Canadian Urological Association guideline on perioperative thromboprophylaxis and management of anticoagulation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Surgery exposes patients to a risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding. VTE includes deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), which represent serious and sometimes fatal consequences of surgery. Therefore, optimizing treatment plans to reduce VTE risk while also minimizing bleeding risk is important to patients and the healthcare system. The goal of this Canadian Urological Association (CUA) guideline is to provide a structured approach to the prevention of perioperative thromboembolic events that may be applied in Canada. In this guideline, two forms of perioperative VTE prophylaxis are considered. The first is prophylaxis used for primary prevention VTE for patients undergoing surgery. The second is management of an anticoagulant or antiplatelet agent used for treatment or as a form of secondary prevention during the perioperative period. The CUA thromboprophylaxis guideline panel feels that it is important for urologists to be engaged in the discussion and management in each of these situations. The panel recognizes that in many clinical contexts, other specialists, including internists, cardiologists, neurologists, and hematologists, may also be involved in this aspect of patient care. The guidance provided in this document is intended to help urologists engage with their patients and colleagues in a collaborative context. The guidance provided in this document is intended to reflect best practice for the usual case for a specific surgery and patient population. This guideline is not intended for unusual conditions or circumstances, which are typically rare, and should be addressed involving appropriate specialists on a case-by-case basis. Decisions regarding thromboprophylaxis involve a tradeoff, in which the intended purpose is to decrease the risk of VTE while recognizing that thromboprophylaxis also increases the risk of bleeding. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials performed for the American College of Chest Physicians VTE guideline reported that VTE prophylaxis decreases the relative risk of VTE by 50% and increases the relative risk of bleeding by 50%.1 In cases where the risk of VTE is high and the bleeding risk is low, VTE prophylaxis is usually warranted because the net benefit is favourable. When the risk of VTE is low and the bleeding risk is high, VTE prophylaxis may be harmful and is usually not warranted. In many cases, the tradeoff between VTE prevention and bleeding risk may be close and the “most favourable” approach to VTE prophylaxis is less clear. In these situations, individual patient values and preferences must be considered to determine the best management plan (Fig. 1). Open in a separate window Fig. 1 Graphical depiction of evaluating the tradeoffs of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».