RESUMO
PURPOSE: We compared the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) among Asian populations with localized colorectal cancer undergoing curative resection with and without the use of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis (PTP). METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was undertaken to identify relevant studies published from January 1, 1980 to February 28, 2022. The inclusion criteria were patients who underwent primary tumor resection for localized nonmetastatic colorectal cancer; an Asian population or studies conducted in an Asian country; randomized controlled trials, case-control studies, or cohort studies; and the incidence of symptomatic VTE, deep vein thrombosis, and/or pulmonary embolism as the primary study outcomes. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. This study was registered in PROSPERO on October 11, 2020 (No. CRD42020206793). RESULTS: Seven studies (2 randomized controlled trials and 5 observational cohort studies) were included, encompassing 5,302 patients. The overall incidence of VTE was 1.4%. The use of PTP did not significantly reduce overall VTE incidence: 1.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0%-3.1%) versus 1.9% (95% CI, 0.3%-4.4%; P = 0.55). Similarly, PTP was not associated with significantly lower rates of symptomatic VTE, proximal deep vein thrombosis, or pulmonary embolism. CONCLUSION: The benefit of PTP in reducing VTE incidence among Asian patients undergoing curative resection for localized colorectal cancer has not been clearly established. The decision to administer PTP should be evaluated on a case-bycase basis and with consideration of associated bleeding risks.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Exercise prescription for patients with cardiovascular disease remains a challenge. The concept of exercising at an intensity equivalent to one's anaerobic threshold has been well studied and highly recommended in the fitness industry for other populations. For this concept to be applicable to patients with cardiovascular disease, the level and intensity of activity must not trigger myocardial ischemia. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that the heart rate at ventilatory anaerobic threshold (HRVAT ) will not exceed heart rate at ischemic threshold (HRIT ) (ie, HRVAT ≤ HRIT in a majority [>50%] of patients). METHODS: In this retrospective pilot study, 19 patients, mean age at baseline of 45.0 ± 15.6 years, who had positive cardiopulmonary exercise stress testing were included. Heart rate at ventilatory anaerobic threshold (VAT) was derived from a computer-analyzed V-slope method. The ischemic threshold (IT) was determined from electrocardiogram. The exercise test parameters at VAT in relation to IT were examined. RESULTS: Heart rate at VAT preceded heart rate at IT in 89.5% of patients. On average, achievement of VAT preceded IT relative to workload (119.5 ± 49.6 vs 132.6 ± 47.5; P < 0.01), heart rate (121.2 ± 15.9 vs 133.3 ± 17.5; P < 0.01), oxygen consumption (19.3 ± 4.9 vs 20.8 ± 3.7; P < 0.01), and respiratory exchange ratio (0.96 ± 0.10 vs 1.01 ± 0.07; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Greater than 50% of patients met the criteria of HRVAT ≤ HRIT ; therefore, we propose that anaerobic threshold is a suitable target aerobic exercise heart rate for all patients with cardiovascular diseases indicated for cardiopulmonary rehabilitation.