Logo
Hepat Mon

Image Credit:Hepat Mon

Clinical Investigation of Hepatic Function Impairment Induced by Low Molecular Weight Heparin During Perioperative Period of Esophageal Cancer Surgery

Author(s):
Fuchen XingFuchen Xing1, Saiguang JiSaiguang Ji1, Jian XuJian Xu1, Hai ZhouHai Zhou1, Chenyan WangChenyan Wang1, Wei SunWei Sun1, Zhong GuoZhong Guo1, Hong LiuHong Liu1,*
1 Department of Thoracic Surgery, The Second Hospital of Nanjing, Affiliated to Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, China

Hepatitis Monthly:Vol. 25, issue 1; e157957
Published online:May 26, 2025
Article type:Research Article
Received:Nov 12, 2024
Accepted:May 10, 2025
How to Cite:Xing F, Ji S, Xu J, Zhou H, Wang C, et al. Clinical Investigation of Hepatic Function Impairment Induced by Low Molecular Weight Heparin During Perioperative Period of Esophageal Cancer Surgery.Hepat Mon.2025;25(1):e157957.https://doi.org/10.5812/hepatmon-157957.

Abstract

Background:

Esophageal carcinoma poses a significant global health challenge, marked by high incidence rates and poor prognosis. This study aimed to assess the impact of low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) on liver function during the perioperative period of esophageal cancer surgery, particularly given the hepatotoxic potential of LMWH that remains underexplored.

Objectives:

The present study aimed to evaluate the effects of LMWH on liver function in patients undergoing esophageal cancer surgery.

Methods:

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 31 patients who underwent complete endoscopic radical removal of esophageal cancer between February 2023 and June 2024, with a mean age of 57.32 years. Participants were divided into an LMWH group (n = 21) and a control group (n = 10). Clinical data were compared, and liver function markers — direct bilirubin, indirect bilirubin, cholinesterase, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) — were measured preoperatively and on postoperative days 1, 3, 5, 7, and 11. Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Results:

No significant differences in demographic and clinical parameters were found between the LMWH and control groups (P > 0.05). Both groups showed similar trends in bilirubin levels, with significant postoperative changes (P < 0.05). Cholinesterase levels decreased initially but increased by day seven post-surgery. Differences in ALT and AST levels were noted on specific postoperative days, indicating varied liver function responses to treatment (P < 0.05).

Conclusions:

Patients undergoing esophageal cancer surgery who receive LMWH may experience liver dysfunction. Continuous monitoring of liver enzyme levels is recommended, and alternative anticoagulation strategies should be considered if impairment is observed.

1. Background

Esophageal carcinoma is one of the most prevalent forms of cancer globally, with an unfavorable prognosis. The incidence and mortality rates of this cancer vary by region, with approximately 80% of cases occurring in underdeveloped countries (1). Recent statistics indicate a rising incidence of esophageal cancer, particularly in developing countries, with a notable increase in adenocarcinoma cases attributed to obesity and gastroesophageal reflux disease. According to the Global Cancer Observatory, approximately 604,000 new cases were reported in 2020, underscoring the urgent need for effective treatment strategies (2).

The primary treatment for esophageal cancer involves surgical resection, often combined with neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapies such as chemotherapy and radiation. Despite advancements in surgical techniques and perioperative care, managing thrombotic risks during surgery remains critical, leading to the frequent use of low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, the hepatotoxic potential of LMWH, particularly concerning liver function during the perioperative period, has not been thoroughly investigated (3).

Currently, esophagectomy is an effective method for treating esophageal cancer. However, due to the high failure rate of a single method (i.e., esophagectomy alone), most cases are treated with combination therapy, including neoadjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy or perioperative chemotherapy (4). The LMWH are anticoagulants derived from unfractionated heparin through depolymerization, featuring shorter chains of glycosaminoglycans with a molecular weight typically between 2,000 and 8,000 Daltons. Their structure includes sulfated glucosaminoglycans that enhance the activity of antithrombin III, primarily inhibiting factor Xa and, to a lesser extent, factor IIa (thrombin) (5).

The LMWH are widely utilized in clinical settings for the prophylaxis and treatment of VTE, acute coronary syndrome, and are considered safe for use during pregnancy (6). Recent studies have also explored their potential antitumor properties and benefits in postoperative recovery, highlighting their favorable safety profile compared to unfractionated heparin. The LMWH, as an anticoagulant, have been widely used in the perioperative period of esophageal cancer, and low-molecular heparin is easier to administer subcutaneously, with a longer half-life and no need for frequent dosing (7).

