Abstract
OBJECTIVES
Venous thromboembolic event (VTE) is a severe complication in patients with lung cancer undergoing thoracic surgery. Nevertheless, because of insufficient evidence, there are no clear guidelines, and VTE prophylaxis practices vary widely. This nationwide cohort study was a comparative study investigating VTE risk in surgical departments that routinely administered in-hospital thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin compared to those that did not.
METHODS
We identified all patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who underwent surgery in Denmark during 2010–2021. Thoracic surgery was exclusively performed in the 4 university hospitals. Three hospitals implemented in-hospital thromboprophylaxis as standard care since 2000, while the fourth adopted this practice in September 2016. VTE events were assessed at 6-month follow-up according to hospital and study period, using an inverse probability of treatment weighting approach.
RESULTS
We identified 9615 patients. During 6-month follow-up, a total of 190 VTE events were observed, resulting in a weighted rate of 4.5 events per 100 person-years and an absolute risk of 2.2%. There was no clear trend according to hospital site or use of in-hospital thromboprophylaxis with a 2.2% risk in the hospital not using thromboprophylaxis compared to 1.7–3.1% in those that did.
CONCLUSIONS
Use of in-hospital thromboprophylaxis did not affect the risk of VTE after surgery for NSCLC, suggesting that relying solely on in-hospital thromboprophylaxis may be insufficient to mitigate VTE risk in these patients. Further research is warranted to investigate the potential benefits of extended thromboprophylaxis in reducing VTE risk in selected NSCLC surgical patients.
Keywords: Thromboprophylaxis, Venous thromboembolism, Surgery, Non-small-cell lung cancer, Epidemiology
Venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) represent a major complication following thoracic oncologic surgery associated with significant morbidity and mortality [1].
Graphical Abstract
INTRODUCTION
Venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) represent a major complication following thoracic oncologic surgery associated with significant morbidity and mortality [1]. Current guidelines recommend in-hospital VTE thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) [2]. However, these guidelines are based on weak evidence and lack specific recommendations regarding the duration of thromboprophylaxis and the role of extended prophylaxis after discharge, resulting in substantial practice variation among healthcare centres and physicians [3].
More than one-third of VTEs in patients undergoing surgery for lung cancer are diagnosed after discharge [1, 4–7]. Given the heightened risk of VTE post-discharge and its significant impact on patient morbidity and survival [1], there is a need to reevaluate the adequacy of in-hospital prophylaxis and consider the potential need for extended phrophylaxis after discharge for selected high-risk patients. Instead of a ‘one size fits all’ model relying solely on in-hospital thromboprophylaxis for all, a more personalized and risk-adjusted approach to thromboprophylaxis is warranted. Currently, recommendations for post-discharge prophylaxis are sparse and with low level of evidence for lung cancer patients in contrast to high-risk abdominopelvic and orthopaedic surgeries where evidence supports long-term prophylaxis in the first month following surgery [2].
In Denmark, all thoracic surgical procedures are exclusively performed in 4 University Hospitals. Three of these hospitals have used in-hospital thromboprophylaxis with LMWH as standard of care since 2000, while the fourth adopted this practice in September 2016.
This nationwide cohort study examined whether the risk of VTE was lower in hospitals that routinely administered in-hospital thromboprophylaxis with LMWH compared to those that did not.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
This was a Danish nationwide cohort study including all patients who underwent a first course of surgery for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) regardless of stage between 2010 and 2021.
Setting and data sources
Healthcare in Denmark is provided through a national tax-funded system. All data on diagnoses, procedures and prescription claims are collected in extensive national registries including all patients. A unique personal identifier is assigned to each Danish citizen and all residents upon immigration. This identifier enables linkage of all Danish registries with data on a given individual. Mandatory reporting of new primary malignancies further enhances the availability of cancer-related data in Denmark. For this study, we identified all patients with primary lung cancer through the Danish Lung Cancer Registry (DLCR) [8]. The DLCR is a nationwide clinical quality database that tracks all patients with primary lung cancer in Denmark since 2003. It contains data on, e.g. age, sex, tumour stage, lung function, performance status and initial treatment. By linking records from the DLCR with the Danish National Patient Registry (DNPR) [9], we accessed data on hospitalization and discharge dates, outpatient clinic visits, surgical procedures and discharge diagnoses. Information on antithrombotic treatments and co-medications were retrieved from the Danish National Prescription Registry [10], which has held information on the purchase date and Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classification code. Information on sex, date of birth, vital status and emigration status was retrieved from the Danish Civil Registration System [11]. All events were tracked and identified through the use of these clinical databases.
