Skip to main content

Chronic Preoperative Corticosteroid Use and Postoperative Venous Thromboembolism Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Journal
Thrombosis and haemostasis (Q1)
Published
14 September 2026
Study design
Systematic review / meta-analysis of RCTs
Evidence level
Level 1, High (CEBM 1a)
Authors
Narat Srivali, Federica De Giacomi
PMID
42735717
DOI
10.1055/a-2958-4309

Why clinicians should know about it

  • Picked for Epidemiology (paper of the day, 16 September 2026): Systematic review and meta‑analysis of corticosteroid use and VTE risk

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Chronic corticosteroid use is prevalent among surgical patients, yet its association with postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) has not been systematically quantified. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess this risk. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central through January 2026 (PROSPERO: CRD420261298063). Eligible studies were observational studies or RCTs examining chronic preoperative corticosteroid use and postoperative VTE in adult surgical patients. We used random-effects meta-analysis calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals. Evidence certainty was assessed using the GRADE approach and methodological quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Nine retrospective cohort studies (2,678,513 patients; 97,201 corticosteroid users) were included. Chronic corticosteroid use was associated with increased composite VTE risk (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.31-1.73; I²=71%). PE did not reach statistical significance (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.95-1.80), while DVT risk was significantly increased (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.19-1.84; I²=64%). GRADE yielded low-quality evidence for composite VTE and DVT and very low-quality evidence for PE. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic preoperative corticosteroid use is associated with a 51% increased postoperative VTE risk across 2.6 million surgical patients, suggesting potential value in considering chronic corticosteroid use within perioperative VTE risk assessment, pending higher-quality prospective data. Current evidence is insufficient to support specific protocol changes; prospective studies are needed to define dose-response relationships.

Abstract as published, via PubMed.

View on PubMedFull text at the publisherOpen in the app

For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.