出凝血异常普通外科病人围手术期静脉血栓栓塞症防治策略

易栓症是外科围手术期静脉血栓栓塞症(VTE)的防治重点。对于接受手术的止凝血障碍病人,需要谨慎评估VTE的个体风险,同时兼顾手术和麻醉的性质、出血障碍类型和严重程度、年龄、体重指数(BMI)、血栓形成史、恶性肿瘤和其他高危共患病。VTE风险应与已知出血障碍病人使用抗凝相关的出血风险平衡。实验室检查有助于发现和判断血栓与出血的病因,对病人的止凝血代偿能力作出评估,并对抗凝药物的合理使用提供依据。对上述病人,建议术后不常规使用药物预防血栓,尤其是血友病病人,但围手术期因子替代和止血药物的过度应用仍存在导致血栓的风险。使用低分子肝素(LMWH)和直接口服抗凝剂前应评估肾小球滤过率。当血小板计数<50×109/L,LMWH短期减量应用可能相对安全,监测抗Хa水平可用于调整中重度血小板减少症病人LMWH的剂量。主要消化道出血停止和重新使用华法林应至少相隔7 d。对于高血栓栓塞风险和术后高出血风险病人,术后当晚和术后第1天减量应用直接口服抗凝剂是一种可取的做法。     

Utilization and Complications of Central Venous Access Devices in Oncology Patients

Purpose: To describe how central venous access devices (CVADs) are utilized for ambulatory oncology patients and to evaluate the rate of complications. Method: Single institution retrospective study of oncology patients with CVADs who received systemic treatment at the Walker Family Cancer Centre (WFCC) between 1 January and 31 December 2018. Results: A total of 480 CVADS were placed in 305 patients, of which 408 (85%) were peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and 72 (15%) were implanted vascular access devices (PORTs). The incidence of early and late complications was 9% and 24%, respectively. For the entire cohort, the rate of venous thromboembolism (VTE) was 16%, of which 9% were CVAD-related thrombosis (CRTs) and 7% were distant VTE. The CRT rates were similar for PICCs and PORTs (9% vs. 7%). A total of 6% of CVADs were complicated by infection (i.e., localized infections and bacteremia), with a total infection rate of 0.43 and 0.26 per 1000 indwelling days for PICCs and PORTs, respectively. The incidence of central line associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) was greater for PICCs than PORTs, at a rate of 0.22 compared with 0.08 per 1000 indwelling days, respectively. The premature catheter removal rate was 26% for PICCs and 18% for PORTs. PORTs required more additional hospital visits. Conclusions: PICCs were utilized more frequently than PORTs and had a higher rate of premature removal. The rates of VTE and CRT were similar for both CVAD types. PORTs had a lower rate of infection per 1000 indwelling days. However, the management of PORT related complications required more visits to the hospital and oncology clinic.     

Cardiac-type total anomalous pulmonary venous return is not benign

ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to investigate the association between morphological variation and postsurgical pulmonary vein (PV) stenosis (PPVS) in patients with cardiac total anomalous pulmonary venous connection (TAPVC).MethodsThis single-center, retrospective study included 168 pediatric patients who underwent surgical repair of cardiac TAPVC from 2013 to 2019 (connection to the coronary sinus [CS], n = 136; connection directly to the right atrium [RA], n = 32). Three-dimensional computed tomography modeling and geometric analysis were performed to investigate the morphological features; their relevance to the PPVS was examined.ResultsThe connection type had no association with PPVS (CS type: 18% vs right atrial type: 19%; P = .89) but there was a higher incidence of PPVS in patients with a single PV orifice than > 1 orifice (P < .001). Confluence-to-total PV area ratio (hazard ratio, 4.78, 95% CI, 1.86-12.32; P = .001) and length of drainage route (hazard ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.14-1.31; P < .001) had a 4- and 1-fold increase in the risk for PPVS in the CS type after adjustment for age and preoperative pulmonary venous obstruction. In the right atrial type, those with anomalous PV return to the RA roof were more likely to develop PPVS than to the posterior wall of the RA (P < .001).ConclusionsThe number of inter-junction PV orifice correlated with PPVS development in cardiac TAPVC. The confluence-to-total PV ratio, length of drainage route, and anomalous PV return to the RA roof are important predictors for PPVS. Morphological subcategorization in this clinical setting can potentially assist in surgical decision-making.     

