ArticleDiseases of the colon and rectum2020
Population-Based Analysis of Adherence to Postdischarge Extended Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis After Colorectal Resection.
Article in Diseases of the colon and rectum, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advances and Challenges in the Application of Novel Oral Anticoagulants for Venous Thromboembolism Prevention Following Colorectal Cancer Surgery.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Surgeon Attitudes to Guideline-Concordant Extended Pharmacologic Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis after Cancer Surgery Within a Regional Health System: A Qualitative Study.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Prophylactic Anticoagulation in Patients with Cancer: When and How?Current oncology reports · 2023Review
- A postdischarge venous thromboembolism risk calculator for inflammatory bowel disease surgery.Surgery · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrevention of venous thromboembolism after colorectal surgery remains challenging. National guidelines endorse thromboembolism prophylaxis for 4 weeks after colorectal cancer resection. Expert consensus favors extended prophylaxis after IBD surgery. The actual frequency of prescription after resection remains unknown.
objectiveThis study aimed to assess prescription of extended, postdischarge venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after resection in Michigan.
designThis is a retrospective review of elective colorectal resections within a statewide collaborative receiving postdischarge, extended-duration prophylaxis.
settingThis study was conducted between October 2015 and February 2018 at an academic center. PATIENTS: A total of 5722 patients (2171 with colorectal cancer, 266 with IBD, and 3285 with other).
main outcome measuresWe compared the prescription of extended, postdischarge prophylaxis over time, between hospitals and by indication.
resultsOf 5722 patients, 373 (6.5%) received extended-duration prophylaxis after discharge. Use was similar between patients undergoing surgery for cancer (282/2171, 13.0%) or IBD (31/266, 11.7%, p = 0.54), but was significantly more common for both patients undergoing surgery for cancer or IBD in comparison with patients with other indications (60/3285, 1.8%, p < 0.001). Use increased significantly among patients with cancer (6.8%-16.8%, p < 0.001) and patients with IBD (0%-15.1%, p < 0.05) over the study period. For patients with other diagnoses, use was rare and did not vary significantly (1.5%-2.3%, p = 0.49). Academic centers and large hospitals (>300 beds) were significantly more likely to prescribe extended-duration prophylaxis for all conditions (both p < 0.001), with the majority of prophylaxis concentrated at only a few hospitals. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by the lack of assessment of actual adherence, small number of observed venous thromboembolism events, small sample of patients with IBD, and restriction to the state of Michigan.
conclusionsThe use of extended-duration venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after discharge is increasing, but remains uncommon in most hospitals. Efforts to improve adherence may require quality implementation initiatives or targeted payment incentives. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B193. ANÁLISIS POBLACIONAL DE LA ADHERENCIA A LA PROFILAXIS ANTI-TROMBÓTICA EXTENDIDA (TEV) EN PACIENTES DE ALTA LUEGO DE UNA RESECCIÓN COLORECTAL.: La prevención del tromboembolismo venoso después de cirugía colorrectal sigue siendo un desafío. Las guías nacionales han aprobado la profilaxia del tromboembolismo durante cuatro semanas luego de una resección de cáncer colorrectal. El consenso de expertos favorece la profilaxia extendida solamente después de la cirugía por enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal. La frecuencia real de prescripción después de la resección colorrectal sigue siendo desconocida.Evaluar la prescripción de profilaxia prolongada de tromboembolismo venoso después del alta luego de una resección colorrectal en Michigan.Revisión retrospectiva de las resecciones colorrectales electivas seguidas de una profilaxia de larga duración con el apoyo de todo el estado (MI).Este estudio se realizó entre octubre de 2015 y febrero de 2018 en un solo centro académico.Un universo de 5722 pacientes operados (2171 por cáncer colorrectal, 266 por enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal, 3285 por otros diagnósticos).Se comparó la prescripción de profilaxia prolongada después del alta según la duración, los hospitales y la indicación.De 5722 pacientes, 373 (6.5%) recibieron profilaxia de duración prolongada después del alta. El uso fue similar entre pacientes sometidos a cirugía por cáncer (282/2171, 13.0%) o enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal (31/266, 11.7%, p = 0.54), pero fue significativamente más común para ambos en comparación con pacientes con otras indicaciones (60/3285, 1.8%, p < 0.001). El uso aumentó significativamente entre pacientes con cáncer (6.8% a 16.8% (p < 0.001)) y en pacientes con enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal (0% a 15.1%, p < 0.05) durante el período de estudio. Para pacientes con otros diagnósticos, su utilización fue rara y no varió significativamente (1.5% a 2.3%, p = 0.49). Los centros académicos y los grandes hospitales (>300 camas) tenían mayor probabilidad de prescribir la profilaxia de duración extendida en todas las afecciones (ambas p < 0.001), pero la mayoría de las profilaxis se concentraron el algunos pocos grandes hospitales.Este estudio estuvo limitado por la falta de evaluación de actuales adherentes, por el pequeño número de eventos tromboembólicos venosos observados, por la pequeña muestra de pacientes con enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal y debido a ciertas restricciones en el estado de Michigan.El uso de profilaxia para el tromboembolismo venoso de duración prolongada después del alta está en aumento, pero su uso sigue siendo poco frecuente en la mayoría de los hospitales. Los esfuerzos para mejorar la adherencia al tratamiento pueden requerir iniciativas de mejoría en la calidad o incentivos específicos de reembolso. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B193. (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo).
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.