ArticleZhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer2018
[Clinical Value Evaluation of Perioperative Prophylactic Anticoagulation Therapy for Lung Cancer Patients].
Article in Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety profile of preoperative administration of low-molecular-weight heparin on minimally invasive lung cancer surgery: a randomized controlled trial.BMC surgery · 2021Trial
- Impact of pleural lavage fluid volume on perioperative outcomes in non-small cell lung cancer patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy: a randomized controlled trial.Translational lung cancer research · 2026Article
- A narrative literature review on the clinical utility of activated partial thromboplastin time and anti-factor Xa activity assays in cancer patients with anticoagulant therapy.Translational cancer research · 2025Review
- [The Present Situation and Prospect of Day Surgery and Enhanced Recovery after Surgery in Thoracic Surgery].Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer · 2020Review
- [Proper Selection of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Programs between the Medical Service and Medical Intervence - Is It Time to Do?]Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE) in lung cancer patients who underwent surgery increased during the perioperative period, and prophylactic anticoagulation therapy was important part of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS). However, the timing of preventive anticoagulation in patients with lung cancer remained controversial. This study was designed to investigate the safety and efficacy of perioperative prophylactic anticoagulation therapy for lung cancer patients.
methodsRetrospective research was conducted on 562 lung cancer patients who underwent video-assisted thoracoscopic (VATS) anatomic pulmonary resections in West China Hospital from June 2016 to December 2016. 56 patients were treated with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) anticoagulation 12 hours before operation until discharge, while the other 506 patients were treated with LMWH 24 hours after operation until discharge. The postoperative chest drainage volume, postoperative bleeding, pulmonary embolism incidence, and respiratory complications were analyzed.
results(1) There were no significant differences in prothrombin time (PT), activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) and international normalized ratio (INR) between the pre-operation prophylactic anticoagulation group (PRE group) [(11.5±3.9) s, (27.8±3.5) s, (0.96±0.06) s] and the post-operation prophylactic anticoagulation group (POST group) [(11.4±1.4) s, (28.3±4.0) s, (0.98±0.07) s] (P=0.796, P=0.250, P=0.137), and there was no significant difference in Caprini score between the PRE group (3.1±1.8) and the POST group (3.3±1.5) (P=0.104). (2) There were no significant differences in anesthesia time and intraoperative bleeding between PRE group [(130.2±53.9) min, (76.8±49.3) mL] and POST group [(142.2±56.5) min, (73.7±41.6) mL] (P=0.067, P=0.201). (3) The total drainage volume in 72 hours after operation in PRE group [(728.1±505.7) mL] was significantly higher than that of POST group [(596.4±373.5) mL] (P=0.005), while there were no significant differences between the two groups in total postoperative drainage volume [(1,066.8±1,314.6) mL vs (907.8±999.8) mL, P=0.203]. (4) There were no significant differences between the two groups in pulmonary embolism incidence (1.785% vs 0.019%, P=0.525) and postoperative bleeding rates (1.785% vs 0.039%, P=0.300). (5) There were no significant differences between PRE group and POST group in subcutaneous emphysema incidence (1.785% vs 1.581%, P=0.989) and pulmonary infection rates (14.285% vs 6.324%, P=0.085).
conclusionsThe clinical value of preoperative prophylactic anticoagulation is equal to postoperative prophylactic anticoagulation for lung cancer patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.