RESUMEN
Background/Aims@#Patients with active cancer frequently develop venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, there is little data about VTE in patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). Therefore, we investigated the clinical significance of VTE in patients with advanced CCA. @*Methods@#We analyzed the data of a total of 332 unresectable CCA patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2020 in this retrospective study. We investigated the incidence and risk factors for VTE, and its effect on survival in patients with advanced CCA. @*Results@#During a median follow-up of 11.6 months, 118 patients (35.5%) developed VTE. The cumulative incidence of VTE was 22.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18 to 0.27) at 3 months and 32.8% (95% CI, 0.27 to 0.38) at 12 months. Major vessel invasion was an independent risk factor for VTE (hazard ratio, 2.88; 95% CI, 1.92 to 4.31; p<0.001). Patients who developed VTE during follow-up had shorter overall survival than patients who did not (11.50 months vs 15.83 months, p=0.005). In multivariable analysis, VTE (hazard ratio, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.23 to 2.02;p<0.001) was associated with poor overall survival. @*Conclusions@#Major vessel invasion is related to the occurrence of VTE in advanced CCA. The development of VTE significantly decreases the overall survival and is an important unfavorable prognostic factor for survival.
RESUMEN
Background/Aims@#The combinatorial effects of prophylactic methods for postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) in patients with risk factors remain unclear. In this network meta-analysis, we compared the efficacy of various prophylactic strategies to decrease the risk of PEP among patients with risk factors. @*Methods@#A systematic review was performed to identify randomized controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library through July 2021. We used frequentist network meta-analysis to compare the rates of PEP among patients who received prophylactic treatments as follows: class A, rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; class B, prophylactic pancreatic stent; class C, aggressive hydration; or control, no prophylaxis or active control. We selected those studies that included patients with risk factors for PEP. @*Results@#We identified 19 trials, comprising 4,328 participants. Class ABC (odds ratio [OR], 0.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03 to 0.24), class AC (OR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.47), class AB (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.26), class BC (OR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.41), class A (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.50), and class B (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.46), were associated with a reduced risk of PEP as compared to that of the control. The most effective prophylaxis was ABC (0.87), followed by AC (0.68), AB (0.65), BC (0.56), A (0.49), and B (0.24) according to P-score. @*Conclusions@#The results of this network meta-analysis suggest that the more prophylactic methods are employed, the better the outcomes. It appears that for patients with risk factors, we need to prevent PEP through the use of these well proven combination strategies.
