Search

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a serious complication of orthopedic surgery. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) has been the standard of care for thromboprophylaxis in this population. However, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are increasingly being used as alternatives.To assess the efficacy and safety of DOACs versus LMWH for thromboprophylaxis in orthopedic surgery.We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Collaboration Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until April 2020, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DOACs with LMWH for thromboprophylaxis in orthopedic surgery.Twenty-five RCTs met inclusion criteria, including 40,438 patients, with a mean age of 68 years and 50% were males. Compared to LMWH, DOACs were associated with a significant reduction of major VTE; defined as the composite events of proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), and VTE-related mortality (RR 0.33; 95% CI: 0.20-0.53; P0.01), and total DVT (RR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.48-0.73; P0.01), but not PE (RR 0.81; 95% CI: 0.49-1.34; P=0.42). There was no statistically significant difference between both groups on the incidence of major bleeding (RR 0.99; 95% CI: 0.77-1.27; P=0.92), clinically relevant non-major bleeding (RR 1.04; 95% CI: 0.92-1.17; P=0.52), all-cause mortality (RR 1.06; 95% CI: 0.64-1.76; P=0.83), VTE-related mortality (RR 0.84; 95% CI: 0.40-1.74; P=0.64) and bleeding-related mortality (RR 1.24; 95% CI: 0.30-5.18; P=0.77).For patients undergoing orthopedic surgery, thromboprophylaxis with DOACs is associated with a significant reduction of major VTE and DVT, compared to LMWH. Safety outcomes were not significantly different between both treatment groups.

Background Cancer associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) results in significant morbidity and mortality. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) has been standard of care for treatment of cancer-associated VTE, however direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are emerging as alternative treatment options. Objective To compare the benefits and harms of DOACs versus LMWH for treatment of VTE in cancer. Data sources MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Collaboration Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to April 2020. Study selection Randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing DOACs with LMWH for treatment of VTE in cancer patients. Data synthesis Four good-quality RCTs, met inclusion criteria. Compared with LMWH, DOACs were associated with lower rates of VTE recurrence (RR 0.62; 95% CI: 0.44–0.87; P = 0.006), and DVT recurrence (RR 0.61; 95% CI: 0.4–0.94; P = 0.02) but not PE recurrence (RR 0.73; 95% CI: 0.51–1.04; P = 0.08), in cancer patients. However, the risk of clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB) (RR 1.58; 95% CI: 1.11–2.24; P = 0.01), and major bleeding in gastrointestinal cancer (RR 2.55; 95% CI 1.24–5.27, P = 0.01), were higher with DOACs. The risk of overall major bleeding (RR 1.33; 95% CI: 0.84–2.1; P = 0.22), all-cause mortality (RR 0.99; 95% CI: 0.84–1.17; P = 0.92), VTE-related mortality (RR: 1; 95% CI: 0.29–3.44; P = 1) and bleeding-related mortality (RR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.17–2.91; P = 0.63), were similar in both treatment groups. Conclusion Among cancer patients with VTE, treatment with DOACs is associated with a significant reduction of VTE and DVT recurrence, compared to LMWH. These benefits were offset by an increased risk of CRNMB, and major bleeding in gastrointestinal cancer.

Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a well-known complication associated with surgical procedures. The implementation of thromboprophylaxis in this population has become a vital aspect of perioperative care to decrease VTE-associated morbidity and mortality risk. However, data assessing the role of thromboprophylaxis for patients undergoing vascular surgery are sparse. Assessing the role of thromboprophylaxis by low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin in vascular surgery. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Collaboration Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until December 2020, for randomized controlled trials assessing the role of thromboprophylaxis in vascular surgery. Results Eight randomized controlled trials met inclusion criteria, including 3130 patients, with a mean age of 55.35 years and 45% were females. Compared with placebo, anticoagulant use was associated with a decrease in deep venous thrombosis (DVT) (risk ratio [RR], 0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11-1.05; P = .06; I2 = 68%) and pulmonary embolism (PE) (RR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.02-1.22; P = .08; I2 = 41%), but this trend did not attain statistical significance. There was no difference for bleeding outcomes between anticoagulants and placebo (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.05-15.01; P = .94; I2 = 76%). There was no significant difference in outcomes when low-molecular-weight heparin was compared directly with unfractionated heparin. In a sensitivity analysis, anticoagulant use was associated with a significant decrease in DVT or PE in patients undergoing venous surgeries, but was not associated with a significant decrease in DVT or PE in patients undergoing arterial surgeries, although this analysis was limited by the small number of studies in each group. Conclusions Among patients undergoing vascular surgery, thromboprophylaxis with anticoagulants showed a trend toward a lesser incidence of VTE when compared with placebo, although this difference was not statistically significant. Bleeding outcomes were comparable between both treatment groups.