Practice patterns in venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in thoracic surgery: a comprehensive Canadian Delphi survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The incidence of venous thromboembolic events (VTE) after resection of thoracic malignancies can reach 15%, but prophylaxis guidelines are yet to be established. We aimed to survey Canadian practitioners regarding perioperative risk factors for VTE, impact of those factors on extended prophylaxis selection, type of preferred prophylaxis, and timing of initiation and duration of thromboprophylaxis. METHODS: A modified Delphi survey was undertaken over three rounds with thoracic surgeons, thoracic anesthesiologists and thrombosis experts across Canada. Participants were asked to rate each parameter on a ten-point scale. Agreement was determined a priori as an item reaching a coefficient of variation of ≤30% (0.3), with the item then discontinued from later rounds. RESULTS: In total, 72, 57 and 50 respondents participated in three consecutive rounds, respectively. Consensus was reached on previous VTE, age, cancer diagnosis, thrombophilia, poor mobilization, extended resections, and pre-operative chemotherapy as risk factors. Consensus on risk factors impacting extended prophylaxis decisions was achieved on cancer diagnosis, obesity, previous VTE and poor mobilization. With respect to perioperative prophylaxis, once daily low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) was the only parameter that demonstrated agreement as a common practice pattern. No agreement was achieved regarding the role of mechanical prophylaxis, unfractionated heparin (UFH) or timing of initiation of peri-operative treatment. VTE prophylaxis until discharge reached agreement but there was substantial variability regarding the role of extended prophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: There is agreement between Canadian clinicians treating patients with thoracic malignancies regarding most risk factors for VTE, but there is no agreement on timing of initiation of prophylaxis, the agents used or factors mandating usage of extended prophylaxis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".