The LMWH has emerged as a promising adjunct therapy in the management of esophageal cancer. Traditionally used for its anticoagulant properties, recent studies suggest that LMWH may also possess antitumor effects, potentially improving patient outcomes. Research indicates that LMWH can inhibit tumor growth and metastasis by modulating the tumor microenvironment and enhancing immune responses (8). It is important to mention that drug-induced hepatotoxicity is among the frequently observed adverse reactions to medication in a clinical setting. The symptoms vary from slight liver impairment to sudden liver collapse. Bleeding is the primary side effect of low molecular weight heparin, which is widely utilized as a parenteral anticoagulant (9). However, it is not uncommon to report hepatotoxicity caused by low molecular weight heparin. The research focused on 31 instances of complete removal of esophageal cancer, aiming to analyze the impact of low molecular weight heparin on liver function during the perioperative period of esophageal cancer surgery (10).

2. Objectives

The present study aims to explore the impact of LMWH on liver function in patients undergoing complete esophageal cancer resection, thereby contributing to the development of safer therapeutic strategies for this vulnerable population.

3. Methods

3.1. Objectives

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 31 instances of complete endoscopic radical removal of esophageal cancer that occurred between February 2023 and June 2024. The average age of the patients was 57.32 ± 6.91 years. All individuals met the diagnostic criteria for esophageal carcinoma and had preoperative child grade A liver function. Their clinical data were comprehensive and precise, with no records of drug hypersensitivity, mental illness, or other medical conditions. Moreover, informed consent forms were signed by all patients’ relatives. Exclusion criteria included coagulation dysfunction, serious damage to the function of important organs such as the heart, liver, and kidneys, a history of mental illness, and patients who could not cooperate with the completion of this study.

3.2. Study Group

A total of 31 cases were divided into two groups, namely the LMWH group (n = 21) and the control group (n = 10), using random allocation. Patients in the LMWH group initiated anticoagulant treatment using LMWH 24 hours post-surgery. One patient ceased heparin on the 11th day, 13 patients ceased heparin on the 7th day, and 7 patients continued heparin. Conversely, individuals in the control group did not undergo postoperative anticoagulant therapy with LMWH. If a patient had liver function damage, it was treated with magnesium isoglycyrrhizinate and glutathione, and if the liver function did not significantly improve, low molecular weight heparin was stopped.

3.3. Observation Indicators

3.3.1. Statistical Analysis of Clinical Data of Two Groups of Patients

Clinical data of patients were selected, including gender, height, age, presence or absence of basic diseases (hypertension, diabetes, and coronary heart disease), operation mode (via mediastinum and full-cavity endoscope), ligation of thoracic duct, operation time, blood loss, and postoperative hospitalization time.

3.3.2. Analysis of Liver Function Indexes of Patients in the Two Groups

Collect 5 mL of blood samples from the elbow vein prior to surgery, on the day following surgery, on the third day following surgery, on the fifth day following surgery, on the seventh day following surgery, and on the 11th day following surgery, respectively. Centrifuge the samples at a speed of 3000 rotations per minute for 10 minutes, then collect the liquid above the sediment. Finally, utilize an automatic biochemical analyzer to determine the levels of direct bilirubin, indirect bilirubin, cholinesterase, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and alanine aminotransferase (ALT).

3.4. Statistical Methods

The data in this study were processed using SPSS 20.0 statistical analysis software (IBM, USA). The measurement data were expressed as "mean ± standard deviation" (± SD), and the comparison between groups was analyzed by one-way ANOVA. Counting data were expressed as percentages (%), and χ2 analysis was used for comparison between groups. A P-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

4. Results

4.1. Statistical Analysis of Clinical Data of Two Groups of Patients

No notable distinctions were observed between the two groups in terms of gender, height, age, weight, underlying conditions (such as hypertension, diabetes, coronary heart disease), surgical approach (mediastinum, full-cavity endoscope), thoracic duct ligation, duration of surgery, amount of blood loss, and length of postoperative hospital stay (P > 0.05) (Table 1).

