Risk assessment of perioperative adverse events and management of antiplatelet therapy in patients with bladder cancer and coronary atherosclerotic heart disease undergoing transurethral resection of bladder cancer

  • Qi MIAO ,
  • Baoan HONG ,
  • Xuezhou ZHANG ,
  • Zhipeng SUN ,
  • Wei WANG ,
  • Yuxuan WANG ,
  • Yuxuan BO ,
  • Jiahui ZHAO ,
  • Ning ZHANG , *
Expand
  • Department of Urology, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100029, China

Received date: 2025-02-28

  Online published: 2025-08-02

Supported by

Beijing Anzhen Hospital National Cardiovascular Disease Clinical Medical Research Center High Level Research Project(2024AZC3001)

Copyright

All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited.

Abstract

Objective: To explore the risk factors of adverse events during the perioperative period of transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) in bladder cancer patients with coronary atherosclerotic heart disease (CAD). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of bladder cancer patients who underwent TURBT in Beijing Anzhen Hospital from June 2022 to September 2024. All patients with bladder cancer and CAD underwent coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) for diagnosis and assessment of CAD before surgery. Based on the CCTA results, the patients with bladder cancer and CAD were divided into two groups: those with mild to moderate coronary stenosis and those with severe coronary stenosis. The severe coronary stenosis group was further divided into two subgroups based on whether they received low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) bridging therapy or continued their antiplatelet treatment before surgery. Perioperative anticoagulation and antiplatelet strategies were adjusted according to the opinions of the specialists. The incidence of adverse events within 30 days postoperatively was followed up and analyzed. Results: A total of 80 bladder cancer patients with CAD who underwent TURBT were included in the study. Among the 80 patients with CAD, 55 (68.8%) had mild to moderate coronary stenosis, and 25 (31.2%) had severe coronary stenosis. Compared with those had mild to moderate coronary stenosis, the patients who had severe coronary stenosis had a higher incidence of postoperative bleeding and pulmonary embolism, although the differences were not statistically significant (P>0.05). However, the incidence of postoperative myocardial infarction was significantly higher in the patients who had severe coronary stenosis (P=0.034). Among the patients with severe coronary stenosis, 8 (32.0%) received LMWH bridging therapy before TURBT, and 17 (68.0%) continued their previous antiplatelet treatment. Compared with those who continued antiplatelet treatment, the patients who received LMWH bridging therapy had a higher incidence of postoperative bleeding and pulmonary embo-lism, although the differences were not statistically significant (P>0.05). However, the incidence of postoperative myocardial infarction was significantly higher in the LMWH bridging group (P=0.032). Conclusion: Patients with mild-to-moderate coronary stenosis demonstrate relatively low perioperative risk during TURBT procedures and may safely undergo TURBT following antiplatelet therapy discontinuation. Conversely, those with severe coronary stenosis exhibit significantly higher perioperative risk and require intensive monitoring. In bladder cancer patients with concomitant severe coronary stenosis, perioperative LMWH bridging therapy is associated with increased myocardial infarction risk, whereas continued antiplatelet therapy does not elevate postoperative bleeding risk. Current evidence therefore supports maintaining antiplatelet therapy in these patients, with appropriate bleeding risk assessment.

Cite this article

Qi MIAO , Baoan HONG , Xuezhou ZHANG , Zhipeng SUN , Wei WANG , Yuxuan WANG , Yuxuan BO , Jiahui ZHAO , Ning ZHANG . Risk assessment of perioperative adverse events and management of antiplatelet therapy in patients with bladder cancer and coronary atherosclerotic heart disease undergoing transurethral resection of bladder cancer[J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2025 , 57(4) : 698 -703 . DOI: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2025.04.011

