HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): Apurva Patel Masaki Anraku Gail E. Darling Andrew F. Pierre Thomas K. Waddell Shaf Keshavjee Marc de Perrot Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Patel, A. Articles by de Perrot, M. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Patel, A. Articles by de Perrot, M. Related Collections Lung - cancer

J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2009;138:843-848
© 2009 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery

General Thoracic Surgery

Venous thromboembolism in patients receiving multimodality therapy for thoracic malignancies

Toronto General Hospital and Princess Margaret Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Received for publication October 9, 2008; revisions received January 10, 2009; accepted for publication February 9, 2009.

^_* Address for reprints: Marc de Perrot, MD, MSc, Division of Thoracic Surgery, Toronto General Hospital, 9N-961, 200 Elizabeth Street, Toronto, Ontario M5G 2C4, Canada. (Email: marc.deperrot{at}uhn.on.ca).

Objective: The rate of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing multimodality therapy for lung malignancy and the impact of preoperative venous thromboembolism on postoperative outcome have not been analyzed systematically.

Methods: We performed a retrospective review of all patients undergoing induction therapy before lung resection for non–small cell lung cancer and malignant pleural mesothelioma at the University Health Network between January 1996 and December 2007.

Results: Venous thromboembolism developed in 23 (12.3%) of 186 patients undergoing induction therapy. The venous thromboembolism was diagnosed during induction therapy in 11 patients. The proportion of pulmonary embolism was higher during induction therapy (9/11 patients), whereas deep venous thromboses were observed predominantly postoperatively (7/12 patients) (P = .02). The risk of postoperative complications or death was not increased in patients undergoing surgery despite a preoperative diagnosis of venous thromboembolism. However, the risk of postoperative pulmonary embolism was higher in patients undergoing surgery without insertion of an inferior vena cava filter (1/2 patients vs 0/7 after insertion of an inferior vena cava filter, P = .047). The overall survival was similar between patients with or without venous thromboembolism complications.

Conclusion: This study demonstrates that venous thromboembolism events in patients undergoing multimodality therapy for lung malignancies is high and deserves careful consideration. Patients with a venous thromboembolism diagnosis during induction therapy may potentially benefit from a temporary inferior vena cava filter before surgery to limit the risk of recurrent pulmonary embolism. A preoperative diagnosis of venous thromboembolism, however, does not affect early and late outcomes after surgery and should not be viewed as a negative prognostic marker.