Ethics
The study was approved by the Danish Data Protection Agency through institutional registration (ref. 2019-65). Registry studies do not require ethical approval in Denmark.
Study population and venous thromboembolic event prophylaxis
The study population included eligible patients aged ≥18 years recorded in the DLCR, who underwent surgical treatment for NSCLC between 2010 and 2021. Exclusion criteria included inconsistent information on date of death, death on the date of surgery, immigration within the year prior to cancer diagnosis, non-NSCLC lung cancer, missing cancer stage data, the prior VTE diagnosis and use of oral anticoagulants within 90 days before surgery. To ensure that baseline data in the DLCR related to the current course of surgery, we further excluded patients with prolonged cancer investigation time (>120 days from registry entry to surgery) and surgery >60 days before registry entry [indicating exploratory thoracotomy (unresectable)], as done previously [12].
The 4 hospitals performing thoracic surgery in Denmark are Aalborg University Hospital (AAUH), Aarhus University Hospital (AUH), Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital (RH) and Odense University Hospital (OUH). In 2000, AAUH, AUH and RH implemented in-hospital thromboprophylaxis with LMWH, while OUH adopted this practice in September 2016. Across all sites, Dalteparin (Fragmin) 5000 IE is predominantly used as thromboprophylaxis given subcutaneously once daily. Notable thromboprophylaxis is not continued after discharge (i.e. after 3–7 days of hospitalization).
Covariates
Data on patient demographics and risk factors comprised age, sex, body mass index, year of cancer diagnosis, cancer stage (pathological tumour-node-metastasis, pathological tumour-node-metastasis stage, respectively), pathology [adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma or other NSCLs (e.g., large cell carcinoma, carcinoid, adenosquamous carcinoma)], Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status [13], smoking history (reported as pack years) and extent of surgical resection and approach. Missing surgical procedure data in the DLCR were supplemented with surgical procedure codes from the DNPR. Comorbidity assessment involved calculating a modified Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) [14], excluding the contribution of cancer diagnoses based on the information obtained from the DNPR. Information on the specific codes used in the study is provided in Supplementary Material, Table S1.
Outcomes
The primary study outcome was the occurrence of VTE following the surgical procedure, identified through diagnosis codes in the DNRP. Patients were followed for occurrence of VTE for up to 6 months from the surgery date, or until emigration or death, whichever came first. VTE was defined as a composite variable comprising pulmonary embolism, deep venous thrombosis and other VTE types (see Supplementary Material, Table S1 for codes). Both primary and secondary codes from in-patient and ambulatory settings were considered. All-cause mortality was included as a secondary outcome.
Statistical analyses
Baseline characteristics were summarized descriptively at the time of index surgery, with proportions presented for discrete variables and means and standard deviations for continuous variables and stratified by the hospital department.
We applied time-to-event analyses to analyse outcomes of interest with focus on the differences before and after September 2016, where all hospitals followed the same prophylactic treatment guidelines. To adjust for potential confounding due to regional differences in patient characteristics and hospital preferences in relation to lung cancer treatment, we applied an inverse probability of treatment weighting approach with hospital as exposure. The weights were calculated from logistic regression models with the following potential confounders: calendar period (2010–2012, 2013–2014, 2015–August 2016, September 2016–2018 and 2019–2021), sex, age group (≤49, 50–59, 60–69, 70–79, ≥80 years), indicators for concurrent comorbidity: COPD, hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and atrial fibrillation, CCI score ≥3, cancer stage, pathology group, days from investigation to intervention and surgical procedure and approach. Categorization of calendar period and age was applied to allow for potential non-linear effect. The average treatment effects weights were stabilized by the marginal hospital distribution. Maximum standardized differences below 0.1 were used as guidelines for successful alignment of baseline characteristics by IPTW (Supplementary Material, Fig. S1). Weighted incidence rates were calculated stratified by hospital department and reported as number of events per 100 person-years over 1-year follow-up. P-values of a chi-squared test statistic were calculated to test the hypothesis of equal incidence rate before and after September 2016 [15]. Weighted cumulative incidence functions (by means of the Aalen-Johansen estimator) assuming death as competing risks were used to report VTE risk at 1-year follow-up. Correspondingly, mortality risk was calculated by the Kaplan–Meier estimator.
