Venous thromboembolic prophylaxis: current practice of surgeons in Australia and New Zealand for major abdominal surgery

• Published in: BMC surgery 2023-09, Vol.23 (1), p.1-265, Article 265
• Main Authors: Lott, Natalie, Senanayake, Tharindu, Carroll, Rosemary, Gani, Jon, Smith, Stephen R
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Abdomen; Abdominal surgery; Anticoagulants; Clinical medicine; Compression; Compression therapy; Disease prevention; Health risks; Hospitals; Intermittent pneumatic compression devices; Laparoscopy; Major abdominal surgery; Medical societies; Patients; Physicians; Prophylaxis; Risk assessment; Risk factors; Surgeon survey; Surgeons; Surgery; Surveys; Thromboembolism; Venous thromboembolism (VTE); VTE risk assessment
• ISSN: 1471-2482; 1471-2482
• DOI: 10.1186/s12893-023-02135-y

Background Surgical prophylaxis for venous thrombo-embolic disease (VTE) includes risk assessment, chemical prophylaxis and mechanical prophylaxis (graduated compression stockings [GCS] and/or intermittent pneumatic compression devices [IPCD]). Although there is overwhelming evidence for the need and efficacy of VTE prophylaxis in patients at risk, only about a third of those who are at risk of VTE receive appropriate prophylaxis. Objective There is debate as to the best combination of VTE prophylaxis following abdominal surgery due to lack of evidence. The aim of this survey was to understand this gap between knowledge and practice. Methods In 2019 and 2020, a survey was conducted to investigate the current practice of venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis for major abdominal surgery, with a focus on colorectal resections. The study received ethics approval and involved distributing an 11-item questionnaire to members of two professional surgical societies: the Colorectal Surgical Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSSANZ) and the General Surgeons Australia (GSA). Results From 214 surgeons: 100% use chemical prophylaxis, 68% do not use a risk assessment tool, 27% do not vary practice according to patient risk factors while > 90% use all three forms of VTE prophylaxis at some stage of treatment. Most surgeons do not vary practice between laparoscopic and open colectomy/major abdominal surgery and only 33% prescribe post-discharge chemical prophylaxis. 42% of surgeons surveyed had equipoise for a clinical trial on the use of IPCDs and the vast majority (> 95%) feel that IPCDs should provide at least a 2% improvement in VTE event rate in order to justify their routine use. Conclusion Most surgeons in Australia and New Zealand do not use risk assessment tools and use all three forms of prophylaxis regardless. Therfore there is a gap between practice and VTE prophylaxis for the use of mechanical prophylaxis options. Further research is required to determine whether dual modality mechanical prophylaxis is incrementally efficacious. Trial Registration- Not Applicable. Keywords: Major abdominal surgery, Venous thromboembolism (VTE), Intermittent pneumatic compression devices, VTE risk assessment, Surgeon survey