随着人口老龄化加剧,癌症和心血管疾病(cardiovascular disease,CVD)逐渐成为当今世界上主要的两种疾病类型[1-2]。除了具有共同的风险因素,这两类疾病还具有共同的病理生理机制,使得癌症患者更易患CVD、CVD患者更易患癌症,并最终导致癌症合并CVD的患者越来越多[3-7]。此外,与非动脉粥样硬化性CVD相比,动脉粥样硬化性CVD,即冠状动脉粥样硬化性心脏病(coronary atherosclerotic heart disease,CAD),与肺癌、膀胱癌等癌症的相关性更为密切[5]。具有CAD等合并症的癌症患者不仅预后更差,且外科治疗时面临挑战更多[8]
膀胱癌是泌尿系统常见的恶性肿瘤之一,约占新发癌症的6%和癌症相关死亡的4%[9]。研究表明,膀胱癌患者更易患CAD,具有合并症的患者预后更差,死于CAD的风险更高[9-10]。对于需要行经尿道膀胱肿瘤切除术(transurethral resection of bladder tumor,TURBT)的膀胱癌合并CAD患者,如何进行科学合理的手术前临床用药决策逐渐成为重要课题。一方面,由于膀胱患者需要及时行TURBT以明确膀胱癌的病理类型,控制膀胱癌进展;另一方面,由于合并CAD,这些膀胱癌患者需要长期进行抗血小板治疗。如果停止抗血小板治疗,则患者围手术期心血管事件风险增加;如果维持抗血小板治疗,则患者术中及术后可能出现难以控制的出血事件。因此,对于这类患者,如何评估和控制围手术期心血管事件风险和出血事件等围手术期不良事件发生率,选择合理的围手术期抗血小板治疗策略至关重要。本研究旨在探索合并CAD的膀胱癌患者围手术期如何选择抗凝及抗血小板治疗策略。

1 资料与方法

1.1 研究设计

选择2022年6月1日至2024年9月30日在北京安贞医院泌尿外科接受TURBT手术治疗、合并CAD且病理诊断为膀胱癌患者的病例资料进行回顾性分析。排除标准包括:(1)未行经尿道膀胱肿瘤切除术者;(2)手术前未行冠状动脉计算机断层扫描(coronary computed tomography angiography CCTA)评估冠状动脉狭窄情况者;(3)患者病历资料记录不全者;(4)术前未针对CAD围手术期抗凝及抗血小板治疗方案进行心内科会诊者。本研究已经北京安贞医院伦理委员会审查批准(2025117X)。

1.2 数据收集

通过查阅医院电子病历系统以及电话随访的方式收集患者的人口学特征信息[包括年龄、性别、合并症(高血压、糖尿病)]和手术后30 d内的围手术期不良事件[11-12],以及既往CAD治疗情况,术前CCTA结果等。

1.3 围手术期处理

所有膀胱癌合并CAD患者均在术前5 d内进行CCTA检查,并确定相应的围手术期抗凝或抗血小板治疗策略。根据冠状动脉狭窄程度将患者分为冠状动脉轻中度狭窄组(冠状动脉狭窄程度≤70%)以及冠状动脉重度狭窄组(冠状动脉狭窄程度>70%)两组。对于冠状动脉轻中度狭窄组患者,术前5 d停止抗血小板治疗。对于冠状动脉重度狭窄组的患者,维持抗血小板治疗或术前5 d停止抗血小板治疗后给予低分子肝素(low-molecular-weight heparin, LMWH)桥接治疗。术前LMWH桥接治疗按照剂量1 mg/kg,每日两次皮下注射进行。所有患者手术后均在1 d内恢复既往抗血小板治疗方案。

1.4 统计学分析

使用R 4.3.2软件,连续变量使用Shapiro-Wilk正态性检验评估数据的正态性,本研究包括的连续变量均符合正态分布,以均数±标准差表示。分类变量以n(%)表示。统计检验采用t检验或χ2检验,P<0.05认为差异具有统计学意义。

2 结果

2.1 患者特征

研究共纳入80例膀胱癌合并CAD患者,包括冠状动脉轻中度狭窄组患者55例(68.8%)和冠状动脉重度狭窄组患者25例(31.2%,表 1)。冠状动脉重度狭窄组患者男性占比更高(100% vs. 87.3%),但差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。此外,两组患者在年龄、体重指数(body mass index, BMI)、肿瘤分期、肿瘤数量、肿瘤最大径、高血压患者以及糖尿病患者比例等方面差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。在围手术期不良事件方面(表 2),冠状动脉轻中度狭窄组患者没有发生术后心肌梗死等不良事件,而冠状动脉重度狭窄组患者中2例患者死于术后急性心肌梗死,显著高于冠状动脉轻中度狭窄组(P=0.034)。此外,冠状动脉重度狭窄组患者有1例患者术后血尿,1例患者死于肺栓塞,但与冠状动脉轻中度狭窄组相比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。
表1 合并CAD的膀胱癌患者人口学情况和基线临床特征