To exclude the influence of subjects receiving extreme weights, we conducted a sensitivity analysis in which we truncated all weights higher than the 95% percentile. To further refine the weight model, we also performed a sensitivity analysis that incorporated additional data on patient characteristics (e.g. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status). Due to missing data, this was done by repeating the analyses on a smaller complete dataset.
All analyses were performed with Stata/MP version 17.0 (StataCorp LLC, TX, USA).
RESULTS
We identified 11 908 patients who underwent a first course of surgical treatment for primary lung cancer in the DLCR between 2010 and 2021. After exclusions, the final study population consisted of 9615 patients with NSCLC who underwent surgery (Fig. 1).
Figure 1:
Flowchart of the study population. NSCLC: non-small-cell lung cancer; VTE: venous thromboembolism.
Baseline characteristics
Table 1 displays baseline patient characteristics by hospital site. While most characteristics varied little by site, patients undergoing surgery at AAUH tended to be older with a higher prevalence of comorbidity. Additionally, the number of procedures varied by site, ranging from 1428 at AAUH to 2950 at RH likely reflecting underlying population sizes served by these departments. Across all sites, lobectomy was the primary surgical procedure. The proportion thoracotomy procedures was ∼40% at all centres except RH, where it constituted only 13.4%. Over time, there was a substantial increase in the use of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) across all centres (Fig. 2). Baseline characteristics stratified by observation period within centre are provided in Supplementary Material, Table S2.
Table 1:
Baseline characteristics of patients undergoing surgery for non-small cell lung cancer in Denmark from 2010 to 2021 by hospital site
| Hospital site |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristics, % (N) | Copenhagen (RH) (N = 3047) | Odense (OUH) (N = 2950) | Aarhus (AUH) (N = 2190) | Aalborg (AAUH) (N = 1428) |
| Study period | ||||
| January 2010–August 2016 | 51.6 (1573) | 48.4 (1427) | 47.8 (1047) | 44.3 (632) |
| September 2016–December 2021 | 48.4 (1474) | 51.6 (1523) | 52.2 (1143) | 55.7 (796) |
| Patient characteristics | ||||
| Females | 56.0 (1707) | 55.3 (1631) | 50.3 (1102) | 56.4 (806) |
| Mean age at surgery (SD), years | 68.1 (9.4) | 68.0 (9.3) | 68.0 (9.2) | 1. (9.6) |
| <50 | 3.6 (109) | 3.4 (99) | 3.0 (66) | 1. (43) |
| 50–59 | 12.7 (388) | 13.4 (395) | 13.2 (290) | 1. (190) |
| 60–69 | 35.1 (1068) | 36.2 (1068) | 34.7 (761) | 1. (448) |
| 70–79 | 40.6 (1236) | 38.1 (1124) | 41.3 (904) | 41.5 (592) |
| >80 | 8.1 (246) | 8.9 (264) | 7.7 (169) | 10.9 (155) |
| Body mass indexa | ||||
| <18.5 | 4.8 (119) | 4.2 (110) | 4.3 (88) | 1. (53) |
| 18.5–24.9 | 48.5 (1213) | 45.3 (1185) | 44.4 (914) | 1. (593) |
