BACKGROUND Patients with liver disease are concomitantly at increased risk of venous thromboembolism(VTE) and bleeding events due to changes in the balance of pro-and anti-hemostatic substances. As such, recommendatio...BACKGROUND Patients with liver disease are concomitantly at increased risk of venous thromboembolism(VTE) and bleeding events due to changes in the balance of pro-and anti-hemostatic substances. As such, recommendations for the use of pharmacological VTE prophylaxis are lacking. Recent studies have found no difference in rates of VTE in those receiving and not receiving pharmacological VTE prophylaxis, though most studies have been small. Thus, our study sought to establish if pharmacological VTE prophylaxis is effective and safe in patients with liver disease.AIM To determine if there is net clinical benefit to providing pharmacological VTE prophylaxis to cirrhotic patients.METHODS In this retrospective study, 1806 patients were propensity matched to assess if pharmacological VTE prophylaxis is effective and safe in patients with cirrhosis.Patients were divided and evaluated based on receipt of pharmacological VTE prophylaxis.RESULTS The composite primary outcome of VTE or major bleeding was more common in the no prophylaxis group than the prophylaxis group(8.7% vs 5.1%, P = 0.002),though this outcome was driven by higher rates of major bleeding(6.9% vs 2.9%,P < 0.001) rather than VTE(1.9% vs 2.2%, P = 0.62). There was no difference inlength of stay or in-hospital mortality between groups. Pharmacological VTE prophylaxis was independently associated with lower rates of major bleeding(OR = 0.42, 95%CI: 0.25-0.68, P = 0.0005), but was not protective against VTE on multivariable analysis.CONCLUSION Pharmacological VTE prophylaxis was not associated with a significant reduction in the rate of VTE in patients with liver disease, though no increase in major bleeding events was observed.展开更多
文摘BACKGROUND Patients with liver disease are concomitantly at increased risk of venous thromboembolism(VTE) and bleeding events due to changes in the balance of pro-and anti-hemostatic substances. As such, recommendations for the use of pharmacological VTE prophylaxis are lacking. Recent studies have found no difference in rates of VTE in those receiving and not receiving pharmacological VTE prophylaxis, though most studies have been small. Thus, our study sought to establish if pharmacological VTE prophylaxis is effective and safe in patients with liver disease.AIM To determine if there is net clinical benefit to providing pharmacological VTE prophylaxis to cirrhotic patients.METHODS In this retrospective study, 1806 patients were propensity matched to assess if pharmacological VTE prophylaxis is effective and safe in patients with cirrhosis.Patients were divided and evaluated based on receipt of pharmacological VTE prophylaxis.RESULTS The composite primary outcome of VTE or major bleeding was more common in the no prophylaxis group than the prophylaxis group(8.7% vs 5.1%, P = 0.002),though this outcome was driven by higher rates of major bleeding(6.9% vs 2.9%,P < 0.001) rather than VTE(1.9% vs 2.2%, P = 0.62). There was no difference inlength of stay or in-hospital mortality between groups. Pharmacological VTE prophylaxis was independently associated with lower rates of major bleeding(OR = 0.42, 95%CI: 0.25-0.68, P = 0.0005), but was not protective against VTE on multivariable analysis.CONCLUSION Pharmacological VTE prophylaxis was not associated with a significant reduction in the rate of VTE in patients with liver disease, though no increase in major bleeding events was observed.
