MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2535223398 · doi:10.1111/bju.13487

Radical cystectomy and venous thromboembolism: are we doing enough?

2016· letter· en· W2535223398 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nawar Hanna, Jacqueline M. Speed

Notice bibliographique

RevueBritish Journal of Urology · 2016
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineCystectomyBladder cancerVenous thromboembolismPopulationComplicationPerioperativeIncidence (geometry)ConfoundingCohortSurgeryEmergency medicineCancerGeneral surgeryInternal medicineThrombosis

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Using a large comprehensive population-based cohort from Canada, Doiron et al. 1 present an in-depth analysis of risk factors and timing of venous thromboembolism (VTE) after radical cystectomy (RC) for bladder cancer. This report reiterates what is already known, which is that VTE after RC occurs at a non-negligible rate (5.4%) and most VTEs occur after hospital discharge (55%). VTE is an established complication in patients undergoing major oncological surgery, with some guidelines recommending 4 weeks of VTE prophylaxis after major pelvic surgery. This significant incidence of VTE after discharge highlights the potential impact of extended VTE prophylaxis for up to 28 days. Level I evidence for such practice was published more than a decade ago 2. Yet, the uptake of these data remains low, at least in urological oncology. A recent survey-based study of pelvic cancer centres from the UK showed that only two-thirds of centres use post-discharge prophylaxis 3. Using highly granular data, Doiron et al. 1 provide a detailed timeline of VTE occurrence after RC. They found that among patients who were diagnosed with VTE after discharge, >60% of these events occurred at ≤4 weeks of discharge. Unfortunately, there were no data on whether VTE prophylaxis was used in the study population. The authors identified greater surgeon volume and increased length of hospital stay as risk factors for postoperative VTE, while accounting for important disease-related covariates. As mentioned by the authors, surgeon volume is most likely a surrogate for another unmeasured confounder. Higher volume surgeons, who often practice in large/academic institutions, may have increased case complexity with patients at higher risk for VTE. Additionally, such institutions may be more prone to perform diagnostic testing in high-risk patients and identify VTEs that would have otherwise gone unnoticed. A report from France found that the rate of VTE after RC was 24% in a cohort of patients who all underwent complete lower limb ultrasound, yet the vast majority (92%) were asymptomatic 4. In other words, if you are looking for a VTE, you are more likely to find one. However, the clinical relevance of these VTEs remains unclear. As shown from prior studies, length of stay was also found to be a risk factor for VTEs. Why does an increase in length of stay lead to a higher rate of VTE? One explanation is that patients who stay in the hospital longer are more likely to be immobilised for longer. This may explain why patients undergoing RC have higher rates of VTE than those undergoing other urological oncology procedures. However, immobilisation is a difficult variable to define or to measure. If longer immobilisation leads to increased VTE incidence, recently implemented enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols that lead to earlier mobilisation would be expected to be associated with fewer VTEs. It is important to mention that other previously associated factors with VTE, including operative time and body mass index, which may be related to immobilisation time are not recorded in this study. The use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for muscle-invasive bladder cancer has been shown to improve overall survival and is being increasingly used in RC patients. This study examined NACT as a risk factor but did not find an association. Notably, they were limited by the few patients who had received NACT. The use of chemotherapy in patients with cancer is a well-recognised risk factor for VTE 5. It will be important in the future to continue to examine the incidence of VTE in NACT patients as this population grows. Taken together, patients undergoing major cancer surgery have a significant risk of postoperative VTE, with evidence showing that rates of VTE are increasing over time 6. Although guidelines for VTE prophylaxis are not uniform, this study's findings 1 that most VTEs occur after discharge is a reason for urological surgeons to strongly consider extended VTE prophylaxis in this high-risk population. Funded partially by Quebec Urological Association (to Nawar Hanna). None.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,221
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,439

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,027
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0040,003
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,015
Tête enseignante GPT0,251
Écart entre enseignants0,236 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBritish Journal of UrologyMême sujetVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementTravaux en français237 207