| 25–29.9 | 31.9 (797) | 33.9 (886) | 35.1 (721) | 1. (401) |
| 30–34.9 | 11.0 (275) | 12.4 (323) | 11.8 (243) | 13.6 (174) |
| >35 | 3.9 (98) | 4.2 (110) | 4.4 (91) | 4.5 (58) |
| Smoking, pack yeara | ||||
| None | 8.8 (240) | 6.7 (173) | 6.9 (132) | 1. (99) |
| <15 | 7.2 (195) | 6.6 (169) | 6.8 (131) | 9.2 (117) |
| >15 | 84.0 (2288) | 86.7 (2238) | 86.3 (1658) | 83.0 (1055) |
| ECOG PSa | ||||
| Fully active | 68.2 (1983) | 69.5 (1950) | 64.2 (1375) | 1. (845) |
| Reduced activity | 31.8 (926) | 30.5 (857) | 35.8 (766) | 40.3 (571) |
| Comorbidity | ||||
| CCI score ≥3 | 55.3 (1684) | 50.2 (1481) | 50.5 (1106) | 57.3 (818) |
| COPD | 22.6 (688) | 20.5 (606) | 16.4 (360) | 20.2 (289) |
| Hypertension | 30.6 (931) | 26.3 (777) | 22.3 (489) | 28.9 (413) |
| Diabetes mellitus | 9.8 (298) | 7.9 (233) | 7.3 (160) | 10.4 (149) |
| Cardiovascular disease | 21.0 (639) | 18.4 (542) | 20.9 (458) | 23.0 (329) |
| Atrial fibrillation/flutter | 5.7 (174) | 4.1 (122) | 5.4 (119) | 5.7 (82) |
| Antiplatelet therapy at time of surgery | 4.0 (123) | 4.9 (144) | 4.1 (90) | 4.8 (68) |
| Cancer characteristics | ||||
| Staging based on pTNM | ||||
| I | 63.1 (1922) | 55.4 (1635) | 61.5 (1346) | 61.3 (876) |
| II | 20.9 (637) | 26.7 (788) | 24.0 (525) | 22.1 (315) |
| III | 13.7 (417) | 15.6 (461) | 11.8 (258) | 14.5 (207) |
| IV | 2.3 (71) | 2.2 (66) | 2.8 (61) | 2.1 (30) |
| Pathology | ||||
| Adenocarcinoma | 57.7 (1759) | 59.0 (1741) | 55.9 (1225) | 57.8 (825) |
| Squamous cell carcinoma | 18.4 (561) | 26.2 (773) | 23.4 (513) | 27.5 (392) |
| Other NSCLC | 23.0 (701) | 14.6 (431) | 20.3 (444) | 14.4 (206) |
| Missing | 0.9 (26) | 0.2 (5) | 0.4 (8) | 0.4 (5) |
| Surgical characteristics | ||||
| Mean time from start of cancer investigation to surgery (SD) (days) | 44.5 (17.9) | 42.1 (18.1) | 42.1 (17.5) | 43.8 (16.1) |
| Surgical procedure | ||||
| Sublobar resections | 9.9 (303) | 12.6 (371) | 11.5 (251) | 14.8 (211) |
| Lobectomy | 85.6 (2607) | 79.1 (2333) | 82.1 (1797) | 74.2 (1060) |
| Bilobectomy | 2.7 (83) | 3.8 (112) | 3.3 (73) | 5.6 (80) |
| Pneumonectomy | 1.8 (54) | 4.5 (134) | 3.2 (69) | 5.4 (77) |
| Surgical approach | ||||
| Thoracotomy | 13.4 (407) | 40.7 (1200) | 43.9 (962) | 43.6 (622) |
| VATS | 86.6 (2640) | 59.3 (1750) | 56.1 (1228) | 56.4 (806) |
Proportion with non-missing data; information on missing data is provided in Supplementary Material, Table S3.
AAUH: Aalborg University Hospital; AUH: Aarhus University Hospital; CCI: Charlson Comorbidity Index; COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; ECOG PS: The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; NSCLC: non-small cell lung cancer; OUH: Odense University Hospital; pTNM: pathological tumour-node-metastasis stage; RH: Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital; SD: standard deviation; VATS: video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery.
