Predictive factor for thromboses
thrombosis, cancers, cancer, thrombocytopenia, tumour, non-thrombosis, sepsis, postoperative haemorrhage, weight loss
THROMBOSIS, THROMBOEMBOLIC EVENT, CANCERS, POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS, ADVERSE EVENTS, CANCER, THROMBOCYTOPENIA, TUMOUR, SEPSIS, POSTOPERATIVE HAEMORRHAGE, POSTOPERATIVE THROMBOSIS, BSE
In this study, there were no predictors of postoperative thrombosis after digestive oncology surgery between the thrombosis and non-thrombosis groups. This was probably due to the relatively low number of thromboembolic events. In the literature, several factors for thrombosis have been determined: patient-related factors, factors related to cancer and associated treatment factors. Indeed, the incidence of thrombosis increases in cancer patients over 80 years, whereas for certain cancers (pancreas, mesothelial tumour, and lung) [A cohort study, conducted between 2012 and 2016, identified risk factors for thrombosis during hospitalization (advanced age, male gender, steroid use, significant weight loss, preoperative sepsis, prolonged operative time, emergency surgery, and impaired general condition) and risk factors after discharge (steroid use, preoperative sepsis, postoperative complications, and impaired general condition) [As concern BSE safety patients, although the overall mortality rate of 10,1% was high in our study, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups BSE and BE (12.6% vs 7.4%, p = 0.261). Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups with respect to adverse events. The rate of postoperative haemorrhage was 1.1% in the BSE group and 2.5% in the BE group (p = 0.610). The rate of thrombocytopenia was 1.1% in the BSE group and zero percent in the BE group (p = 1.000).Our RCT placed great importance on its methodology by trying to predefine all the points before starting the trial. However, this RCT had some limitations: 1) It might have been more pragmatic to consider both asymptomatic and symptomatic thrombosis at the same time as primary end point, which would probably have reduced the number of subjects needed to be included. 2) Moreover, the assumption that the primary endpoint would be reached by 18% of patients [