An International Survey on the Use of Thromboprophylaxis in Urological Surgery
Violette, Philippe D; Vernooij, Robin W M; Aoki, Yoshitaka; Agarwal, Arnav; Cartwright, Rufus; Arai, Yoichi; Tailly, Thomas; Novara, Giacomo; Baldeh, Tejan; Craigie, Samantha; Breau, Rodney H; Guyatt, Gordon H; Tikkinen, Kari A O
(2021) European Urology Focus, volume 7, issue 3, pp. 653 - 658
(Article)
Abstract
Background: The use of perioperative thromboprophylaxis in urological surgery is common but not standardized. Objective: To characterize international practice variation in thromboprophylaxis use in urological surgery. Design, setting, and participants: We conducted a scenario-based survey addressing the use of mechanical and pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in urological cancer procedures (radical cystectomy [RC],
... read more
radical prostatectomy [RP], and radical nephrectomy [RN]) among practicing urologists in Canada, Finland, and Japan. The survey presented patient profiles reflecting a spectrum of risk for venous thromboembolism; the respondents described their clinical practice. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The proportion of respondents who routinely used (1) mechanical, (2) pharmacological, and (3) extended pharmacological prophylaxis was stratified by procedure. A logistic regression identified characteristics associated with thromboprophylaxis use. Results and limitations: Of 1051 urologists contacted, 570 (54%) participated in the survey. Japanese urologists were less likely to prescribe pharmacological prophylaxis than Canadian or Finnish urologists (p < 0.001 for all procedures). Canadian and Finnish urologists exhibited large variation for extended pharmacological prophylaxis for RP and RN. Finnish urologists were most likely to prescribe extended prophylaxis versus Canadian and Japanese urologists (RC 98%, 84%, and 26%; Open RP 25%, 8%, and 3%; robotic RP 11%, 9%, and 0%; and RN 43%, 7%, and 1%, respectively; p < 0.001 for each procedure). Less variation was found regarding the prescription of mechanical prophylaxis, which was most commonly used until ambulation or discharge. The length of hospital stay was longer in Japan and may bias estimates of extended prophylaxis in Japan. Conclusions: We found large variation in clinical practice regarding pharmacological thromboprophylaxis within and between countries. Knowledge translation of evidence-based guidelines may reduce problematic international variation in practice. Patient summary: Use of medications to decrease blood clots after urological cancer surgery differs within and between countries. Closer adherence to urology guidelines addressing the prevention of blood clots may decrease this variation and improve patient outcomes.
show less
Download/Full Text
Keywords: Bleeding, Deep vein thrombosis, Guideline, Hemorrhage, Practice variation, Prevention, Pulmonary embolism, Surgery, Thromboprophylaxis, Thrombosis, Urology, Venous thromboembolism, Urology, Journal Article
ISSN: 2405-4569
Publisher: Elsevier
Note: Funding Information: Funding/Support and role of the sponsor : The ISTHMUS project was conducted by the Clinical Urology and Epidemiology (CLUE) Working Group supported by the Academy of Finland ( 276046 and 309387 ), Competitive Research Funding of the Helsinki and Uusimaa Hospital District ( TYH2016135 , TYH2017114 , TYH2018120 , and TYH2019321 ), and Sigrid Jusélius Foundation . Philippe D. Violette was also supported by the Canadian Urological Association Scholarship Foundation and Rufus Cartwright by a Research Training Fellowship from the UK Medical Research Council . The sponsors had no role in the analysis and interpretation of the data or in the manuscript preparation, review, or approval. Funding Information: Funding/Support and role of the sponsor: The ISTHMUS project was conducted by the Clinical Urology and Epidemiology (CLUE) Working Group supported by the Academy of Finland (276046 and 309387), Competitive Research Funding of the Helsinki and Uusimaa Hospital District (TYH2016135, TYH2017114, TYH2018120, and TYH2019321), and Sigrid Juse?lius Foundation. Philippe D. Violette was also supported by the Canadian Urological Association Scholarship Foundation and Rufus Cartwright by a Research Training Fellowship from the UK Medical Research Council. The sponsors had no role in the analysis and interpretation of the data or in the manuscript preparation, review, or approval. Publisher Copyright: © 2020 European Association of Urology Copyright: Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
(Peer reviewed)