Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The impact of hereditary thrombophilia on the incidence of postoperative venous thromboembolism in colorectal cancer patients: a prospective cohort study

Hereditary thrombophilia and VTE in colorectal cancer surgery

  • original article
  • Published:
European Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Background

Hereditary thrombophilia may play an important role in the rate of postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE). We focused on the impact of hereditary thrombophilia on VTE incidence in colorectal cancer surgery patients within a 1-year postoperative period.

Methods

Preoperatively, identifying of colorectal cancer patients with thrombotic mutations (PTM+) and without thrombotic mutations (PTM−) was performed by screening of factor V Leiden (FVL) and prothrombin G20210A mutation. Within prophylactic period (0–28 days postoperatively), coagulation markers (platelets, fibrinogen, D‑dimer) were measured and symptomatic VTE was observed. Within post-prophylactic period (2–12 months after surgery), symptomatic VTE was observed.

Results

In all, 202 patients were assessed and hereditary thrombophilia was detected in 9.9% (FVL 8.4%; prothrombin G20210A mutation 1.5%). In the prophylactic period, VTE incidence in PTM+ and PTM− was 0.0% and 1.6%, respectively (p = 0.730). Levels of coagulation markers were comparable in both patient cohorts within 28 days postoperatively. In the post-prophylactic period, VTE incidence in PTM+ and PTM− was 15.0% and 5.5%, respectively (p = 0.125), and detailed incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in PTM+ and PTM− was 15.0% and 3.3%, respectively (p = 0.048). We observed significantly increased incidence of lower extremity DVT in such patients with FVL (17.6%).

Conclusion

The standard regimen of extended-duration VTE prophylaxis is adequate for colorectal cancer patients with thrombotic mutations and more intensified VTE prophylaxis within the 28-day postoperative period is not justified. However, the ongoing postoperative pharmacologic prophylaxis (>28 days) should be considered in patients with hereditary thrombophilia, especially with FVL.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Merriman L, Greaves M. Testing for thrombophilia: an evidence-based approach. Postgrad Med J. 2006;82(973):699–704.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Weingarz L, Schwonberg J, Schindewolf M, et al. Prevalence of thrombophilia according to age at the first manifestation of venous thromboembolism: results from the MAISTHRO registry. Br J Haematol. 2013;163(5):655–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjh.12575.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kvasnička T, Hájková J, Bobčíková P, et al. The frequencies of six important thrombophilic mutations in a population of the Czech Republic. Physiol Res. 2014;63(2):245–53.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Blom JW, Doggen CJ, Osanto S, et al. Malignancies, prothrombotic mutations, and the risk of venous thrombosis. JAMA. 2005;293(6):715–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Pabinger I, Ay C, Dunkler D, et al. Factor V Leiden mutation increases the risk for venous thromboembolism in cancer patients—results from the Vienna Cancer And Thrombosis Study (CATS). J Thromb Haemost. 2015;13(1):17–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/jth.12778.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gould MK, Garcia DA, Wren SM, American College of Chest Physicians, et al. Prevention of VTE in nonorthopedic surgical patients: antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2012;141(2):e227S–e77S. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.11-2297.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Wells PS, Anderson DR, Bormanis J, et al. Value of assessment of pretest probability of deep-vein thrombosis in clinical management. Lancet. 1997;350(9094):1795–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Gouda MA. Common pitfalls in reporting the use of SPSS software. Med Princ Pract. 2015;24:300. https://doi.org/10.1159/000381953