Table 1.Statistical Analysis of Clinical Data of Two Groups of Patients a
Clinical DataLow Molecular Weight Heparin Group (n = 21)Control Group (n = 10)χ2/t-ValueP-Value
Gender1.0010.105
Man15 (71.43)8 (80.00)
Woman6 (28.57)2 (20.00)
Age (y)70.19 ± 6.4169.50 ± 7.150.4730.648
Height (cm)165.95 ± 7.86167.30 ± 8.340.7190.491
Weight (kg)62.30 ± 9.6962.20 ± 6.800.2720.792
Underlying diseases0.1350.905
Hypertension9 (42.86)3 (30.00)
Diabetes2 (9.52)2 (20.00)
Coronary heart Disease1 (4.76)1 (10.00)
Operation mode1.0001.000
Transmediastinal00
Full cavity mirror21 (100.00)10 (100.00)
Ligation of thoracic duct1.0001.000
Be1 (4.76)0
No20 (95.24)10 (100.00)
Operation time (min)132.29 ± 51.93131.00 ± 15.060.9630.176
Blood loss during operation (mL)52.86 ± 4.0340.00 ± 25.821.2810.232
Postoperative hospitalization time (d)11.48 ± 2.3810.70 ± 1.771.0810.308

Statistical Analysis of Clinical Data of Two Groups of Patients a

4.2. Comparison of Direct Bilirubin Levels Between the Two Groups Before and After Operation

No notable disparity in the levels of direct bilirubin was observed between the two groups prior to surgery, as well as on the first, third, fifth, seventh, and eleventh days post-surgery (P > 0.05). The direct bilirubin level in both groups began to rise on the first day following surgery and subsequently declined by the 11th day post-surgery. This change was statistically significant (P < 0.05) (Table 2).

Table 2.Comparison of Preoperative and Postoperative Direct Bilirubin Levels Between the Two Groups a
GroupsPreoperativeThe First Day After OperationOn the Third Day After OperationOn the Fifth Day After OperationThe 7th Day After OperationOn the 11th Postoperative DayVariance RatioP-Value
Low molecular weight heparin group (n = 21)3.65 ± 1.164.71 ± 2.395.41 ± 2.095.77 ± 4.045.44 ± 4.754.33 ± 3.0414.4210.001
Control group (n = 10)3.48 ± 1.263.95 ± 1.803.72 ± 1.173.89 ± 1.474.67 ± 1.934.40 ± 1.7313.9780.001
t-value0.2040.3791.3750.9810.0450.228--
P-value0.8430.7130.2080.3520.9650.825--

Comparison of Preoperative and Postoperative Direct Bilirubin Levels Between the Two Groups a

4.3. Comparison of Preoperative and Postoperative Indirect Bilirubin Levels Between the Two Groups

No notable disparity in the level of indirect bilirubin was observed between the two groups prior to surgery, as well as on the first, third, fifth, seventh, and eleventh days post-surgery (P > 0.05). Indirect bilirubin levels in both groups began to rise on the first day following surgery and subsequently declined by the seventh day post-operation. This change was statistically significant (P < 0.05) (Table 3).

Table 3.Comparison of Preoperative and Postoperative Indirect Bilirubin Levels Between the Two Groups a
GroupsPreoperativeThe First Day After OperationOn the Third Day After OperationOn the Fifth Day After OperationThe 7th Day After OperationOn the 11th Postoperative DayVariance RatioP-Value
Low molecular weight heparin group (n = 21)4.69 ± 2.185.51 ± 3.607.49 ± 4.424.57 ± 3.033.80 ± 3.003.22 ± 1.749.8560.001
Control group (n = 10)4.24 ± 2.284.63 ± 2.764.38 ± 1.823.34 ± 1.553.34 ± 1.493.80 ± 2.335.8850.001
t-value0.0870.0681.7001.2740.7401.132--
P-value0.9320.9470.1230.2350.4780.287--

Comparison of Preoperative and Postoperative Indirect Bilirubin Levels Between the Two Groups a

4.4. Comparison of Cholinesterase Levels Between the Two Groups Before and After Operation

There was no significant difference in cholinesterase levels between the two groups before operation, the first day after operation, the third day after operation, the fifth day after operation, the seventh day after operation and the eleventh day after operation (P > 0.05). The levels of cholinesterase in both groups began to decrease on the 1st postoperative day and to increase on the 7th postoperative day. There was a significant difference between preoperative and postoperative cholinesterase levels (P < 0.05) (Table 4).

Table 4.Comparison of Cholinesterase Levels Before and After Operation Between the Two Groups a
GroupsPreoperativeThe First Day After OperationOn the Third Day After OperationOn the Fifth Day After OperationThe 7th Day After OperationOn the 11th Postoperative DayVariance RatioP-Value
Low molecular weight heparin group (n = 21)6499.57 ± 1314.165793.95 ± 1118.634928.62 ± 1235.374810.19 ± 1305.275071.62 ± 1331.875303.95 ± 1268.7922.2080.001
Control group (n = 10)7351.00 ± 1265.616788.60 ± 788.775792.40 ± 1022.305164.50 ± 863.435608.90 ± 1086.886382.50 ± 1234.7818.3670.001
t-value0.9891.9901.5770.5740.9741.751--
P-value0.3480.0780.1490.5800.3560.114--

