Does Heparin Prophylaxis Reduce the Risk of Venous Thromboembolism in Patients Undergoing Robot-Assisted Prostatectomy?

Abstract

Background and Purpose:

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major complication of urologic surgery. Data are limited regarding the benefits of heparin prophylaxis for patients undergoing minimally invasive urologic surgery. The American Urological Association recommends sequential compression devices (SCDs) for urologic laparoscopic and robot-assisted procedures but provides no clear recommendations for the use of pharmacologic prophylaxis. We compare the rates of postoperative VTE in two groups of patients undergoing robot-assisted prostatectomy (RP) by two surgeons-one who consistently used heparin with SCDs (group 1) and the other who used SCDs alone (group 2) for prophylaxis.

Patients and Methods:

An Institutional Review Board approved, prospectively managed database was analyzed. Group 1 received SCDs just before induction and 5000 units of heparin subcutaneously just after induction. SCDs were continued postoperatively, and heparin was administered twice a day until discharge. VTE rate, patient age, body mass index (BMI), operative time, lymphocele rate, length of stay (LOS), estimated blood loss (EBL), Gleason score, and pathologic stage were compared. Categorical variables were analyzed with the chi square test of proportions and continuous variables with t test using SPSS v 14 software.

Results:

There were 1486 consecutive patients who underwent RP between August 2007 and December 30, 2011. Of these, 922 patients received heparin/SCDs and 564 received SCDs alone. Age, BMI, EBL, medial LOS, Gleason score, and pathologic stage were the same in the two groups. There was a higher rate of positive nodes in group 2 (1.3% vs 3.5%). There was one lymphocele in each group. Although operative times were longer in group 2 (229 vs 170 min, P<0.001), the incidence of VTE was not statistically different (1.0% vs 0.7%, P=0.78). BMI, operative time, EBL, and the performance of lymph node dissection were not associated with VTE.

Conclusions:

The risk of VTE in patients undergoing RP is low and not significantly reduced with the administration of prophylactic heparin/SCDs compared with SCDs alone.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Best Practice Statement for the Prevention of Deep Vein Thrombosis in Patients Undergoing Urologic Surgery. AUA 2008. auanet.org/resources.cfm?ID=457. 2013 February 16.

Andriole

, Smith

, Rao

et al. Early complications of contemporary anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol, 1994; 152:1858–1860.

Vandendris

, Kutnowski

, Futeral

et al. Prevention of postoperative deep-vein thrombosis by low-dose heparin in open prostatectomy. Urol Res, 1980; 8:219–221.

, Nelson

, Wilson

et al. Perioperative complications of laparoscopic and robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol, 2006; 175:541–546.

Secin

, Jiborn

, Bjartell

et al. Multi-institutional study of symptomatic deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in prostate cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol, 2008; 53:134–145.

Heinzer

, Hammerer

, Graefen

et al. Thromboembolic complication rate after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Impact of routine ultrasonography for the detection of pelvic lymphoceles and hematomas. Eur Urol, 1998; 33:86–90.

Patel

, Kirby

, Hruby

et al. Heparin prophylaxis and the risk of venous thromboembolism after robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. BJU Int, 2011; 108:729–732.

Geerts

, Pineo

, Heit

et al. Prevention of venous thromboembolism: The Seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy. Chest, 2004; 126,suppl 3:338S–400S.

Rice

, Brassell

, McLeod

. Venous thromboembolism in urologic surgery: Prophylaxis, diagnosis, and treatment. Rev Urol, 2010; 12:e111–e124.