FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2015524716> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2015524716 endingPage "1102" @default.
• W2015524716 startingPage "1099" @default.
• W2015524716 abstract "Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism, in combination often referred to as venous thromboembolism (VTE), is a common postoperative complication that can be fatal. The aim of perioperative thromboprophylaxis, which has become a standard of care in patients undergoing major surgery, is to prevent these (fatal) thromboembolic events. The currently recommended pharmacological agents as well as non‐pharmacological modalities used for the prevention of these complications were all accepted based on reduced incidences of (asymptomatic) venous thrombosis using contrast venography or other surrogate markers to detect this disease [1Geerts W.H. Heit J.A. Clagett G.P. Pineo G.F. Colwell C.W. Anderson Jr, F.A. Wheeler H.B. Prevention of venous thromboembolism.Chest. 2001; 119: 132S-175SAbstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar, 2Rodgers A. MacMahon S. Systematic underestimation of treatment effects as a result of diagnostic test inaccuracy: implications for the interpretation and design of thromboprophylaxis trials.Thromb Haemost. 1995; 73: 167-171Crossref PubMed Google Scholar]. Moreover, in recent prevention studies with novel anticoagulants, venography was used as the main component of the primary efficacy outcome [3Turpie A.G. Bauer K.A. Eriksson B.I. Lassen M.R. Fondaparinux vs enoxaparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in major orthopedic surgery: a meta‐analysis of 4 randomized double‐blind studies.Arch Intern Med. 2002; 162: 1833-1840Crossref PubMed Scopus (0) Google Scholar, 4Eriksson B.I. Agnelli G. Cohen A.T. Dahl O.E. Lassen M.R. Mouret P. Rosencher N. Kalibo P. Panfilov S. Eskilson C. Anderson M. The direct thrombin inhibitor melagatran followed by oral ximelagatran compared with enoxaparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after total hip or knee replacement: the EXPRESS study.J Thromb Haemost. 2003; 1: 2490-2496Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (217) Google Scholar]. Initially, in the 1970s, there was reluctance to adopt thromboprophylaxis in the surgical setting because of doubts about the translation of a reduced asymptomatic thrombosis risk into clinical benefit [5[No authors listed]Prevention of fatal postoperative pulmonary embolism by low doses of heparin. An international multicentre trial.Lancet. 1975; 2: 45-51PubMed Google Scholar]. However, based on systematic reviews as well as consensus conferences, prophylaxis is now widely accepted and applied. Recently, again concerns were voiced that differences in the frequency of venographically detected asymptomatic postoperative DVT seen with the use of various prophylactic regimens may not reflect the true differences in the clinical effectiveness of these regimens. In other words, it is questioned whether venographically detected asymptomatic postoperative DVT is indeed a valid substitute for the clinical entity of VTE and hence whether venography is a valid surrogate outcome measure [6Levi M. Peters R.J. Piek J.J. Buller H.R. New anticoagulants.Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2003; 147: 909-915PubMed Google Scholar, 7Lowe G.D. Sandercock P.A. Rosendaal F.R. Prevention of venous thromboembolism after major orthopaedic surgery: is fondaparinux an advance.Lancet. 2003; 362: 504-505Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (0) Google Scholar, 8Lalourcey L. The design of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis trials: is enoxaparin more effective than fondaparinux.Int J Clin Pract. 2003; 57: 289-294PubMed Google Scholar]. Based on the existing literature, a set of criteria was defined to assess the validity of a surrogate outcome [9Fleming T.R. DeMets D.L. Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled.Ann Intern Med. 1996; 125: 605-613Crossref PubMed Google Scholar, 10Boissel J.P. Collet J.P. Moleur P. Haugh M. Surrogate endpoints: a basis for a rational approach.Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1992; 43: 235-244Crossref PubMed Scopus (162) Google Scholar]. These generally applicable criteria are that: (i) there is a biological plausible link between the surrogate measurement and the clinical entity of interest, (ii) the test used to measure the surrogate outcome is accurate with objective criteria for normal and abnormal test results and has a high inter‐observer agreement, and (iii) the surrogate outcome fully captures the net effects of the intervention. At least three conditions should be met before the presence of a biological plausible link between the surrogate outcome measure and the clinical entity of interest can be accepted. These conditions are: (i) Is there a similar pathophysiological substrate for what the surrogate outcome measures as for the real disease?; (ii) Does the surrogate outcome precede the clinical disease and can it be detected earlier? and (iii) Is the association between the surrogate outcome and the disease quantifiable? For venography, the first requirement has been addressed in postmortem and surgical thrombectomy studies, which revealed that intra‐luminal defects seen on contrast venography (and pulmonary angiography) indeed reflect a venous thromboembolic mass consisting of fibrin strands and platelets. In addition, studies employing radioactive fibrinogen have indirectly shown that fibrin is formed at sites of venographically detected thrombi [11Morris G.K. Mitchell J.R. Evaluation of 125I‐fibrinogen test for venous thrombosis in patients with hip fractures: comparison between isotope scanning and necropsy findings.Br Med J. 1977; 1: 264-266Crossref PubMed Google Scholar]. Contrast venography satisfies the second condition although it depends on the timing of the examination. Venous thrombi tend to start in the calf veins and gradually extend proximally. They usually become symptomatic when they are larger and obstruct the venous outflow. For example, when venography is performed approximately 1 week after a major surgery, the thrombi mostly have a small to moderate size and hence are usually asymptomatic. However, if venography is performed several weeks after surgery, a substantial proportion of patients with postoperative thrombi will have developed symptomatic disease [12Hull R.D. Pineo G.F. Stein P.D. Mah A.F. MacIsaac S.M. Dahl O.E. Butcher M. Brant R.F. Ghali W.A. Bergqvist D. Raskob G.E. Extended out‐of‐hospital low‐molecular‐weight heparin prophylaxis against deep venous thrombosis in patients after elective hip arthroplasty: a systematic review.Ann Intern Med. 2001; 135: 858-869Crossref PubMed Google Scholar]. The third condition concerns the natural history of the abnormality identified by the surrogate measurement. For obvious reasons, there are only limited data on what happens to venographically detected asymptomatic thrombosis which is left untreated. In fact there is only one study evaluating the natural history [13Kakkar V.V. Howe C.T. Flanc C. Clarke M.B. Natural history of postoperative deep‐vein thrombosis.Lancet. 1969; 2: 230-232Abstract PubMed Google Scholar]. In this study, 40 postoperative patients with fibrinogen legscan detected and venographically confirmed thrombosis were followed up. In about one‐third of the patients, the thrombus lysed spontaneously, whereas 10% of the patients developed symptomatic pulmonary embolism. These figures are supported by data from a retrospective analysis of untreated thrombosis after total hip arthroplasty [14Pellegrini Jr, V.D. Clement D. Lush‐Ehmann C. Keller G.S. Evarts C.M. The John Charnley Award. Natural history of thromboembolic disease after total hip arthroplasty.Clin Orthop. 1996; 333: 27-40Crossref PubMed Google Scholar]. Additional information to assess the quantifiable association between the surrogate outcome and the disease can be derived from large follow‐up studies in cohorts of patients undergoing certain operative procedures who received in‐hospital prophylaxis. Among 19 586 patients who underwent elective hip surgery, White et al. [15White R.H. Romano P.S. Zhou H. Rodrigo J. Bargar W. Incidence and time course of thromboembolic outcomes following total hip or knee arthroplasty.Arch Intern Med. 1998; 158: 1525-1531Crossref PubMed Scopus (502) Google Scholar] found that the cumulative incidence of symptomatic VTE was 2.8% during a 3‐month postoperative follow‐up period. Numerous studies in this patient category have shown that about 20% of these patients had thrombi as detected by contrast venography, at hospital discharge [1Geerts W.H. Heit J.A. Clagett G.P. Pineo G.F. Colwell C.W. Anderson Jr, F.A. Wheeler H.B. Prevention of venous thromboembolism.Chest. 