Systematic review of drug–drug interactions between rifamycins and anticoagulant and antiplatelet agents and considerations for management

Rifamycins (rifampin, rifabutin, and rifapentine) play an essential role in the treatment of mycobacterial and some nonmycobacterial infections. They also induce the activity of various drug transporting and metabolizing enzymes, which can impact the concentrations and efficacy of substrates. Many anticoagulant and antiplatelet (AC/AP) agents are substrates of these enzymes and have narrow therapeutic indices, leading to risks of thrombosis or bleeding when coadministered with rifamycins. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the effects on AC/AP pharmacokinetics, laboratory markers, and clinical safety and efficacy of combined use with rifamycins. A systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidance was performed. The PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were queried for English-language reports on combination use of rifamycins and AC/AP agents from database inception through August 2021. The 29 studies identified examined warfarin (n = 17), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) (n = 8), and antiplatelet agents (n = 4) combined with rifampin (n = 28) or rifabutin (n = 1). Eleven studies were case reports or small case series; 14 reported on pharmacokinetic or laboratory markers in healthy volunteers. Rifampin-warfarin combinations led to reductions in warfarin area under the curve (AUC) of 15%–74%, with variability by warfarin isomer and study. Warfarin dose increases of up to 3–5 times prerifampin doses were required to maintain coagulation parameters in the therapeutic range. DOAC AUCs were decreased by 20%–67%, with variability by individual agent and with rifampin versus rifabutin. The active metabolite of clopidogrel increased substantially with rifampin coadministration, whereas prasugrel was largely unaffected and ticagrelor saw decreases. Our review suggests most combinations of AC/AP agents and rifampin are problematic. Further studies are required to determine whether rifabutin or rifapentine could be safe alternatives for coadministration with AC/AP drugs.     

Risk factors and management of stoma-related obstruction after laparoscopic colorectal surgery with diverting ileostomy

BackgroundStoma-related obstruction (SRO) is defined as small bowel obstruction occurring around the limbs of diverting ileostomy (DI). This study was aimed to investigate the incidence, risk factors, and management of SRO after laparoscopic colorectal surgery with DI creation.MethodsThis study included 155 patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery with DI creation for rectal cancer (n = 138), ulcerative colitis (UC) (n = 14), and familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) (n = 3) between 2011 and 2019. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the risk factors of SRO.ResultsThe incidence of SRO was 7.7% (n = 12), and it was significantly lower (P < 0.01) in patients with lower anterior resection or intersphincteric resection (4.3%) than in those with ileal-pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) (35.2%). The multivariate analysis revealed that IPAA was independently associated with the development of SRO (P = 0.001; odds ratio, 9.4; 95% confidence interval, 2.5–35.4). Eleven of 12 patients (92%) with SRO required trans-stomal tube decompression, and 8 of those (67%) underwent early stoma closure.ConclusionIPAA was an independent risk factor of SRO in laparoscopic colorectal surgery with DI creation. Early stoma closure was needed in most cases of SRO.     

Anticoagulation Strategies in Patients With Cancer: JACC Review Topic of the Week

Patients with active cancer are at an increased risk of arterial and venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding events. Historically, in patients with cancer, low molecular weight heparins have been preferred for treatment of VTE, whereas warfarin has been the standard anticoagulant for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). More recently, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been demonstrated to reduce the risk of venous and arterial thromboembolism in large randomized clinical trials of patients with VTE and AF, respectively, thus providing an attractive oral dosing option that does not require routine laboratory monitoring. In this review, we summarize available clinical trial data and guideline recommendations, and outline a practical approach to anticoagulation management of VTE and AF in cancer.