Table 1 Demographic and baseline clinical characteristics of patients with bladder cancer and CAD

Characteristics Severe Mild to moderate P value
Total 25 (31) 55 (69)
Gender 0.062
    Male 25 (100) 48 (87.3)
    Female 0 (0) 7 (12.7)
Age/years 72.7±8.2 73.9±8.3 0.554
BMI/(kg/m2) 26.2±3.5 25.3±3.3 0.328
Hypertension 0.486
    No 5 (20) 15 (27.3)
    Yes 20 (80) 40 (72.7)
Diabetes 0.487
    No 12 (48) 31 (56.4)
    Yes 13 (52) 24 (43.6)
T classification at TURBT 0.520
    Ta 16 (64) 31 (56.4)
    T1 9 (36) 24 (43.6)
Tumor number 0.305
    Single 11 (44) 31 (56.4)
    Multiple 14 (56) 24 (43.6)
Tumor maximum diameter/cm 0.594
    ≤1 8 (32) 21 (38.2)
    >1 17 (68) 34 (61.8)

Data were ${\bar x}$±s or n (%). Severe, severe coronary artery stenosis group; Mild to moderate, mild to moderate coronary artery stenosis group. TURBT, transurethral resection of bladder tumor.

表2 合并CAD膀胱癌患者的围手术期不良事件

Table 2 Perioperative adverse events in patients with bladder cancer and CAD

Adverse events Severe Mild to moderate P value
Total 25 (31) 55 (69)
Postoperative bleeding 0.136
    No 24 (96) 55 (100)
    Yes 1 (4) 0 (0)
Myocardial infarction 0.034
    No 23 (92) 55 (100)
    Yes 2 (8) 0 (0)
Pulmonary embolism 0.136
    No 24 (96) 55 (100)
    Yes 1 (4) 0 (0)

Data were n (%). Severe, severe coronary artery stenosis group; Mild to moderate, mild to moderate coronary artery stenosis group.

2.2 冠状动脉重度狭窄组患者围手术期治疗和结果

25例冠状动脉重度狭窄组患者中,有8(32.0%)例患者入院时已停用抗血小板治疗药物并进行术前LMWH桥接抗凝治疗(表 3),其余17(68.0%)例患者维持抗血小板治疗。两个亚组患者在年龄、BMI、肿瘤分期、肿瘤数量、肿瘤最大径、高血压患者比例等方面差异均无统计学意义,且患者均为男性。术前LMWH桥接治疗亚组糖尿病患者比例高于维持抗血小板治疗亚组(87.5% vs. 35.3%,P=0.015); 术前LMWH桥接治疗亚组患者术后血尿(12.5% vs. 0%)、肺栓塞(12.5% vs. 0%)比例高于维持抗血小板治疗亚组,但差异均无统计学意义(表 4)。此外,术前LMWH桥接治疗亚组患者急性心肌梗死比例显著高于维持抗血小板治疗亚组(25.0% vs. 0%,P=0.032)。
表3 冠状动脉重度狭窄的膀胱癌患者的人口学和基线临床特征

Table 3 Demographic and baseline clinical characteristics of patients with bladder cancer and severe coronary artery disease

Characteristics LMWH bridging Anti-plate treatment P value
Total 8 17
Age/years 70.4±9.6 73.9±7.5 0.328
BMI/(kg/m2) 26.7±4.4 26.0±3.3 0.677
Hypertension 0.133
    No 3 (37.5) 2 (11.8)
    Yes 5 (62.5) 15 (88.2)
Diabetes 0.015
    No 1 (12.5) 11 (64.7)
    Yes 7 (87.5) 6 (35.3)
T classification at TURBT 0.058
    Ta 3 (37.5) 13 (76.5)
    T1 5 (62.5) 4 (23.5)
Tumor number 0.653
    Single 3 (37.5) 8 (47.1)
    Multiple 5 (62.5) 9 (52.9)
Tumor maximum diameter/ cm 0.686
    ≤1 3 (37.5) 5 (29.4)
    >1 5 (62.5) 12 (70.6)

Data were ${\bar x}$±s or n (%).TURBT, transurethral resection of bladder tumor; LMWH, low-molecular-weight heparin.