2001; 119: 132S-175SAbstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar]. Hence, these studies suggest that approximately one of seven to 10 patients with venographically detected thrombi develop symptomatic disease. The second major criterion concerns the performance and interpretation of contrast venography. Rabinov and Paulin [16Rabinov K. Paulin S. Roentgen diagnosis of venous thrombosis in the leg.Arch Surg. 1972; 104: 134-144Crossref PubMed Google Scholar] clearly described how this examination should be performed to obtain an adequate result. They also defined a set of criteria for determination of a normal or abnormal test result. Contrast venography is widely considered to be an accurate test for both proximal and deep calf vein thrombosis, albeit that formal assessment of sensitivity and specificity is not feasible as there is no other gold standard, in particular, in the setting of prophylaxis. Inter‐observer agreement of contrast venography findings has been shown to be good [17Lensing A.W. Buller H.R. Prandoni P. Batchelor D. Molenaar A.H. Cogo A. Vigo M. Huisman P.M. ten Cate J.W. Contrast venography, the gold standard for the diagnosis of deep‐vein thrombosis: improvement in observer agreement.Thromb Haemost. 1992; 67: 8-12Crossref PubMed Google Scholar] (kappa 0.65) and can be further improved by long leg images and a strict adherence to the binary outcome definition of normal or abnormal. To satisfy the criterion that the effect of the intervention on the surrogate outcome predicts the effect on the clinical outcome, clinical follow‐up studies should reveal that the relative reduction in the rate of venographically detected venous thrombosis induced by preventive measures is proportionally related to the reduction in clinical outcomes. At least three lines of evidence are available to address this criterion. The first comes from the introduction of unfractionated heparin (UFH) as thromboprophylaxis in the 1960s to 1970s, in surgical patients. The aim was to reduce the risk of postoperative pulmonary embolism. A meta‐analysis of the studies comparing UFH with placebo (or no treatment) in various surgical interventions revealed a reduction of 70% in the surrogate outcome of scintigraphically or venographically detected venous thrombosis [18Collins R. Scrimgeour A. Yusuf S. Peto R. Reduction in fatal pulmonary embolism and venous thrombosis by perioperative administration of subcutaneous heparin. Overview of results of randomized trials in general, orthopedic, and urologic surgery.N Engl J Med. 1988; 318: 1162-1173Crossref PubMed Google Scholar]. This observation is consistent with the international multicentre trial in more than 4000 surgical patients, which revealed a 70% reduction in clinically confirmed VTE (75% reduction in fatal and non‐fatal pulmonary embolism) in favor of prevention by UFH [5[No authors listed]Prevention of fatal postoperative pulmonary embolism by low doses of heparin. An international multicentre trial.Lancet. 1975; 2: 45-51PubMed Google Scholar]. The second concerns the comparison of low‐molecular‐weight heparin (LMWH) with placebo or no treatment in patients undergoing general surgery [19Mismetti P. Laporte S. Darmon J.Y. Buchmuller A. Decousus H. Meta‐analysis of low molecular weight heparin in the prevention of venous thromboembolism in general surgery.Br J Surg. 2001; 88: 913-930Crossref PubMed Scopus (0) Google Scholar]. A systematic review of all randomized trials confirmed that the significant reduction observed in asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis obtained with LMWH [relative risk (RR) 0.28; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14–0.54] was associated with a similar reduction in clinical pulmonary embolism (RR 0.25; 95% CI 0.08–0.79) as well as in clinically manifest VTE (RR 0.29; 95% CI 0.11–0.73). The third line of evidence stems from studies on prolonged prophylaxis after hospital discharge in patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery. These studies aimed at assessing the relative efficacy of 4 weeks of thromboprophylaxis vs. only 1 week during hospital stay. Patients were followed up for 4 weeks during which, contrast venography was performed unless clinically apparent VTE occurred earlier. The reduction of all and proximal DVT (as assessed by contrast venography) was identical to that observed for symptomatic thromboembolism (all approximately 65%) [12Hull R.D. Pineo G.F. Stein P.D. Mah A.F. MacIsaac S.M. Dahl O.E. Butcher M. Brant R.F. Ghali W.A. Bergqvist D. Raskob G.E. Extended out‐of‐hospital low‐molecular‐weight heparin prophylaxis against deep venous thrombosis in patients after elective hip arthroplasty: a systematic review.Ann Intern Med. 2001; 135: 858-869Crossref PubMed Google Scholar]. A similar extent in the reduction of the surrogate measurement and clinical disease was recently observed in a study of prolonged prophylaxis in patients undergoing surgery for fractured hip [20Eriksson B.I. Lassen M.R. Duration of prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism with fondaparinux after hip fracture surgery: a multicenter, randomized, placebo‐controlled, double‐blind study.Arch Intern Med. 2003; 163: 1337-1342Crossref PubMed Scopus (0) Google Scholar]. The application of surrogate outcomes in medical research is based on practical, financial and ethical aspects [10Boissel J.P. Collet J.P. Moleur P. Haugh M. Surrogate endpoints: a basis for a rational approach.Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1992; 43: 235-244Crossref PubMed Scopus (162) Google Scholar, 21Bucher H.C. Guyatt G.H. Cook D.J. Holbrook A. McAlister F.A. Users’ guides to the medical literature: XIX. Applying clinical trial results. A. How to use an article measuring the effect of an intervention on surrogate end points. Evidence‐Based Medicine Working Group.JAMA. 1999; 282: 771-778Crossref PubMed Scopus (0) Google Scholar]. But, ever since their introduction, the use of surrogate outcomes to support conclusions about the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions has been met by clinicians and regulatory agencies with both enthusiasm and skepticism. Indeed, several initially widely applied surrogate outcomes such as ventricular premature beats and exercise tolerance for the evaluation of new antiarrhythmic and inotropic agents, respectively, proved to be unreliable or even misleading predictors for the true clinical outcome and have thereby fuelled the concerns about the reliability of surrogate outcomes in general [9Fleming T.R. DeMets D.L. Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled.Ann Intern Med. 1996; 125: 605-613Crossref PubMed Google Scholar]. Although caution should be exercised, one needs to be careful not to discredit the valuable surrogate outcomes. The present review demonstrates convincingly that contrast venography as a measure of subclinical venous thrombotic disease is a valid surrogate outcome in the setting of thromboprophylaxis for surgical and medical patients. This conclusion is based on at least two major elements generally accepted as critical for a proper surrogate outcome. First, a quantifiable association between the findings on venography and the clinical outcome is present. This association supports the causal link between the surrogate and the clinical outcome, albeit the data from observational studies on untreated asymptomatic thrombosis are scarce because of the possible lethal outcome of extending thrombosis. Nevertheless, the relationship is consistent across the available observational studies. Secondly, improvement in the surrogate outcome induced by therapeutic interventions is consistently and proportionally associated with an improvement in the target clinical outcome. This is based on data from numerous randomized trials in different clinical settings. Although, in certain subgroups, slight differences are observed in the proportion of the reduction, e.g knee vs. hip surgery [22Kearon C. Noninvasive diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis in postoperative patients.Semin Thromb Hemost. 2001; 27: 3-8Crossref PubMed Google Scholar], this variation does not invalidate the overall conclusions. It should be realized that for the optimal use of venography as a surrogate outcome several important prerequisites need to be met. These include the standard execution and documentation of the test, a blinded evaluation by experienced readers who use the internationally accepted criteria for normal, abnormal and inadequate test results. In conclusion, the critical application of the predefined criteria for the validity of contrast venography as a surrogate outcome reveals that this test can be used with confidence in the evaluation of new thromboprophylactic regimens." @default.
• W2015524716 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2015524716 creator A5012151994 @default.
• W2015524716 creator A5039204383 @default.
• W2015524716 creator A5042290277 @default.
• W2015524716 creator A5084922482 @default.
• W2015524716 date "2005-05-01" @default.
• W2015524716 modified "2023-09-30" @default.
• W2015524716 title "Is contrast venography a valid surrogate outcome measure in venous thromboembolism prevention studies?" @default.
• W2015524716 cites W1911387655 @default.
• W2015524716 cites W1964211461 @default.
• W2015524716 cites W1964622121 @default.
• W2015524716 cites W1992894877 @default.
• W2015524716 cites W1993826239 @default.
• W2015524716 cites W2003149127 @default.
• W2015524716 cites W2010599049 @default.
• W2015524716 cites W2016206184 @default.
• W2015524716 cites W2019391438 @default.
• W2015524716 cites W2036603576 @default.
• W2015524716 cites W2066701117 @default.
• W2015524716 cites W2071155706 @default.
