MP01-15 ANTICOAGULANTS CONTINUED DURING PVP DOES NOT IMPACT THE RISK OF POSTOPERATIVE HEMORRHAGIC COMPLICATIONS: A MULTICENTRIC PROSPECTIVE STUDY
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyBenign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Surgical Therapy & New Technology I (MP01)1 Apr 2019MP01-15 ANTICOAGULANTS CONTINUED DURING PVP DOES NOT IMPACT THE RISK OF POSTOPERATIVE HEMORRHAGIC COMPLICATIONS: A MULTICENTRIC PROSPECTIVE STUDY Benjamin Pradere*, Richard Naspro, Benoit Peyronnet, Julien Guillotreau, Benoit Bordier, Kevin Zorn, and Vicent Misrai Benjamin Pradere*Benjamin Pradere* More articles by this author , Richard NasproRichard Naspro More articles by this author , Benoit PeyronnetBenoit Peyronnet More articles by this author , Julien GuillotreauJulien Guillotreau More articles by this author , Benoit BordierBenoit Bordier More articles by this author , Kevin ZornKevin Zorn More articles by this author , and Vicent MisraiVicent Misrai More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0000554879.21629.91AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Photovaporisation of the prostate (PVP) by Greenlight laser has been developed especially to allow a better control of hemostasis during prostate vaporization. Nevertheless, perioperative management of anticoagulants (AC) is still debated, particularly the possibility of continuing AC during this period. The objective of our study was to assess the impact of continued AC on hemorrhagic complications. METHODS: All patients under anticoagulants (NOAC and AVK) operated by PVP in two centers have been included prospectively. Patients characteristics were collected including the type of AC and if it was stopped, continued or bridged. Intraoperative and postoperative complications including hemorrhagic complications, were reported according to the Clavien-Dindo classification and divided in minor complications (<3) and major complications (≥3). Two groups were analyzed and compared: AC continued and AC stopped. Chi2 test (or Fisher) were used for qualitative variables and t-test was used for quantitative variables. RESULTS: Among 185 patients from the cohort, 64 were under AC (AVK n=57, NOAC n=7). Among them, 59% had their treatment stopped or bridged with heparin (LWMH) and 41% had their treatment continued during all the perioperative period. Preoperative patient’s characteristics were similar in both groups. For complications, there was no difference between groups (37% vs. 46%; p=0.45) even for major complications (p=0.79). Hemorrhagic complications were also similar between groups: overall hemorrhagic complications 16% vs. 23% (p=0.46) or intravesical clotting (p=0.79). Functional outcomes at 6 months were also similar. CONCLUSIONS: PVP for patients under AC is feasible. Continuing AC without a stop or a bridge during the perioperative period do not increase significantly the risk of postoperative complications and especially hemorrhagic complications. These results could be considered to go to a simplified management of patients under AC, suggesting that AC could be continued for these fragile patients. Source of Funding: none Tours, France; Bergamo, Italy; Rennes, France; Toulouse, France; Montréal, Canada; Toulouse, France© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 201Issue Supplement 4April 2019Page: e7-e7 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Benjamin Pradere* More articles by this author Richard Naspro More articles by this author Benoit Peyronnet More articles by this author Julien Guillotreau More articles by this author Benoit Bordier More articles by this author Kevin Zorn More articles by this author Vicent Misrai More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
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.
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».