表4 冠状动脉重度狭窄的膀胱癌患者的围手术期不良事件

Table 4 Perioperative adverse events in patients with bladder cancer and severe coronary artery disease

Adverse events LMWH bridging Anti-plate treatment P value
Total 8 17
Postoperative bleeding 0.137
    No 7 (87.5) 17 (100)
    Yes 1 (12.5) 0 (0)
Myocardial infarction 0.032
    No 6 (75) 17 (100)
    Yes 2 (25) 0 (0)
Pulmonary embolism 0.137
    No 7 (87.5) 17 (100)
    Yes 1 (12.5) 0 (0)

Data were n (%). LMWH, low-molecular-weight heparin.

3 讨论

随着癌症和CVD患者持续增多,癌症和CVD已成为世界人口的两大主要死因[1-2, 5]。由于癌症治疗相关的心脏毒性、缺乏身体活动等,癌症患者患CVD的风险更高[13-14]。由于循环可溶性因子的释放等,CVD患者,尤其是CAD患者,患癌风险显著高于一般人群[5, 15-16]。综合上述原因,癌症合并CAD患者持续增多[14]。2020年,全球有573 278人新诊断出患有膀胱癌,且根据世界卫生组织的预测,预计到2040年膀胱癌患病人数将增加一倍[17]。随着膀胱癌合并CAD患者持续增多,如何对这些患者做出更科学的手术前CAD用药决策已成为重要的临床课题[5]
本研究中,与冠状动脉轻中度狭窄组患者相比,重度狭窄组患者不良事件风险高,这可能是由于在非心脏手术期间,冠状动脉狭窄背景下的氧气供需失衡等原因导致的心肌缺血[18]。由于冠状动脉轻中度狭窄组的患者所面临的非心脏手术期间缺血风险相对较低,术前停止抗血小板治疗所面临的心肌缺血以及术后出血风险均较低,而冠状动脉重度狭窄组的患者则仍然需要维持抗血小板治疗或进行桥接抗凝治疗以预防心肌缺血事件的发生。因此对于膀胱癌合并CAD患者,术前进行CCTA检查以评估冠状动脉狭窄程度以及围手术期进行严密的心电监护是必要的。
CAD患者通常需要长期维持抗血小板治疗,如果TURBT前停用抗血小板治疗药物,患者面临较高的围手术期心血管事件的风险;反之,如果患者维持抗血小板治疗,则面临术中及术后出血的风险。如何在心血管事件风险与出血事件风险之中找到平衡是重要的临床问题,临床医生需要从手术出血风险,患者年龄、冠状动脉狭窄程度以及是否合并其他基础疾病等多方面进行评估。既往研究在进行非心脏的手术治疗CAD患者中,维持阿司匹林抗血小板治疗组和安慰剂组患者在围手术期死亡或非致命性心肌梗死的主要复合结局未观察到显著差异,然而与安慰剂组相比,阿司匹林给药增加了术后大出血的风险[19]。本研究结果显示对于冠状动脉轻中度狭窄组患者,TURBT术前停用抗血小板治疗药物未见导致患者围手术期心血管事件风险增加。考虑到维持抗血小板治疗可能增加的出血风险,因此对于冠状动脉狭窄程度较轻,即心肌缺血风险较低的患者,停用抗血小板药物后行TURBT是较为安全的。然而,有研究表明,对于心肌缺血风险较高的患者,围手术期维持抗血小板治疗可显著降低围手术期心血管事件风险[20]。本研究显示,在冠状动脉重度狭窄组患者中,TURBT术前维持抗血小板治疗亚组与术前LMWH桥接抗凝治疗亚组相比,术后心肌梗死风险更低。虽然LMWH的抗凝血作用具有短效、易控制等优点,但是由于作用机制不同,用LMWH桥接替代抗血小板治疗可能使患者心血管事件风险增加,因此维持抗血小板治疗可能是更好的选择。此外,在本研究中,术前LMWH桥接治疗亚组的患者出现了1例术后难以控制的血尿,而维持抗血小板治疗亚组患者则没有出现,虽然组间术后出血风险差异无统计学意义,但这可能是样本量较少等原因导致的。目前尚无充分证据表明术前LMWH桥接治疗可使患者术后不良事件风险降低[21]。此外,术前LMWH桥接治疗亚组出现了1例患者术后死于肺栓塞。