Comparison of Cholinesterase Levels Before and After Operation Between the Two Groups a

4.5. Comparison of Alanine Aminotransferase Levels Between the Two Groups Before and After Operation

There was no notable disparity in the levels of ALT between the two groups prior to surgery, immediately following surgery, five days after surgery, and seven days after surgery (P > 0.05). However, there was a significant contrast in the levels of ALT between the two groups on the third day and the eleventh day after surgery (P < 0.05). Additionally, there was a significant distinction in the levels of ALT between the two groups before and after surgery (P < 0.05) (Table 5).

Table 5.Comparison of Alanine Aminotransferase Levels Before and After Operation Between the Two Groups a
GroupsPreoperativeThe First Day After OperationOn the Third Day After OperationOn the Fifth Day After OperationThe 7th Day After OperationOn the 11th Postoperative DayVariance RatioP-Value
Low molecular weight heparin group (n = 21)14.06 ± 4.8136.40 ± 15.3130.50 ± 13.5598.94 ± 13.26129.18 ± 85.1783.94 ± 68.8613.3880.001
Control group (n = 10)17.05 ± 7.8420.65 ± 12.1022.55 ± 8.8622.18 ± 5.5426.80 ± 7.6524.17 ± 5.896.8740.001
t-value1.0252.8620.3773.0013.1312.916--
P-value0.3320.0190.7150.0150.0120.017--

Comparison of Alanine Aminotransferase Levels Before and After Operation Between the Two Groups a

4.6. Comparison of Aspartate Aminotransferase Levels Between Two Groups Before and After Operation

There was no significant difference in the levels of AST between the two groups before the operation and on the third postoperative day (P > 0.05). However, there was a significant difference in the levels of AST between the two groups on the first, fifth, seventh, and eleventh postoperative days (P < 0.05). Additionally, there was a significant difference in the levels of AST between the two groups before and after the operation (P < 0.05) (Table 6).

Table 6.Comparison of Aspartate Aminotransferase Levels Between the Two Groups Before and After Operation a
GroupsPreoperativeThe First Day After OperationOn the Third Day After OperationOn the Fifth Day After OperationThe 7th Day After OperationOn the 11th Postoperative DayVariance RatioP-Value
Low molecular weight heparin group (n = 21)17.98 ± 3.4643.91 ± 14.7728.60 ± 10.6784.12 ± 67.2884.67 ± 55.1855.54 ± 38.9623.7930.001
Control group (n = 10)19.38 ± 7.6720.27 ± 11.5820.41 ± 7.1521.26 ± 3.5123.61 ± 6.7920.94 ± 8.657.9940.001
t-value0.8714.1151.2193.0653.2922.764--
P-value0.4060.0030.2540.0130.0090.022--

Comparison of Aspartate Aminotransferase Levels Between the Two Groups Before and After Operation a

5. Discussion

Anticoagulants are commonly used to prevent and treat various thromboembolic diseases. The mechanism of action of LMWH involves the binding of antithrombin and the irreversible inactivation of coagulation factor Xa, resulting in its anticoagulant effect with a half-life (t1/2) (11). This half-life is significantly longer than that of ordinary heparin, with LMWH’s t1/2 in vivo being about eight times that of ordinary heparin. Its bioavailability for anticoagulant factor Xa activity is three times that of ordinary heparin. After intravenous injection for 12 hours, the bioavailability of subcutaneous administration is nearly 100% (12). Once-daily dosing is sufficient and convenient. Compared to unfractionated heparin, LMWH is considered safer during the perioperative period of esophageal cancer surgery (13), leading to its increased popularity over the former.

Bleeding and thrombocytopenia are frequently observed side effects, while only a limited number of reports suggest that LMWH may cause liver function damage during the perioperative period of esophageal cancer surgery (14). Recent clinical trials investigating LMWH have focused on its safety profile, particularly regarding hepatotoxicity. These studies have shown that while LMWH is generally well-tolerated, there are instances of elevated liver enzymes in a small percentage of patients (15). For instance, trials involving patients with VTE and those undergoing surgery have monitored liver function, revealing that enzyme elevations often resolve upon discontinuation of therapy. The overall incidence of significant hepatotoxicity remains low, suggesting that LMWH can be safely administered in most populations, although careful monitoring is advised for those with pre-existing liver conditions (16).

