed a PE with average CS and CCI metrics, both after hospital discharge and treated with anticoagulants, raising concern over the prophylactic nature of SCDs. The CS (6.9 ± 1.3 and 6.9 ± 1.5; P = 0.96) and the CCI (3.8 ± 2.0 and 4.1 ± 2.6; P = 0.33) for non-SCD and SCD, respectively, did not differ. The two one-sided t-test analysis for CS (P < 0.001) and CCI (P < 0.001) demonstrated equivalence. CONCLUSIONS Although larger studies are required to confirm these results, routine SCD use may not be required when implementing ERAS protocols because clinically significant VTE rates were minimal.","PeriodicalId":13621,"journal":{"name":"Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are sequential compression devices routinely necessary following enhanced recovery after thoracic surgery?\",\"authors\":\"S. Abdul, C. Anstee, P. Villeneuve, Sebatien Gilbert, A. Seely, S. Sundaresan, D. Maziak\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/icvts/ivac165\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract OBJECTIVES The prominence of “enhanced recovery after surgery” (ERAS) protocols being adopted in thoracic surgery requires a re-evaluation of mechanical venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis guidelines. The goal of this study was to assess the role of sequential compression devices (SCD) in the prevention of VTEs such as deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism (PE) in thoracic surgical patients. METHODS We identified 200 patients who underwent elective oncological thoracic surgery between December 2018 and December 2020 in 2 cohorts—1 with SCDs and 1 without (i.e. non-SCD). All patients followed a standardized enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol. The quality of care provided by SCDs was evaluated by the incidence and severity of postoperative and follow-up VTEs. Cohorts were compared by the Caprini score (CS) and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) with a two one-sided t-test analysis. Secondary outcomes include perioperative characteristics and follow-up data. RESULTS Only 2 patients within the SCD group developed a PE with average CS and CCI metrics, both after hospital discharge and treated with anticoagulants, raising concern over the prophylactic nature of SCDs. The CS (6.9 ± 1.3 and 6.9 ± 1.5; P = 0.96) and the CCI (3.8 ± 2.0 and 4.1 ± 2.6; P = 0.33) for non-SCD and SCD, respectively, did not differ. The two one-sided t-test analysis for CS (P < 0.001) and CCI (P < 0.001) demonstrated equivalence. CONCLUSIONS Although larger studies are required to confirm these results, routine SCD use may not be required when implementing ERAS protocols because clinically significant VTE rates were minimal.\",\"PeriodicalId\":13621,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivac165\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivac165","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Are sequential compression devices routinely necessary following enhanced recovery after thoracic surgery?
Abstract OBJECTIVES The prominence of “enhanced recovery after surgery” (ERAS) protocols being adopted in thoracic surgery requires a re-evaluation of mechanical venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis guidelines. The goal of this study was to assess the role of sequential compression devices (SCD) in the prevention of VTEs such as deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism (PE) in thoracic surgical patients. METHODS We identified 200 patients who underwent elective oncological thoracic surgery between December 2018 and December 2020 in 2 cohorts—1 with SCDs and 1 without (i.e. non-SCD). All patients followed a standardized enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol. The quality of care provided by SCDs was evaluated by the incidence and severity of postoperative and follow-up VTEs. Cohorts were compared by the Caprini score (CS) and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) with a two one-sided t-test analysis. Secondary outcomes include perioperative characteristics and follow-up data. RESULTS Only 2 patients within the SCD group developed a PE with average CS and CCI metrics, both after hospital discharge and treated with anticoagulants, raising concern over the prophylactic nature of SCDs. The CS (6.9 ± 1.3 and 6.9 ± 1.5; P = 0.96) and the CCI (3.8 ± 2.0 and 4.1 ± 2.6; P = 0.33) for non-SCD and SCD, respectively, did not differ. The two one-sided t-test analysis for CS (P < 0.001) and CCI (P < 0.001) demonstrated equivalence. CONCLUSIONS Although larger studies are required to confirm these results, routine SCD use may not be required when implementing ERAS protocols because clinically significant VTE rates were minimal.
期刊介绍:
Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery (ICVTS) publishes scientific contributions in the field of cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, covering all aspects of surgery of the heart, vessels and the chest. The journal publishes a range of article types including: Best Evidence Topics; Brief Communications; Case Reports; Original Articles; State-of-the-Art; Work in Progress Report.