Article

Anticoagulation policy after venous resection with a pancreatectomy: a systematic review.

HPB (Impact Factor: 2.05). 12/2013; DOI: 10.1111/hpb.12205
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Portal vein (PV) resection is used increasingly in pancreatic resections. There is no agreed policy regarding anticoagulation.
A systematic review was performed to compare studies with an anticoagulation policy (AC+) to no anticoagulation policy (AC-) after venous resection.
There were eight AC+ studies (n = 266) and five AC- studies (n = 95). The AC+ studies included aspirin, clopidogrel, heparin or warfarin. Only 50% of patients in the AC+ group received anticoagulation. There were more prosthetic grafts in the AC+ group (30 versus 2, Fisher's exact P < 0.001). The overall morbidity and mortality was similar in both groups. Early PV thrombosis (EPVT) was similar in the AC+ group and the AC- group (7%, versus 3%, Fisher's exact P = 0.270) and was associated with a high mortality (8/20, 40%). When prosthetic grafts were excluded there was no difference in the incidence of EPVT between both groups (1% vs 2%, Fisher's exact test P = 0.621).
There is significant heterogeneity in the use of anticoagulation after PV resection. Overall morbidity, mortality and EPVT in both groups were similar. EPVT has a high associated mortality. While we have been unable to demonstrate a benefit for anticoagulation, the incidence of EPVT is low in the absence of prosthetic grafts.

Full-text

Available from: John A Windsor, Jun 26, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
89 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Vascular reconstruction can facilitate pancreas tumor resection, but optimal methods of reconstruction are not well studied. We report our results for portal vein reconstruction (PVR) for pancreatic resection and determinants of postoperative patency. We identified 173 patients with PVR in a prospective database of 6522 patients who underwent pancreatic resection at our hospital from 1970 to 2014. There were 128 patients who had >1 year of follow-up with computed tomography imaging. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative factors were recorded. Patients with and without postoperative PVR thrombosis were compared by univariable, multivariable, and receiver operating characteristic curve analyses. The survival of patients was 100% at 1 month, 88% at 6 months, 66% at 1 year, and 39% on overall median follow-up of 310 days (interquartile range, 417 days). Median survival was 15.5 months (interquartile range, 25 months); 86% of resections were for cancer. Four types of PVR techniques were used: 83% of PVRs were performed by primary repair, 8.7% with interposition vein graft, 4.7% with interposition prosthetic graft, and 4.7% with patch. PVR patency was 100% at 1 day, 98% at 1 month, 91% at 6 months, and 83% at 1 year. Patients with PVR thrombosis were not significantly different from patients with patent PVR in age, survival, preoperative comorbidities, tumor characteristics, perioperative blood loss or transfusion, or postoperative complications. They were more likely to have had preoperative chemotherapy (53% vs 9%; P < .0001), radiation therapy (35% vs 2%; P < .0001), and prolonged operative time (618 ± 57 vs 424 ± 20 minutes; P = .002) and to develop postoperative ascites (76% vs 22%; P < .001). Among patients who developed ascites, 38% of those with PVR thrombosis did so in the setting of tumor recurrence at the porta detected on imaging, whereas among patients with patent PVR, 50% did so (P = .73). Patients with PVR thrombosis were more likely to have had prosthetic graft placement compared with patients with patent PVRs (18% vs 2.7%; P = .03; odds ratio [OR], 7.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-42). PVR patency overall was significantly worse for patients who had an interposition prosthetic graft reconstruction (log-rank, P = .04). On multivariable analysis, operative time (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.01-1.02) and prosthetic graft placement (OR, 8.12; 95% CI, 1.1-74) were independent predictors of PVR thrombosis (C statistic = 0.88). Long operative times and use of prosthetic grafts for reconstruction are risk factors for postoperative portal vein thrombosis. Primary repair, patch, or vein interposition should be preferentially used for PVR in the setting of pancreatic resection. Copyright © 2015 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Journal of vascular surgery: official publication, the Society for Vascular Surgery [and] International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery, North American Chapter 05/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.jvs.2015.01.061 · 2.98 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Pancreatectomy with venous reconstruction (VR) for pancreatic cancer (PC) is occurring more commonly. Few studies have examined the long-term patency of the superior mesenteric-portal vein confluence following reconstruction. Methods From 2007 to 2013, patients who underwent pancreatic resection with VR for PC were classified by type of reconstruction. Patency of VR was assessed using surveillance computed tomographic imaging obtained from date of surgery to last follow-up. Results VR was performed in 43 patients and included the following: tangential resection with primary repair (7, 16 %) or saphenous vein patch (9, 21 %); segmental resection with splenic vein division and either primary anastomosis (10, 23 %) or internal jugular vein interposition (8, 19%); or segmental resection with splenic vein preservation and either primary anastomosis (3, 7 %) or interposition grafting (6, 14 %). All patients were instructed to take aspirin after surgery; low molecular weight heparin was not routinely used. An occluded VR was found in four (9 %) of the 43 patients at a median follow-up of 13 months; median time to detection of thrombosis in the four patients was 72 days (range 16-238). Conclusions Pancreatectomy with VR can be performed with high patency rates. The optimal postoperative pharmacologic therapy to prevent thrombosis requires further investigation.
    Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 09/2014; 18(11). DOI:10.1007/s11605-014-2635-9 · 2.39 Impact Factor