According to clinical trials and prospective studies, the administration of LMWH during the perioperative phase of surgery for esophageal cancer was found to cause liver function impairment. The occurrence rate was estimated to be between 5% and 9%, with liver function damage being considered three times higher than the usual upper limit of ALT and AST (17). Studies have suggested that LMWH can induce mild oxidative stress in liver cells, potentially leading to transient liver enzyme elevations. The molecular mechanisms underlying this effect are still under investigation, with hypotheses focusing on the drug’s interaction with hepatic endothelial cells and its impact on blood flow and metabolism within the liver (18). Understanding these mechanisms is crucial for developing strategies to mitigate any adverse effects associated with LMWH therapy.

The increase in liver enzymes usually appears 5 - 8 days after heparin is used, and it returns to normal or improves within two weeks after stopping the drug. Similarly, the findings of this research indicated that 18 individuals diagnosed with esophageal carcinoma experienced hepatic impairment within 3 to 5 days following the administration of heparin. Moreover, there was an elevation in liver enzymes while bilirubin levels remained within the normal range (19). Liver protection drugs were used, and the liver function of 4 patients improved. The liver function of 14 patients did not improve significantly and returned to normal within one week after discontinuing low molecular weight heparin.

In their study, Premkumar et al. reported on a male participant who exhibited regular results in liver function testing (20). After esophageal cancer surgery, he began using low molecular weight heparin in the perioperative period, which resulted in transamination after six days. On the ninth day, transamination reached its highest point, and all other identified factors contributing to liver damage were excluded. Serological findings in recent studies have underscored the importance of monitoring liver function tests during LMWH treatment. Elevated serum levels of ALT and AST have been reported, particularly in patients with risk factors such as obesity, alcohol use, or concurrent medications affecting liver metabolism (21). These findings emphasize the need for routine screening of liver enzymes in patients receiving LMWH, especially in high-risk groups. Liver enzyme levels started to improve and return to their normal state within eight weeks after discontinuing the use of low molecular weight heparin.

During the perioperative period, the majority of individuals diagnosed with esophageal cancer do not exhibit any apparent symptoms (14). However, it is possible for them to experience symptoms like nausea, vomiting, and abdominal discomfort.

In this study, cholinesterase levels in patients with esophageal cancer decreased after the operation and generally began to rise gradually within five days, primarily manifesting as an asymptomatic increase in serum transaminase, which usually occurred in the first week of administration. Among the patients with hepatic insufficiency, more than half did not receive liver protection treatment, and about 10% discontinued anticoagulation treatment due to hepatic insufficiency. Nevertheless, the hepatic functionality of every individual gradually improved. For patients who did not receive LMWH, liver enzymes were generally normal after esophageal cancer surgery, with no obvious liver function damage.

A study by Bakshi et al. discovered that approximately 40% of individuals administered LMWH for 35 days following surgery for esophageal cancer experienced liver dysfunction. These patients exhibit no symptoms like nausea, vomiting, or jaundice. However, their liver test results began to increase from the first day of anticoagulant usage, reaching the highest point during the second week. Fortunately, liver function returned to normal without any intervention over time (22). Betancourt et al. also found that LMWH can cause liver function damage in patients with esophageal cancer during the perioperative period, which can return to normal after discontinuing the drug (23).

Regarding liver dysfunction caused by LMWH, it was discovered that seven patients experienced an increase in the levels of ALT, glutamyl transpeptidase, and AST. However, these patients did not show any symptoms (24). Following cessation of drug usage, liver function gradually normalized, with infrequent elevation of bilirubin levels and the majority of individuals displaying no clinical symptoms, aligning with the findings of this investigation. However, Saftoiu et al. observed that a patient diagnosed with esophageal carcinoma experienced nausea and vomiting after consuming LMWH for 48 hours. Additionally, there was an elevation in ALT, glutamyl transpeptidase, and AST levels. Upon modifying the medication, liver function returned to its usual state (25).

Furthermore, it should be emphasized that the use of LMWH, such as enoxaparin sodium, sodium heparin calcium, and fludarabine sodium, can potentially lead to mild liver impairment during clinical use. This typically manifests within the initial week of treatment but tends to resolve rapidly without any intervention or cessation of medication (26, 27). Clinical trials have demonstrated that the development of liver function impairment caused by LMWH encompasses mitochondrial function (28), immune response (29), signal transduction (30), drug metabolism (31), genetic factors (32), environmental influence (33), and various other factors. Senzolo et al. discovered that patients treated with LMWH or unfractionated heparin have a distinct hepatocyte biomarker called miR-122 in their serum. Furthermore, the liver is the sole origin of miR-122 found in circulation (34). Hence, it is hypothesized that enoxaparin sodium has the potential to directly impact the hepatocyte membrane, leading to the overall release of hepatocyte content (35, 36).