Figure 2:
Changes in baseline characteristics over time across hospital sites. The arrows denote the changes from the first period (2010–August 2016) to the second period (September 2016–2021). Extensive surgery is defined as bilobectomy or pneumonectomy. CCI: Charlson Comorbidity Index; ECOG: The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; VATS: video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery.
Venous thromboembolism
Overall, we observed 190 VTE events during 6-month follow-up, corresponding to a weighted rate of 4.5 events per 100 person-years and an absolute risk of 2.2%. The overall risk of VTE remained relatively stable over time. The weighted rates of VTE at each site fluctuated widely by study year, with no clear trend according to hospital site or use of in-hospital thromboprophylaxis (Fig. 3).
Figure 3:
Weighted rates of venous thromboembolism at 6-month follow-up in patients who underwent surgery for primary lung cancer displayed by year and hospital. LMWH: low-molecular-weight heparin; VTE: venous thromboembolism.
Table 2 presents the number of events, weighted rates and weighted absolute risks by period and hospital site. In the hospital not using in-hospital thromboprophylaxis in the first time period, the risk of VTE was 2.2% risk of VTE compared to 1.7%, 2.1% and 3.1%, respectively, in the hospitals using in-hospital prophylaxis. The overall risk of VTE decreased slightly over time (Table 2). Regardless of use of in-hospital thromboprophylaxis, the weighted rate of VTE was not statistically significantly different between January 2010 and August 2016 and September 2016 and December 2021 at any of hospital site (Fig. 4).
Table 2:
Number of events, weighted rates and absolute risk of venous thromboembolism at 6 months follow-up in patients undergoing surgery for non-small-cell lung cancer stratified by hospital and time period
| January 2010–August 2016 |
September 2016–December 2021 |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Surgical site | Events | Weighted rate | Weighted risk (%) | Events | Weighted rate | Weighted risk (%) |
| Copenhagen (RH) | 23 | 3.5 | 1.7 | 27 | 4.3 | 2.0 |
| Odense (OUH) | 32 | 4.6 | 2.2 | 28 | 4.0 | 1.9 |
| Aarhus (AUH) | 30 | 6.5 | 3.1 | 23 | 4.4 | 2.1 |
| Aalborg (AAUH) | 13 | 4.3 | 2.1 | 14 | 4.5 | 2.2 |
| All sites | 98 | 4.8 | 2.3 | 92 | 4.3 | 2.1 |
Rates are events divided by person time for 100 years.
AAUH: Aalborg University Hospital; AUH: Aarhus University Hospital; OUH: Odense University Hospital; RH: Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital.
Figure 4:
Weighted rates of venous thromboembolism at 6-month follow-up in patients who underwent surgery for primary stratified by hospital and time period. VTE: venous thromboembolism.
All-cause mortality
A total of 413 deaths occurred during the 6-month follow-up, corresponding to a mortality rate of 8.6 deaths per 100 person-years and an overall absolute risk of 4.2%. Mortality rates decreased from the first to the last study period, with considerable variation between hospital centres (Supplementary Material, Table S4).
Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity analyses with truncation of extreme weights and with a more elaborate weighting model had virtually no impact on estimates of VTE and mortality (data not shown).
DISCUSSION
Our findings indicate that the administration of in-hospital thromboprophylaxis did not affect the risk of VTE at 6 months in patients who underwent surgery for NSCLC. This suggests that relying solely on in-hospital thromboprophylaxis is inadequate for mitigating VTE risk in this patient population. Thus, a research priority should focus on identifying patients at high risk of VTE after discharge for lung cancer surgery where extended prophylaxis may be valuable.
Our findings cohere with a previous systematic review, estimating a mean VTE risk of ∼2.0% over 16 months, although estimates varied widely across studies [4]. A recent Canadian cohort study including 12 626 patients undergoing lung cancer surgery demonstrated a 1-year VTE risk of 2.7% [1]. However, it is important to acknowledge that most observational cohort studies, including ours, likely underestimate the true incidence of VTE. Conversely, intervention studies involving screening for VTE (e.g. using lower extremity ultrasound) have documented higher VTE incidence due to the diagnosis of asymptomatic VTE [16].
