Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in thoracic surgery patients: an international survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Venous thromboembolic events (VTE) after thoracic surgery (TS) can be prevented with mechanical and chemical prophylaxis. Unlike other surgical specialties, TS lacks evidence-based guidelines. In the process of developing these guidelines, an understanding of the current prophylaxis methods practiced internationally is necessary and is described in this article. METHODS: A 26-item survey was distributed to members of the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (ESTS), American Association of Thoracic Surgery (AATS), Japanese Association for Chest Surgery (JACS) and Chinese Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (CSTCS) electronically or in person. Participants were asked to report their current prophylaxis selection, timing of initiation and duration of prophylaxis, perceived risk factors and the presence and adherence to institutional VTE guidelines for patients undergoing TS for malignancies. RESULTS: In total, 1613 surgeons anonymously completed the survey with an overall 36% response rate. Respondents were senior surgeons working in large academic hospitals (≥70%, respectively). More than 83.5% of ESTS, AATS and JACS respondents report formal TS thromboprophylaxis protocols in their institutions, but 53% of CSTCS members report not having such a protocol. The regions varied in the approaches utilized for VTE prophylaxis, the timing of initiation perioperatively and the use and type of extended prophylaxis. Respondents reported that multiple risk factors and sources of information impact their VTE prophylaxis decision-making processes, and these factors vastly diverge regionally. CONCLUSIONS: There is little agreement internationally on the optimal approach to thromboprophylaxis in the TS population, and guidelines will be helpful and vastly welcomed.
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 | 0.016 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".