Venous thromboembolism and intracranial hemorrhage in patients undergoing glioblastoma surgery.

In the perioperative management of patients with glioblastoma (GBM), physicians face the question of whether and when to administer prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation (AC). In this study, we investigate the effects of the timing of postoperative heparinization on thromboembolic events (TE) and postoperative hemorrhage (bleeding, PH) as well as the interactions between the two in the context of an underlying intracerebral malignancy. For this retrospective data analysis, 222 patients who underwent surgery for grade IV glioblastoma, IDH-wildtype (2016 CNS WHO) between 01/01/2014 and 31/12/2019 were included. We followed up for 12 months. We assessed various biographical and clinical data for risk factors and focused on the connection between timepoint of AC and adverse events. Subgroup analyses were performed for pulmonary artery embolism (PE), deep vein thrombosis, and postoperative intracranial hemorrhage (PH) that either required surgical intervention or was controlled radiologically only. Statistical analysis was performed using Mann-Whitney U-Test, Chi-square test, Fisher's exact test and univariate binomial logistic regression. p values below 0.05 were considered statistically significant. There was no significant association between prophylactic AC within 24 h and more frequent major bleeding (p = 0.350). AC in patients who developed major bleeding was regularly postponed by the physician/surgeon upon detection of the re-bleeding; therefore, patients with PH were anticoagulated significantly later (p = 0.034). The timing of anticoagulant administration did not differ significantly between patients who experienced a thromboembolic event and those who did not (p = 0.634). There was considerable overlap between the groups. Three of the six patients (50%) with PE had to be lysed or therapeutically anticoagulated and thereafter developed major bleeding (p < 0.001). Patients who experienced TE were more likely to die during hospitalization than those with major bleeding (p = 0.022 vs. p = 1.00). Prophylactic AC within 24 h after surgery does not result in more frequent bleeding. Our data suggests that postoperative intracranial hemorrhage is not caused by prophylactic AC but rather is a surgical complication or the result of antithrombotic therapy. However, thromboembolic events worsen patient outcomes far more than postoperative bleeding. The fact that bleeding may occur as a complication of life-saving lysis therapy in the setting of a thromboembolic event should be included in this cost-benefit consideration.

Tinzaparin vs. Nadroparin Safety and Efficacy in Neurosurgery.

BACKGROUND: An outbreak of African swine fever (ASF) in China in 2020 has led to an unprecedented shortage of nadroparin. Most patients, especially those kept in hospital for surgery, are currently treated with prophylactic anticoagulation (AC). In search of alternatives for nadroparin (fraxiparine), we found no sufficient data on alternatives for neurosurgical patients, such as tinzaparin of European origin. We compared nadroparin and tinzaparin concerning adverse events (bleeding versus thromboembolic events) in neurosurgical patients. METHODS: Between 2012 and 2018, 517 neurosurgical patients with benign and malignant brain tumors as well as 297 patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) were treated in the Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Leipzig, receiving prophylactic anticoagulation within 48 h. In 2015, prophylactic anticoagulation was switched from nadroparin to tinzaparin throughout the university hospital. In a retrospective manner, the frequency and occurrence of adverse events (rebleeding and thromboembolic events) in connection with the substance used were analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact test and the chi-squared test. RESULTS: Rebleeding rates were similar in both nadroparin and tinzaparin cohorts in patients being treated for meningioma, glioma, and SAH combined (8.8% vs. 10.3%). Accordingly, the rates of overall thromboembolic events were not significantly different (5.5% vs. 4.3%). The severity of rebleeding did not vary. There was no significant difference among subgroups when compared for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE). CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study, tinzaparin seems to be a safe alternative to nadroparin for AC in patients undergoing brain tumor surgery or suffering from SAH.