Current guidelines from the American Association for Thoracic Surgery and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons recommend prolonged prophylaxis for 30 days after surgery in patients undergoing extended resections. However, these recommendations are supported by a low level of evidence [2]. Consequently, the optimal length of postoperative thromboprophylaxis in lung cancer patients is unknown. In a previous trial [17], lung cancer patients undergoing VATS lobectomy were randomly assigned to either subcutaneous dalteparin (Fragmin) 5000 IE once daily or no intervention during hospitalization. Coagulation was assessed before, during and 2 days after surgery using standard coagulation blood tests, thromboelastometry (ROTEM) and thrombin generation. The trial found no significant differences between the 2 groups regarding bleeding, thromboembolic events or the coagulation profiles, indicating that once-daily LMWH thromboprophylaxis did not alter the coagulation profile per se. While it may be feasible to conduct a randomized controlled trial testing various thromboprophylaxis regimens, including the option of no thromboprophylaxis, during hospitalization for patients undergoing lung cancer surgery, such a trial would require a large sample size to achieve sufficient statistical power.
The findings of the current study indicate that in-hospital thromboprophylaxis may not be as important as previously thought, potentially due in part to the implementation and effectiveness of the ERAS guidelines in thoracic surgery [18]. Previous studies have shown that a substantial proportion of VTE events occurs after discharge [5–7], suggesting that a focus on post-discharge prophylaxis may be equally important. However, prophylactic anticoagulation also has drawbacks, including increased risk of bleeding, costs, patient discomfort and inconvenience. Oral alternatives such as direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) obviate the need for daily injections with documented comparable efficacy to LMWH [19, 20]. This calls for a need to personalize decision-making about thromboprophylaxis and consider extended prophylaxis for high-risk patients such as those with large resections, advanced cancer stage, central tumours compressing veins or undergoing treatment with systemic therapies (e.g. neo-adjuvant chemotherapy). This approach could have implications for current clinical practice, particularly considering the increasing use of VATS and shorter hospital stays, where patients are mobilized, monitored, and given respiratory physiotherapy very intensely within a few days of admission [21]. Given this, thromboprophylaxis may be more relevant after discharge.
Strengths of this study include data from a nationwide real-world population who had access to free health care without exclusions based on physical fitness or other factors. This approach reduced the potential selection biases observed in previous studies including specific subsets of cancer patients. The data used in this study were collected for quality assurance and administrative purposes, independent of the research question and the DLCR encompasses the entire eligible population, enhancing the generalizability of the findings.
Limitations
Study limitations include the reliance on complete and accurate coding, although the positive predictive value of the VTE diagnoses in the DNPR is >90% [22]. Despite adherence to national guidelines, variations may exist between the 4 centres in practice such as VATS usage, nursing care, physiotherapy, medication choice and other unaccounted variables within our inverse probability of treatment weighting approach. Consequently, residual confounding likely persists. Moreover, administration of LMWH prophylaxis during hospital stay is not recorded in the registries, necessitating the use of treatment centres as a proxy for prophylaxis administration, introducing potential exposure misclassification. Nevertheless, it is important to note that, as standard practice, all Danish centres followed guidelines by administering LMWH prophylaxis during hospitalization for all patients undergoing surgery, with the exception of OUH before September 2016. Finally, the limited number of VTE events resulted in considerable variability between centres and over time. Data on VTE severity and whether some were incidental findings during follow-up scans, and the specific causes of death were unavailable. Therefore, we were unable to ascertain whether some deaths may have been attributable to VTE.
CONCLUSIONS
This nationwide cohort study demonstrated that administration of in-hospital thromboprophylaxis did not affect the risk of VTE after surgery for NSCLC. Combined with the growing body of evidence on post-discharge risk, this suggests that in-hospital thromboprophylaxis may not be sufficient to mitigate VTE risk. Further research is warranted to investigate the potential clinical benefits of extended thromboprophylaxis in reducing VTE risk in NSCLC surgical patients.
Supplementary Material
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Data for the study were provided by The Danish Health Data Agency, The Danish Clinical Quality Program—National Clinical Registries (RKKP) and The Danish Lung Cancer Registry (DLCR). Associated Professor, Ph.D., Jean Farup from the Department of Biomedicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus 8000, Denmark, has made the Graphic Abstract and is acknowledged accordingly.