根据既往研究结果,在预防肺栓塞方面,LMWH与阿司匹林的效果差异并无统计学意义[22]。因此推测可能是由于患者本身高龄、肥胖且合并糖尿病等原因导致的急性肺栓塞。对于具有以上危险因素的患者,围手术期应严密监测患者的凝血指标,以防止肺栓塞等不良事件的发生[23-25]。结合本研究4例发生术后不良事件的患者,对于合并冠状动脉重度狭窄的患者,术前应完善心电图、心肌酶谱、B型利尿肽等心功能相关检查,以及凝血因子等凝血相关检查,并在围手术期准备好急诊取栓器或体外膜氧合仪等,以预防围手术期严重不良事件的发生。本课题组认为,对于合并冠状动脉重度狭窄的膀胱癌患者,在平衡出血和血栓风险的前提下,维持抗血小板药物的治疗可能是更安全的选择,而术前LMWH桥接治疗时应在结合心内科专科医生会诊意见等情况下谨慎进行。
本研究存在一定的局限性,首先,本研究属于单中心的回顾性研究,分析结果难以避免受到选择偏倚的影响,对于合并CAD病史患者行TURBT有赖于术者的经验和术前风险评估;其次,本研究的样本量相对较少,本课题组排除了部分术前未进行CCTA评估的CAD病史膀胱癌患者,这导致本研究样本量偏少,从而在一定程度上削弱了统计效能,如在冠状动脉重度狭窄组患者,进行术前LMWH桥接治疗亚组中出现2例心肌梗死患者,与维持抗血小板治疗亚组相比差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05), 但是由于患者总例数较少,后续研究需要继续增加样本量,并进行多研究中心合作,来进一步验证本研究的结论。
综上所述,本研究表明,合并CAD的膀胱癌患者行TURBT时, 冠状动脉狭窄程度越重,发生围手术期不良事件的风险越高。对于冠状动脉轻中度狭窄的患者,停止既往抗血小板治疗后进行TURBT不会增加术后心血管事件风险。对于冠状动脉重度狭窄的患者,在严密监测和严格的围术期管理下,患者围手术期维持抗血小板治疗面临的心血管事件风险更低且不增加术后出血风险,而选择LMWH桥接治疗时心血管事件风险更高,应密切关注围手术期心血管事件以及出血事件等,并准备好及时救治措施。因此,在对合并CAD的膀胱癌患者进行谨慎的围手术期不良事件风险评估、全面的术前检查和手术规划、合理的围术期的抗血小板治疗选择、细致的围手术期护理以及监测后,TURBT是可以安全实现的。

利益冲突  所有作者均声明不存在利益冲突。

作者贡献声明  缪祺、洪保安、张学舟、孙志鹏、王维、王宇轩、薄予轩:收集整理数据;缪祺、赵佳晖:分析数据;缪祺:设计研究方案;张宁:指导审定论文。所有作者均参与撰写和修改论文。

1
Siegel RL , Giaquinto AN , Jemal A . Cancer statistics, 2024[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2024, 74 (1): 12- 49.

2
GBD 2019 Diseases and Injuries Collaborators . Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019:A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019[J]. Lancet, 2020, 396 (10258): 1204- 1222.

3
Avraham S , Abu-Sharki S , Shofti R , et al. Early cardiac remodeling promotes tumor growth and metastasis[J]. Circulation, 2020, 142 (7): 670- 683.

4
Koelwyn GJ , Newman AAC , Afonso MS , et al. Myocardial infarction accelerates breast cancer via innate immune reprogramming[J]. Nat Med, 2020, 26 (9): 1452- 1458.

