Original Article
Benefits may not outweigh risks of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in early postoperative thromboprophylaxis following minimally invasive cardiac surgery: a propensity score-matched analysis
Abstract
Background: Whether the benefits of early prophylactic anticoagulation by low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) would outweigh its possible harms in patients after minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) remains contentious. The aims of this study were to define the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and to assess whether early prophylactic anticoagulation by LMWH postoperatively was indeed effective in reducing VTE without increasing risk of complications after MICS.
Methods: This investigation was a single-center, retrospective, propensity score-matched analysis study. A total of 473 patients underwent MICS, of whom 257 received prophylactic anticoagulation with LMWH (LMWH group) in the early postoperative period and 216 were not treated with LMWH (Control group). The main outcome measurements included the incidence of embolism events and major bleeding events, the volume of erythrocyte transfusion, the volume of drainage and the duration of drainage after MICS. In addition, the incidence of poor wound healing, the mechanical ventilation time, ICU stay time and postoperative hospitalization time were also documented.
Results: There were fewer embolic events (P=1.000) and a higher rate of major bleeding events (P=0.008) in the LMWH group than the Control group, and their magnitude and significance were maintained in the propensity matched analysis. In the matched cohorts, there was no significant difference in the total volume of red blood cell transfusion (P=0.552), assisted mechanical ventilation time (P=0.542), and the ICU stay time (P=0.166) between the two groups; while the volume of drainage (P<0.001) and the duration of drainage (P<0.001) in the LMWH group were significantly more than the Control group, and the incidence of poor wound healing (P=0.009) and the postoperative hospitalization time (P<0.001) were significantly increased in the LMWH group.
Conclusions: Early prophylactic anticoagulation with LMWH could not reduce the incidence of embolism events after MICS. Instead, it might increase postoperative major bleeding events and prolong drainage tube indwelling time and the length of hospital stay.
Methods: This investigation was a single-center, retrospective, propensity score-matched analysis study. A total of 473 patients underwent MICS, of whom 257 received prophylactic anticoagulation with LMWH (LMWH group) in the early postoperative period and 216 were not treated with LMWH (Control group). The main outcome measurements included the incidence of embolism events and major bleeding events, the volume of erythrocyte transfusion, the volume of drainage and the duration of drainage after MICS. In addition, the incidence of poor wound healing, the mechanical ventilation time, ICU stay time and postoperative hospitalization time were also documented.
Results: There were fewer embolic events (P=1.000) and a higher rate of major bleeding events (P=0.008) in the LMWH group than the Control group, and their magnitude and significance were maintained in the propensity matched analysis. In the matched cohorts, there was no significant difference in the total volume of red blood cell transfusion (P=0.552), assisted mechanical ventilation time (P=0.542), and the ICU stay time (P=0.166) between the two groups; while the volume of drainage (P<0.001) and the duration of drainage (P<0.001) in the LMWH group were significantly more than the Control group, and the incidence of poor wound healing (P=0.009) and the postoperative hospitalization time (P<0.001) were significantly increased in the LMWH group.
Conclusions: Early prophylactic anticoagulation with LMWH could not reduce the incidence of embolism events after MICS. Instead, it might increase postoperative major bleeding events and prolong drainage tube indwelling time and the length of hospital stay.