Glossary
ABBREVIATIONS
- AAUH
Aalborg University Hospital
- AUH
Aarhus University Hospital
- DLCR
Danish Lung Cancer Registry
- DNPR
Danish National Patient Registry
- DOACs
Direct-acting oral anticoagulants
- LMWH
Low-molecular-weight heparin
- NSCLC
Non-small-cell lung cancer
- OUH
Odense University Hospital
- RH
Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital
- VATS
Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery
- VTE
Venous thromboembolic event
Contributor Information
Thomas Decker Christensen, Department of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark; Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Anne Gulbech Ording, Danish Center for Health Services Research, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University & Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
Flemming Skjøth, Department of Data, Research, and Innovation, Hospital Lillebaelt, University Hospitals of Southern Denmark, Vejle, Denmark.
Amalie Lambert Mørkved, Department of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark; Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Erik Jakobsen, Department of Thoracic Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Peter Meldgaard, Department of Oncology, Aarhus University, Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Rene Horsleben Petersen, Institute for Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Mette Søgaard, Danish Center for Health Services Research, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University & Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
Supplementary material is available at ICVTS online.
FUNDING
This work was supported by Agnes Niebuhr Anderssons Foundation, Inge og Asker Larsens Foundation, Danish Comprehensive Cancer Center and the Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University.
Conflict of interest: Thomas Decker Christensen has been on the speaker bureaus for AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Pfizer, Roche Diagnostics, Takeda, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD) Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiesi Pharma AB and GSK (GlaxoSmithKline) and on Advisory Board for Bayer, MSD, AstraZeneca and Sanofi. Rene Horsleben Petersen has received a speaker’s fee from Medtronic, AMBU, Medela and AstraZeneca, and is on the advisory board for AstraZeneca, Roche, MSD and BMS. Peter Meldgaard has received Research Support from Astra Zeneca, MSD, Novartis, Roche and Takeda, and is on advisory board for MSD, Roche, Astra Zeneca, BMS, Takeda, Novartis and Amgen. Flemming Skjøth has been on the advisory board for Bayer. The other authors report no conflict of interest.
DATA AVAILABILITY
The data were provided by the Danish Health Data Authority, The Danish Clinical Quality Program—National Clinical Registries (RKKP) and The DLCR. Owing to data protection rules, we are not allowed to share individual-level data. Other researchers who fulfil the requirements set by the data providers could obtain similar data.
Author contributions
Thomas Decker Christensen: Conceptualization; Funding acquisition; Methodology; Writing—original draft; Writing—review & editing. Anne Gulbech Ording: Conceptualization; Data curation; Investigation; Methodology; Writing—review & editing. Flemming Skjøth: Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; Methodology; Writing—review & editing. Amalie Lambert Mørkved: Conceptualization; Funding acquisition; Writing—review & editing. Erik Jakobsen: Conceptualization; Validation; Writing—review & editing. Peter Meldgaard: Conceptualization; Methodology; Writing—review & editing. Rene Horsleben Petersen: Investigation; Methodology; Writing—review & editing. Mette Søgaard: Conceptualization; Methodology; Writing—review & editing.
Reviewer information
Interdisciplinary CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery thanks John R Benfield, Mohsen Ibrahim and the other anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review process of this article.