Moreover, healthcare professionals seldom consider the impact of LMWH on the liver while prescribing blood thinners, and its harmless, temporary, and reversible consequences may not justify thorough investigation. However, it must be known that higher doses and longer treatment times are related to a higher probability of liver injury, and the establishment of injury mechanisms and how to prevent it need further study (37, 38). Creating awareness about this issue can reduce unnecessary and excessive tests, patient distress, and healthcare expenses. In conclusion, the use of LMWH during the perioperative period of esophageal cancer can lead to liver function impairment. Clinically, we should pay close attention to changes in liver enzyme levels in patients. If liver function damage is evident, we should stop using LMWH and adopt other anticoagulation methods.

Footnotes

References

  • 1.
    Beydoun AS, Stabenau KA, Altman KW, Johnston N. Cancer Risk in Barrett's Esophagus: A Clinical Review. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24(7). [PubMed ID: 37046992]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC10094310]. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24076018.
  • 2.
    Lee SL, Yadav P, Starekova J, Christensen L, Chandereng T, Chappell R, et al. Diagnostic Performance of MRI for Esophageal Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Radiology. 2021;299(3):583-94. [PubMed ID: 33787334]. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2021202857.
  • 3.
    Tran A, Fernando SM, Carrier M, Siegal DM, Inaba K, Vogt K, et al. Efficacy and Safety of Low Molecular Weight Heparin Versus Unfractionated Heparin for Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Trauma Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2022;275(1):19-28. [PubMed ID: 34387202]. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000005157.
  • 4.
    Bistervels IM, Buchmuller A, Wiegers HMG, Ni Ainle F, Tardy B, Donnelly J, et al. Intermediate-dose versus low-dose low-molecular-weight heparin in pregnant and post-partum women with a history of venous thromboembolism (Highlow study): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet. 2022;400(10365):1777-87. [PubMed ID: 36354038]. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)02128-6.
  • 5.
    Feng K, Wang K, Zhou Y, Xue H, Wang F, Jin H, et al. Non-Anticoagulant Activities of Low Molecular Weight Heparins-A Review. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2023;16(9). [PubMed ID: 37765064]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC10537022]. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph16091254.
  • 6.
    Schrag D, Uno H, Rosovsky R, Rutherford C, Sanfilippo K, Villano JL, et al. Direct Oral Anticoagulants vs Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin and Recurrent VTE in Patients With Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2023;329(22):1924-33. [PubMed ID: 37266947]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC10265290]. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.7843.
  • 7.
    Zhou H, Ye LL, Zhou JT, Ma FX, Ma JJ, Zhang JH. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for extended thromboprophylaxis following major abdominal/pelvic cancer-related surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2024;38(3):1131-8. [PubMed ID: 38267639]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-023-10649-y.
  • 8.
    Parthasarathy M, Evan Prince S. The potential effect of phytochemicals and herbal plant remedies for treating drug-induced hepatotoxicity: a review. Mol Biol Rep. 2021;48(5):4767-88. [PubMed ID: 34075538]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11033-021-06444-4.
  • 9.
    Wongweerakit O, Akaraborworn O, Sangthong B, Thongkhao K. Acute portal vein thrombosis in an isolated, blunt, minor liver injury near the porta hepatis. Chin J Traumatol. 2025;28(1):76-8. [PubMed ID: 37838579]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC11840316]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjtee.2023.09.003.
  • 10.
    Lutsey PL, Zakai NA. Epidemiology and prevention of venous thromboembolism. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2023;20(4):248-62. [PubMed ID: 36258120]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC9579604]. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41569-022-00787-6.
  • 11.
    Alexander P, Visagan S, Issa R, Gorantla VR, Thomas SE. Current Trends in the Duration of Anticoagulant Therapy for Venous Thromboembolism: A Systematic Review. Cureus. 2021;13(10). https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.18992.
  • 12.
    Coleman CI, Caroti KS, Abdelgawwad K, Psaroudakis G, Fatoba S, Rivera M, et al. Effectiveness and Safety of Rivaroxaban and Low Molecular Weight Heparin in Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism. JACC CardioOncol. 2023;5(2):189-200. [PubMed ID: 37144109]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC10152194]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccao.2022.10.014.
  • 13.