5
Bell CF , Lei X , Haas A , et al. Risk of cancer after diagnosis of cardiovascular disease[J]. JACC CardioOncol, 2023, 5 (4): 431- 440.

6
Florido R , Daya NR , Ndumele CE , et al. Cardiovascular disease risk among cancer survivors: The atherosclerosis risk in communities (ARIC) study[J]. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2022, 80 (1): 22- 32.

7
Zhang S , Liu L , Shi S , et al. Bidirectional association between cardiovascular disease and lung cancer in a prospective cohort study[J]. J Thorac Oncol, 2024, 19 (1): 80- 93.

8
Read WL , Tierney RM , Page NC , et al. Differential prognostic impact of comorbidity[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2004, 22 (15): 3099- 3103.

9
Huntley C , Torr B , Sud A , et al. Utility of polygenic risk scores in UK cancer screening: A modelling analysis[J]. Lancet Oncol, 2023, 24 (6): 658- 668.

10
Sturgeon KM , Deng L , Bluethmann SM , et al. A population-based study of cardiovascular disease mortality risk in US cancer patients[J]. Eur Heart J, 2019, 40 (48): 3889- 3897.

11
Smilowitz NR , Berger JS . Perioperative cardiovascular risk assessment and management for noncardiac surgery: A review[J]. JAMA, 2020, 324 (3): 279- 290.

12
Oh AR , Park J , Lee JH , et al. Association between perioperative adverse cardiac events and mortality during one-year follow-up after noncardiac surgery[J]. J Am Heart Assoc, 2022, 11 (8): e024325.

13
Meacham LR , Chow EJ , Ness KK , et al. Cardiovascular risk factors in adult survivors of pediatric cancer: A report from the childhood cancer survivor study[J]. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 2010, 19 (1): 170- 181.

14
Battisti NML , Welch CA , Sweeting M , et al. Prevalence of cardiovascular disease in patients with potentially curable malignancies: A national registry dataset analysis[J]. JACC CardioOncol, 2022, 4 (2): 238- 253.

15
Hershman DL , Till C , Shen S , et al. Association of cardiovascular risk factors with cardiac events and survival outcomes among patients with breast cancer enrolled in SWOG clinical trials[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2018, 36 (26): 2710- 2717.

16
Carpeggiani C , Landi P , Michelassi C , et al. Stress echocardiography positivity predicts cancer death[J]. J Am Heart Assoc, 2017, 6 (12): e007104.

17
Sung H , Ferlay J , Siegel RL , et al. Global cancer statistics 2020:GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2021, 71 (3): 209- 249.

18
Weiser TG , Haynes AB , Molina G , et al. Estimate of the global volume of surgery in 2012:An assessment supporting improved health outcomes[J]. Lancet, 2015, 385 (Suppl 2): S11.

19
Devereaux PJ , Mrkobrada M , Sessler DI , et al. Aspirin in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery[J]. N Engl J Med, 2014, 370 (16): 1494- 1503.

20
Graham MM , Sessler DI , Parlow JL , et al. Aspirin in patients with previous percutaneous coronary intervention undergoing noncardiac surgery[J]. Ann Intern Med, 2018, 168 (4): 237- 244.

21
Roffi M , Patrono C , Collet JP , et al. 2015 ESC guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation: Task Force for the Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes in Patients Presenting without persistent ST-Segment Elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)[J]. Eur Heart J, 2016, 37 (3): 267- 315.

22
Meng J , Liu W , Xiao Y , et al. The role of aspirin versus low-molecular-weight heparin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials[J]. Int J Surg, 2023, 109 (11): 3648- 3655.

23
Schmitt VH , Hobohm L , Sivanathan V , et al. Diabetes mellitus and its impact on mortality rate and outcome in pulmonary embolism[J]. J Diabetes Investig, 2022, 13 (4): 725- 737.

24
Lutsey PL , Zakai NA . Epidemiology and prevention of venous thromboembolism[J]. Nat Rev Cardiol, 2023, 20 (4): 248- 262.

25
Khan F , Tritschler T , Kahn SR , et al. Venous thromboembolism[J]. Lancet, 2021, 398 (10294): 64- 77.

Outlines

/