Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Gynecologic Surgery A Systematic Review

Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas, TX 75390-9032, USA.
Obstetrics and Gynecology (Impact Factor: 5.18). 11/2011; 118(5):1111-25. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318232a394
Source: PubMed


To comprehensively review and critically assess the available gynecologic surgery venous thromboembolism prophylaxis literature and provide clinical practice guidelines.
MEDLINE and Cochrane databases from inception to July 2010. We included randomized controlled trials in gynecologic surgery populations. Interventions and comparators included graduated compression stockings, intermittent pneumatic compression, unfractionated heparin, and low molecular weight heparin; placebo and routine postoperative care were allowed as comparators.
One thousand two hundred sixty-six articles were screened, and 14 randomized controlled trials (five benign gynecologic, nine gynecologic oncology) met eligibility criteria. In addition, nine prospective or retrospective studies with at least 150 women were identified and provided data on venous thromboembolism risk stratification, gynecologic laparoscopy, and urogynecologic populations.
Two reviewers independently screened articles with discrepancies adjudicated by a third. Eligible randomized controlled trials were extracted for these characteristics: study, participant, surgery, intervention, comparator, and outcomes data, including venous thromboembolism incidence and bleeding complications. Studies were individually and collectively assessed for methodologic quality and strength of evidence. Overall incidence of clinical venous thromboembolism was 0-2% in the benign gynecologic population. With use of intermittent pneumatic compression for benign major procedures, venous thromboembolism incidence was less than 1%. No venous thromboembolisms were identified in prospective studies of benign laparoscopic procedures. Overall quality of evidence in the benign gynecologic literature was poor. Gynecologic-oncology randomized controlled trials reported venous thromboembolism incidence (including "silent" venous thromboembolisms) of 0-14.8% with prophylaxis and up to 34.6% without prophylaxis. Fair quality of evidence supports that unfractionated heparin and intermittent pneumatic compression are both superior to placebo or no intervention but insufficient to determine whether heparins are superior to intermittent pneumatic compression for venous thromboembolism prevention. Combining two of three risks (aged 60 years or older, cancer, or personal venous thromboembolism history) substantially elevated the risk of venous thromboembolism.
Intermittent pneumatic compression provides sufficient prophylaxis for the majority of gynecology patients undergoing benign surgery. Additional risk factors warrant the use of combined mechanical and pharmacologic prophylaxis.

Download full-text


Available from: David D Rahn,

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology 11/2011; 118(5):973-5. DOI:10.1097/AOG.0b013e318234cc7b · 5.18 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate the safety of preoperative enoxaparin in patients undergoing major gynecologic oncology surgery. We identified a retrospective cohort group of patients undergoing major gynecologic oncology surgery from June 2002 to June 2004. Exclusion criteria included laparoscopic surgery, inferior vena cava filter, history of venous thromboembolism, and current anticoagulation for prior venous thromboembolism. All patients received prophylaxis with sequential pneumatic compression devices and early ambulation. We identified patients who received (preoperative and postoperative) enoxaparin (20-40 mg) and compared them to patients who received no additional prophylaxis other than pneumatic compression alone. Patient outcomes including estimated blood loss, blood transfusions, operative time, and length of hospital stay were collected. Statistical analysis was performed using the χ Wilcoxon rank sum tests. This study was approved by the institutional review board. We identified 122 patients who met our study criteria; there were 63 patients who received preoperative enoxaparin and 59 patients who received no additional prophylaxis. Both groups were similar in age, body mass index, race, comorbidities, cancer diagnosis, and surgical procedure. There was no significant difference between the enoxaparin group and the sequential pneumatic compression devices-only group regarding transfusion rates (29% and 27%; P = 0.86), operating time (150 and 140 minutes; P = 0.16), blood loss greater than 500 cc (35% and 37%; P = 0.79), and length of stay (5 vs 6 days). The use of preoperative enoxaparin is not associated with increased blood loss, transfusion requirements, operative time, or hospital stay among patients having major gynecologic surgery.
    International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 02/2012; 22(4):681-5. DOI:10.1097/IGC.0b013e3182454499 · 1.95 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To describe a case of acute portal vein thrombosis after IVF treatment. DESIGN: Case report. SETTING: University teaching hospital. PATIENT(S): A 39-year-old woman experienced worsening, right upper quadrant pain several days after oocyte retrieval; ET was withheld. Imaging studies revealed acute portal vein thrombosis with extension into the splenic and superior mesenteric veins. INTERVENTION(S): Therapeutic anticoagulation; no ET was performed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Improvement in symptoms, accurate diagnosis of condition. RESULT(S): Decreased size of portal vein thrombosis and partial vessel recanalization. CONCLUSION(S): Thromboembolic events are a rare complication of assisted reproductive technology (ART). In women who present with upper abdominal pain during ART, portal vein thrombosis should be considered in the differential diagnosis.
    Fertility and sterility 09/2012; 98(6). DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.08.010 · 4.59 Impact Factor
Show more