    Baloch MF, Adepoju AV, Falki V, Hajjaj M, Habet T, Habet K, et al. Comparative Efficacy of Oral Apixaban and Subcutaneous Low Molecular Weight Heparins in the Treatment of Cancer-Associated Thromboembolism: A Meta-Analysis. Cureus. 2023;15(8). e43447. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.43447.
  • 14.
    Yan X, Wang D, Yan P, Li H. Low molecular weight heparin or LMWH plus aspirin in the treatment of unexplained recurrent miscarriage with negative antiphospholipid antibodies: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2022;268:22-30. [PubMed ID: 34794071]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2021.10.036.
  • 15.
    Zaki HA, Hamdi Alkahlout B, Basharat K, Elsayed WAE, Abdelrahim MG, Al-Marri NDR, et al. Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin Versus Warfarin in Adult Cancer Patients as a Precision Medicine for Thrombosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cureus. 2023;15(7). e41268. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.41268.
  • 16.
    Miki Y, Takahashi N, Utsunomiya S, Sasamoto R. Relationship between absorbed dose and changes in liver volume after chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer. Jpn J Radiol. 2023;41(5):561-8. [PubMed ID: 36538162]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-022-01375-x.
  • 17.
    Luo X, Zhang M, Dai W, Xiao X, Li X, Zhu Y, et al. Targeted nanoparticles triggered by plaque microenvironment for atherosclerosis treatment through cascade effects of reactive oxygen species scavenging and anti-inflammation. J Nanobiotechnol. 2024;22(1):440. [PubMed ID: 39061065]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC11282716]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12951-024-02652-9.
  • 18.
    Chen Q, Chen J, Li J, Cheng Y, Zhang R, Liu Z. Recent advances of oxidative stress in thromboangiitis obliterans: biomolecular mechanisms, biomarkers, sources and clinical applications. Thromb Res. 2023;230:64-73. [PubMed ID: 37639784]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.thromres.2023.08.015.
  • 19.
    Yang K, Zheng Y, Peng J, Chen J, Feng H, Yu K, et al. Incidence of Death From Unintentional Injury Among Patients With Cancer in the United States. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(2). e1921647. [PubMed ID: 32083692]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC7043194]. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.21647.
  • 20.
    Premkumar M, Kulkarni AV, Kajal K, Divyaveer S. Principles, Interpretation, and Evidence-Based Role of Viscoelastic Point-of-Care Coagulation Assays in Cirrhosis and Liver Failure. J Clin Exp Hepatol. 2022;12(2):533-43. [PubMed ID: 35535095]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC9077199]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jceh.2021.05.001.
  • 21.
    McMurry HS, Jou J, Shatzel J. The hemostatic and thrombotic complications of liver disease. Eur J Haematol. 2021;107(4):383-92. [PubMed ID: 34258797]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC9009189]. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejh.13688.
  • 22.
    Bakshi N, Chand V, Sangal R, Duggal R. Radiation Induced Liver Injury: Collateral Damage Radiologically Simulating Interval Metastasis in Carcinoma Esophagus; a Diagnostic Dilemma Resolved Through Liver Biopsy. Int J Surg Pathol. 2022;30(8):945-9. [PubMed ID: 35470748]. https://doi.org/10.1177/10668969221095181.
  • 23.
    Betancourt Cuellar SL, Benveniste MF, Truong M, Nguyen QN, Atiyah A, Hofstetter WL, et al. Liver Injury in Patients With Distal Esophageal Carcinoma After Precision Radiation Therapy: Systematic Review of FDG-PET/CT Patterns. Am J Clin Oncol. 2023;46(1):25-30. [PubMed ID: 36562692]. https://doi.org/10.1097/COC.0000000000000960.
  • 24.
    Shai SE, Lin YH, Lai YL, Tang HW, Hsieh YW, Hung SC. Phantom simulation of liver metastasis on a positron emission tomography with computed tomography scan after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for distal esophageal cancer: a case report. J Med Case Rep. 2020;14(1):106. [PubMed ID: 32631396]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC7339402]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13256-020-02391-z.
  • 25.
    Saftoiu A, Hassan C, Areia M, Bhutani MS, Bisschops R, Bories E, et al. Role of gastrointestinal endoscopy in the screening of digestive tract cancers in Europe: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement. Endoscopy. 2020;52(4):293-304. [PubMed ID: 32052404]. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1104-5245.
  • 26.
    Takagi K, Kuise T, Umeda Y, Yoshida R, Yoshida K, Nagai Y, et al. Left Hemihepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Following Esophagectomy with Retrosternal Gastric Tube Reconstruction for Esophageal Cancer. Acta Med Okayama. 2021;75(6):755-8. [PubMed ID: 34955546]. https://doi.org/10.18926/AMO/62818.
  • 27.
