Scholarlink

Background <p>Venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains a critical concern in plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) due to prolonged operative duration, perioperative immobility, and procedure-specific risks. While low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) has been the prophylactic standard, use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and aspirin (ASA) has been gaining traction. This study summarizes prophylactic practices in PRS.</p> Methods <p>A systematic search of three databases was conducted. Studies evaluating ASA, DOACs, or LMWH prophylaxis in PRS with VTE, bleeding, or 30-day reoperation rates were included. Mixed anticoagulant regimens were excluded. Data on dosage, duration, and complication rates were extracted. A random-effect meta-analysis of proportions was conducted.</p> Results <p>Of 884 studies screened, 7 met inclusion criteria, totaling 3,475 patients: ASA (n=402), DOACs (n=2056), and LMWH (n=802). Common regimens included ASA 325mg daily for 5 days and DOAC 10mg daily for 10 days; LMWH dosing varied. VTE rates were low across groups: 1.15% ASA, 0.3% DOACs, and 0.44% LMWH. Hematoma rates were similar for ASA (4.6%) and LMWH (4.5%), while DOACs had a higher rate (8.7%), largely influenced by an outlier. Reoperation rate was highest for ASA (16.9%), followed by DOACs (10.5%) and LMWH (8.0%).</p> Conclusion <p>Despite comparable VTE rates across agents, variability in bleeding and reoperation highlights the need for procedure-specific, individualized prophylaxis. ASA and LMWH may offer more predictable safety profiles, while DOACs remain promising but warrant further investigation</p> Level of Evidence III <p>This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors <a href="https://www.springer.com/00266">www.springer.com/00266</a>.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Cutting Through the Clot: Rethinking Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Plastic Surgery with Aspirin, Direct Oral Anticoagulants, and Low Molecular Weight Heparin

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月2日

查看全文
  • Shannon Y. Zhou,
  • Jose Foppiani,
  • Molly A. Vance,
  • Zeling Yu,
  • Lacey Foster,
  • Dominika Gavlasova,
  • Elan Choudry,
  • Gavin Lin,
  • Daniah Alnafisee,
  • Thomas Suszynski,
  • Umar Choudry,
  • Samuel J. Lin

摘要

Background

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains a critical concern in plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) due to prolonged operative duration, perioperative immobility, and procedure-specific risks. While low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) has been the prophylactic standard, use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and aspirin (ASA) has been gaining traction. This study summarizes prophylactic practices in PRS.

Methods

A systematic search of three databases was conducted. Studies evaluating ASA, DOACs, or LMWH prophylaxis in PRS with VTE, bleeding, or 30-day reoperation rates were included. Mixed anticoagulant regimens were excluded. Data on dosage, duration, and complication rates were extracted. A random-effect meta-analysis of proportions was conducted.

Results

Of 884 studies screened, 7 met inclusion criteria, totaling 3,475 patients: ASA (n=402), DOACs (n=2056), and LMWH (n=802). Common regimens included ASA 325mg daily for 5 days and DOAC 10mg daily for 10 days; LMWH dosing varied. VTE rates were low across groups: 1.15% ASA, 0.3% DOACs, and 0.44% LMWH. Hematoma rates were similar for ASA (4.6%) and LMWH (4.5%), while DOACs had a higher rate (8.7%), largely influenced by an outlier. Reoperation rate was highest for ASA (16.9%), followed by DOACs (10.5%) and LMWH (8.0%).

Conclusion

Despite comparable VTE rates across agents, variability in bleeding and reoperation highlights the need for procedure-specific, individualized prophylaxis. ASA and LMWH may offer more predictable safety profiles, while DOACs remain promising but warrant further investigation

Level of Evidence III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.