• W2015524716 cites W2080675410 @default.
• W2015524716 cites W2088494721 @default.
• W2015524716 cites W2098108939 @default.
• W2015524716 cites W2109060049 @default.
• W2015524716 cites W2126426045 @default.
• W2015524716 cites W2395279856 @default.
• W2015524716 cites W2410407628 @default.
• W2015524716 cites W70359381 @default.
• W2015524716 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-7836.2005.01317.x" @default.
• W2015524716 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15869620" @default.
• W2015524716 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W2015524716 type Work @default.
• W2015524716 sameAs 2015524716 @default.
• W2015524716 citedByCount "25" @default.
• W2015524716 countsByYear W20155247162012 @default.
• W2015524716 countsByYear W20155247162013 @default.
• W2015524716 countsByYear W20155247162015 @default.
• W2015524716 countsByYear W20155247162016 @default.
• W2015524716 countsByYear W20155247162018 @default.
• W2015524716 countsByYear W20155247162021 @default.
• W2015524716 countsByYear W20155247162023 @default.
• W2015524716 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2015524716 hasAuthorship W2015524716A5012151994 @default.
• W2015524716 hasAuthorship W2015524716A5039204383 @default.
• W2015524716 hasAuthorship W2015524716A5042290277 @default.
• W2015524716 hasAuthorship W2015524716A5084922482 @default.
• W2015524716 hasBestOaLocation W20155247161 @default.
• W2015524716 hasConcept C124101348 @default.
• W2015524716 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2015524716 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W2015524716 hasConcept C141341695 @default.
• W2015524716 hasConcept C144237770 @default.
• W2015524716 hasConcept C148220186 @default.
• W2015524716 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W2015524716 hasConcept C164705383 @default.
• W2015524716 hasConcept C2776502983 @default.
• W2015524716 hasConcept C2778269268 @default.
• W2015524716 hasConcept C2780009758 @default.
• W2015524716 hasConcept C2780868729 @default.
• W2015524716 hasConcept C2991741193 @default.
• W2015524716 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2015524716 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2015524716 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2015524716 hasConceptScore W2015524716C124101348 @default.
• W2015524716 hasConceptScore W2015524716C126322002 @default.
• W2015524716 hasConceptScore W2015524716C126838900 @default.
• W2015524716 hasConceptScore W2015524716C141341695 @default.
• W2015524716 hasConceptScore W2015524716C144237770 @default.
• W2015524716 hasConceptScore W2015524716C148220186 @default.
• W2015524716 hasConceptScore W2015524716C154945302 @default.
• W2015524716 hasConceptScore W2015524716C164705383 @default.
• W2015524716 hasConceptScore W2015524716C2776502983 @default.
• W2015524716 hasConceptScore W2015524716C2778269268 @default.
• W2015524716 hasConceptScore W2015524716C2780009758 @default.
• W2015524716 hasConceptScore W2015524716C2780868729 @default.
• W2015524716 hasConceptScore W2015524716C2991741193 @default.
• W2015524716 hasConceptScore W2015524716C33923547 @default.
• W2015524716 hasConceptScore W2015524716C41008148 @default.
• W2015524716 hasConceptScore W2015524716C71924100 @default.
• W2015524716 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W2015524716 hasLocation W20155247161 @default.
• W2015524716 hasLocation W20155247162 @default.
• W2015524716 hasOpenAccess W2015524716 @default.
• W2015524716 hasPrimaryLocation W20155247161 @default.
• W2015524716 hasRelatedWork W1514047671 @default.
• W2015524716 hasRelatedWork W2000991419 @default.
• W2015524716 hasRelatedWork W2105463808 @default.
• W2015524716 hasRelatedWork W2145532404 @default.
• W2015524716 hasRelatedWork W2155855469 @default.
• W2015524716 hasRelatedWork W2157728819 @default.
• W2015524716 hasRelatedWork W2982059048 @default.
• W2015524716 hasRelatedWork W3000568411 @default.
• W2015524716 hasRelatedWork W4238549103 @default.
• W2015524716 hasRelatedWork W4241982488 @default.
• W2015524716 hasVolume "3" @default.
• W2015524716 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2015524716 isRetracted "false" @default.

• next