REFERENCES
- 1. Akhtar-Danesh G-G, Akhtar-Danesh N, Shargall Y.. Venous thromboembolism in surgical lung cancer patients: a provincial population-based study. Ann Thorac Surg 2022;114:890–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Shargall Y, Wiercioch W, Brunelli A, Murthy S, Hofstetter W, Lin J. et al. Joint 2022 European Society of Thoracic Surgeons and The American Association for Thoracic Surgery guidelines for the prevention of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism in thoracic surgery. Eur J Cardio-Thoracic Surg 2022;63:794–824. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Agzarian J, Linkins L-A, Schneider L, Hanna WC, Finley CJ, Schieman C. et al. Practice patterns in venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in thoracic surgery: a comprehensive Canadian Delphi survey. J Thorac Dis 2017;9:80–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Christensen TD, Vad H, Pedersen S, Hvas A-M, Wotton R, Naidu B. et al. Venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing operations for lung cancer: a systematic review. Ann Thorac Surg 2014;97:394–400. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Thomas DC, Arnold BN, Hoag JR, Salazar MC, Detterbeck FC, Boffa DJ et al Timing and risk factors associated with venous thromboembolism after lung cancer resection. Ann Thorac Surg 2018;105:1469–75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Hachey KJ, Hewes PD, Porter LP, Ridyard DG, Rosenkranz P, McAneny D. et al. Caprini venous thromboembolism risk assessment permits selection for postdischarge prophylactic anticoagulation in patients with resectable lung cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2016;151:37–44.e1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Merkow RP, Bilimoria KY, McCarter MD, Cohen ME, Barnett CC, Raval MV. et al. Post-discharge venous thromboembolism after cancer surgery. Ann Surg 2011;254:131–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Jakobsen E, Rasmussen T.. The Danish Lung Cancer Registry. Clin Epidemiol 2016;8:537–41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Schmidt M, Schmidt SAJ, Sandegaard JL, Ehrenstein V, Pedersen L, Sørensen HT.. The Danish National Patient Registry: a review of content, data quality, and research potential. Clin Epidemiol 2015;7:449–90. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Pottegård A, Schmidt SAJ, Wallach-Kildemoes H, Sørensen HT, Hallas J, Schmidt M.. Data Resource Profile: the Danish National Prescription Registry. Int J Epidemiol 2017;46:798. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Schmidt M, Pedersen L, Sørensen HT.. The Danish Civil Registration System as a tool in epidemiology. Eur J Epidemiol 2014;29:541–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Mørkved AL, Søgaard M, Skjøth F, Ording AG, Jensen M, Larsen TB. et al. Risk and timing of venous thromboembolism after surgery for lung cancer: a nationwide cohort study. Ann Thorac Surg 2024;117:289–96. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, Horton J, Davis TE, McFadden ET et al Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol 1982;5:649–56. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR.. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987;40:373–83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Sahai H, Khurshi A. Statistics in Epidemiology: Methods, Techniques, and Applications, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Inc, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- 16. Agzarian J, Hanna WC, Schneider L, Schieman C, Finley CJ, Peysakhovich Y. et al. Postdischarge venous thromboembolic complications following pulmonary oncologic resection: an underdetected problem. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2016;151:992–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Christensen TD, Vad H, Pedersen S, Hornbech K, Zois NE, Licht PB. et al. Coagulation profile in patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy: a randomized, controlled trial. PLoS One 2017;12:e0171809. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Batchelor TJP, Rasburn NJ, Abdelnour-Berchtold E, Brunelli A, Cerfolio RJ, Gonzalez M. et al. Guidelines for enhanced recovery after lung surgery: recommendations of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (ESTS). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2019;55:91–115. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Zhao M, Bao Y, Jiang C, Chen L, Xu L, Liu X. et al. Rivaroxaban versus nadroparin for thromboprophylaxis following thoracic surgery for lung cancer: a randomized, noninferiority trial. Am J Hematol 2023;98:1185–95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Sabatino J, De Rosa S, Polimeni A, Sorrentino S, Indolfi C.. Direct oral anticoagulants in patients with active cancer. JACC CardioOncol 2020;2:428–40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Huang L, Kehlet H, Petersen RH.. Reasons for staying in hospital after video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy. BJS Open 2022;26:zrac050. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Sundbøll J, Adelborg K, Munch T, Frøslev T, Sørensen HT, Bøtker HE et al Positive predictive value of cardiovascular diagnoses in the Danish National Patient Registry: a validation study. BMJ Open 2016;6:e012832. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
The data were provided by the Danish Health Data Authority, The Danish Clinical Quality Program—National Clinical Registries (RKKP) and The DLCR. Owing to data protection rules, we are not allowed to share individual-level data. Other researchers who fulfil the requirements set by the data providers could obtain similar data.