Incidence and Risk Factors of Venous Thromboembolism Following Hepatectomy for Colorectal Metastases: A Population‐Based Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) following hepatectomy for colorectal cancer (CRC) metastases is unclear. These patients may represent a vulnerable population due to increased tumour burden. We aim to identify the risk of VTE development in routine clinical practice among patients with resected CRC liver metastases, the associated risk factors, and its impact on survival. METHODS: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study of Ontario patients undergoing hepatectomy for CRC metastases between 2002 and 2009 using linked universal healthcare databases. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the association between patient characteristics and VTE risk at 30 and 90-days after surgery. Cox proportional-hazards regression was used to estimate the association between VTE and adjusted cancer specific (CSS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: 1310 patients were included with a mean age of 63 ± 11. 62% were male. 51% had one metastatic deposit. Major hepatectomy occurred in 64%. VTE occurred in 4% within 90 days of liver resection. Only longer length of stay was associated with VTE development (OR 6.88 (2.57-18.43), p <0.001 for 15-21 days versus 0-7 days). 38% of VTEs were diagnosed after discharge, comprising 1.52% of the total cohort. VTE was not associated with inferior CSS or OS. CONCLUSIONS: Risk of VTE development in this population is similar to those undergoing hepatectomy for other indications, and to the risk following other cancer site resections where post-operative extended VTE prophylaxis is currently recommended. The number of VTEs occurring after discharge suggests there may be a role for extended VTE 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".