    Qi W, Liu J, Li A. Regional Citrate Anticoagulation or Heparin Anticoagulation for Renal Replacement Therapy in Patients With Liver Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2023;29:10760296231174000. [PubMed ID: 37186766]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC10192954]. https://doi.org/10.1177/10760296231174001.
  • 28.
    Jakob DA, Benjamin ER, Liasidis P, Demetriades D. Timing and Type of Venous Thromboembolic Prophylaxis in Isolated Severe Liver Injury Managed Non-Operatively. World J Surg. 2021;45(3):746-53. [PubMed ID: 33211165]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-020-05831-5.
  • 29.
    Towers W, Nguyen SN, Ruegger MC, Salazar E, Donahue KR. Apixaban and Rivaroxaban Anti-Xa Level Monitoring Versus Standard Monitoring in Hospitalized Patients With Acute Kidney Injury. Ann Pharmacother. 2022;56(6):656-63. [PubMed ID: 34541895]. https://doi.org/10.1177/10600280211046087.
  • 30.
    Sharma A, Sharma C, Raina S, Singh B, Dadhwal DS, Dogra V, et al. A randomized open-label trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of triple therapy with aspirin, atorvastatin, and nicorandil in hospitalised patients with SARS Cov-2 infection: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2021;22(1):451. [PubMed ID: 34266452]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC8280682]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05361-y.
  • 31.
    Han JM, Koh Y, Kim SH, Suh SY, Cho YS, Lee JH, et al. Evaluation of Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin for Treatment of Portal Vein Thrombosis in Liver Cirrhosis Patients. Medicina (Kaunas). 2023;59(2). [PubMed ID: 36837493]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC9965161]. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59020292.
  • 32.
    Quan Y, He J, Zou Q, Zhang L, Sun Q, Huang H, et al. Low molecular weight heparin synergistically enhances the efficacy of adoptive and anti-PD-1-based immunotherapy by increasing lymphocyte infiltration in colorectal cancer. J Immunother Cancer. 2023;11(8). [PubMed ID: 37597850]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC10441131]. https://doi.org/10.1136/jitc-2023-007080.
  • 33.
    Cohen AT, Benson G, Bradbury CA, Choudhuri S, Hutchinson Jones N, Maraveyas A, et al. A consensus viewpoint on the role of direct factor Xa inhibitors in the management of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism in the UK. Curr Med Res Opin. 2023;39(3):483-95. [PubMed ID: 36629478]. https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2023.2167441.
  • 34.
    Senzolo M, Piano S, Shalaby S, Tonon M, Tonello S, Zanetto A, et al. Comparison of Fondaparinux and Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin in the Treatment of Portal Vein Thrombosis in Cirrhosis. Am J Med. 2021;134(10):1278-1285 e2. [PubMed ID: 34197784]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2021.05.013.
  • 35.
    Saito T, Kotani T, Suzuki K. Antifibrotic therapy by sustained release of low molecular weight heparin from poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) microparticles on bleomycin-induced pulmonary fibrosis in mice. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):19019. [PubMed ID: 33149192]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC7642430]. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-76034-0.
  • 36.
    Yao W, Feng Y, Liu T, Li W, Zhang M, Yao Y, et al. Rivaroxaban versus low-molecular weight heparin plus warfarin prevents portal vein system thrombosis after splenectomy and pericardial devascularization: A randomized clinical trial. EXCLI J. 2021;20:537-49. [PubMed ID: 33883982]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC8056059]. https://doi.org/10.17179/excli2020-3120.
  • 37.
    Mikolaiczik K, Praetner M, Ruth M, Mark K. Delayed hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, low platelet count syndrome in succession of switches of preventive anticoagulant treatment in a 41-year-old patient with a history of recurrent assisted implantation failures: a case report. J Med Case Rep. 2019;13(1):16. [PubMed ID: 30658715]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC6339357]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13256-018-1943-1.
  • 38.
    Lu H, Zheng C, Xiong B, Xia X. Efficacy and safety of heparin plus dexamethasone after partial splenic embolization for liver cirrhosis with massive splenomegaly. BMC Gastroenterol. 2022;22(1):470. [PubMed ID: 36402985]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC9675231]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-022-02580-8.
comments

Leave a comment here


Crossmark
Crossmark
Checking
Share on
Cited by
Metrics

Purchasing Reprints

  • Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) handles bulk orders for article reprints for Brieflands. To place an order for reprints, please click here (   https://www.copyright.com/landing/reprintsinquiryform/ ). Clicking this link will bring you to a CCC request form where you can provide the details of your order. Once complete, please click the ‘Submit Request’ button and CCC’s Reprints Services team will generate a quote for your review.
Search Relations

Author(s):

Related Articles