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Colorectal Writing Group for Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program, Comparative Effectiveness Research Translation Network (SCOAP-CERTAIN) Collaborative, Nelson DW, Simianu VV, Bastawrous AL, et al. Thromboembolic complications and prophylaxis patterns in colorectal surgery. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(8):712–20. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2015.1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Alcalay A, Wun T, Khatri V, et al. Venous thromboembolism in patients with colorectal cancer: incidence and effect on survival. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(7):1112–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Walker AJ, West J, Card TR, et al. Variation in the risk of venous thromboembolism in people with colorectal cancer: a population-based cohort study from England. J Thromb Haemost. 2014;12(5):641–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Khan S, Dickerman JD. Hereditary thrombophilia. Thromb J. 2006;4:15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ho WK, Hankey GJ, Quinlan DJ, et al. Risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with common thrombophilia: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(7):729–36.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Bergqvist D, Agnelli G, Cohen AT, et al. Duration of prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism with enoxaparin after surgery for cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(13):975–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Rasmussen MS, Jorgensen LN, Wille-Jørgensen P, et al. Prolonged prophylaxis with dalteparin to prevent late thromboembolic complications in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery: a multicenter randomized open-label study. J Thromb Haemost. 2006;4(11):2384–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Akl EA, Terrenato I, Barba M, et al. Extended perioperative thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer. A systematic review. Thromb Haemost. 2008;100(6):1176–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sweetland S, Green J, Liu B, et al. Duration and magnitude of the postoperative risk of venous thromboembolism in middle aged women: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2009;339:b4583. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b4583.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Rooden CJ, Tesselaar ME, Osanto S, et al. Deep vein thrombosis associated with central venous catheters—a review. J Thromb Haemost. 2005;3(11):2409–19.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Malinoski D, Ewing T, Bhakta A, et al. Which central venous catheters have the highest rate of catheter-associated deep venous thrombosis: a prospective analysis of 2,128 catheter days in the surgical intensive care unit. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013;74(2):454–60. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e31827a0b2f. discussion 461–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Shivakumar SP, Anderson DR, Couban S. Catheter-associated thrombosis in patients with malignancy. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(29):4858–64. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.22.6126.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mäkelburg AB, Veeger NJ, Middeldorp S, et al. Different risk of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in carriers with factor V Leiden compared with non-carriers, but not in other thrombophilic defects. Results from a large retrospective family cohort study. Haematologica. 2010;95(6):1030–3. https://doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2009.017061.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hirmerova J, Seidlerova J, Subrt I. The association of factor V Leiden with various clinical patterns of venous thromboembolism-the factor V Leiden paradox. QJM. 2014;107(9):715–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/qjmed/hcu055.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Stevens SM, Woller SC, Bauer KA, et al. Guidance for the evaluation and treatment of hereditary and acquired thrombophilia. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2016;41(1):154–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11239-015-1316-1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Colucci G, Tsakiris DA. Thrombophilia screening. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1177/1076029616683803.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wu O, Robertson L, Twaddle S, et al. Screening for thrombophilia in high-risk situations: systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. The Thrombosis: Risk and Economic Assessment of Thrombophilia Screening (TREATS) study. Health Technol Assess. 2006;10(11):1–110.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Becattini C, Rondelli F, Vedovati MC, et al. Incidence and risk factors for venous thromboembolism after laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. Haematologica. 2015;100(1):e35–e8. https://doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2014.109843.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Lee E, Kang SB, Choi SI, et al. Prospective study on the incidence of postoperative venous thromboembolism in Korean patients with colorectal cancer. Cancer Res Treat. 2016;48(3):978–89. https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2015.311.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Khorana AA. Cancer-associated thrombosis: updates and controversies. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2012;2012:626–30. https://doi.org/10.1182/asheducation-2012.1.626.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by the project of the Ministry of Health, Czech Republic (RVO-VFN64165 and NT 13251-4).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1st Department of Surgery—Department of Abdominal, Thoracic Surgery and Traumatology; First Faculty of Medicine, General University Hospital, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

    Jan Ulrych, Vladimir Fryba, Jan Kvasnicka Jr, Zdenek Krska & Jan Briza

  2. Thrombotic Centre of Institute of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Diagnostics, General University Hospital, Charles University, Karlovo namesti 32, 121 11, Prague, Czech Republic

    Tomas Kvasnicka MD, PhD, Ivana Malikova, Radka Brzezkova & Jan Kvasnicka

  3. Institute of Biophysics and Informatics, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

    Martin Komarc

  4. Department of Methodology, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

    Martin Komarc

Authors
  1. Jan Ulrych
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tomas Kvasnicka MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vladimir Fryba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Martin Komarc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ivana Malikova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Radka Brzezkova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jan Kvasnicka Jr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Zdenek Krska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jan Briza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Jan Kvasnicka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tomas Kvasnicka MD, PhD.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

J. Ulrych, T. Kvasnicka, V. Fryba, M. Komarc, I. Malikova, R. Brzezkova, J. Kvasnicka Jr, Z. Krska, J. Briza, and J. Kvasnicka declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical standards

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008. The study was approved by the ethics committee of General University Hospital in Prague. Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ulrych, J., Kvasnicka, T., Fryba, V. et al. The impact of hereditary thrombophilia on the incidence of postoperative venous thromboembolism in colorectal cancer patients: a prospective cohort study. Eur Surg 51, 5–12 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10353-018-0534-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10353-018-0534-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation