Meta-analysis of trials comparing ximelagatran with low molecular weight heparin for prevention of venous thromboembolism after major orthopaedic surgery

Factor Xa Inhibitors and Direct Thrombin Inhibitors Versus Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin for Thromboprophylaxis After Total Hip or Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is to perform a meta-analysis to compare outcomes of venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) vs other anticoagulants in patients who received total knee (TKA) or total hip arthroplasty (THA).

METHODS

MEDLINE, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases were searched until June 30, 2017 for eligible randomized controlled studies.

RESULTS

Thirty-two randomized controlled studies were included. LMWH provided better protection against VTE than placebo. In both TKA and THA patients, the rates of VTE were lower with factor Xa inhibitors than LMWH. In THA patients, the rate of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) was lower with factor Xa inhibitors than LMWH. In TKA patients, the rates of VTE and DVT were similar between LMWH and direct thrombin inhibitors. In THA patients, the rate of VTE was lower with direct thrombin inhibitors than with LMWH, while the DVT rates were similar. The pulmonary embolism rates were similar between all 3 classes of drugs in TKA and THR patients, as were the major bleeding rates. Nonmajor and minor bleeding rates were also similar between the 3 drug classes.

CONCLUSION

LMWH is associated with a higher rate of VTE than factor Xa inhibitors in TKA and THA patients. Direct thrombin inhibitors are associated with a lower rate of VTE in THA patients, but their effectiveness with respect to DVT and pulmonary embolism prophylaxis is similar to that of LMWH in TKA and THA patients.

Low molecular weight heparin versus other anti-thrombotic agents for prevention of venous thromboembolic events after total hip or total knee replacement surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is an important complication following total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) surgeries. Aim of this study was to comprehensively compare the clinical outcomes of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) with other anticoagulants in patients who underwent TKR or THR surgery.

Methods

Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases were searched for eligible randomized controlled studies (RCTs) published before June 30, 2017. Meta-analyses of odds ratios were performed along with subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

Results

Twenty-one RCTs were included. In comparison with placebo, LMWH treatment was associated with a lower risk of VTE and deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (P values < 0.001) but similar risk of pulmonary embolism (PE) (P = 0.227) in THR subjects. Compared to factor Xa inhibitors, LMWH treatment was associated with higher risk of VTE in TKR subjects (P < 0.001), and higher DVT risk (P < 0.001) but similar risk of PE and major bleeding in both THR and TKR. The risk of either VTE, DVT, PE, or major bleeding was similar between LMWH and direct thrombin inhibitors in both THR and TKR, but major bleeding was lower with LMWH in patients who underwent THR (P = 0.048).

Conclusion

In comparison with factor Xa inhibitors, LMWH may have higher risk of VTE and DVT, whereas compared to direct thrombin inhibitors, LMWH may have lower risk of major bleeding after THR or TKR.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12891-018-2215-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Systematic Reviews of Anesthesiologic Interventions Reported as Statistically Significant: Problems with Power, Precision, and Type 1 Error Protection

BACKGROUND

The GRADE Working Group assessment of the quality of evidence is being used increasingly to inform clinical decisions and guidelines. The assessment involves explicit consideration of all sources of uncertainty. One of these sources is imprecision or random error. Many published meta-analyses are underpowered and likely to be updated in the future. When data are sparse and there are repeated updates, the risk of random error is increased. Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) is one of several methodologies that estimates this increased risk (and decreased precision) in meta-analyses. With nominally statistically significant meta-analyses of anesthesiologic interventions, we used TSA to estimate power and imprecision in the context of sparse data and repeated updates.

METHODS

We conducted a search to identify all systematic reviews with meta-analyses that investigated an intervention that may be implemented by an anesthesiologist during the perioperative period. We randomly selected 50 meta-analyses that reported a statistically significant dichotomous outcome in their abstract. We applied TSA to these meta-analyses by using 2 main TSA approaches: relative risk reduction 20% and relative risk reduction consistent with the conventional 95% confidence limit closest to null. We calculated the power achieved by each included meta-analysis, by using each TSA approach, and we calculated the proportion that maintained statistical significance when allowing for sparse data and repeated updates.

RESULTS

From 11,870 titles, we found 682 systematic reviews that investigated anesthesiologic interventions. In the 50 sampled meta-analyses, the median number of trials included was 8 (interquartile range [IQR], 5-14), the median number of participants was 964 (IQR, 523-1736), and the median number of participants with the outcome was 202 (IQR, 96-443). By using both of our main TSA approaches, only 12% (95% CI, 5%-25%) of the meta-analyses had power ≥ 80%, and only 32% (95% CI, 20%-47%) of the meta-analyses preserved the risk of type 1 error <5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Most nominally statistically significant meta-analyses of anesthesiologic interventions are underpowered, and many do not maintain their risk of type 1 error <5% if TSA monitoring boundaries are applied. Consideration of the effect of sparse data and repeated updates is needed when assessing the imprecision of meta-analyses of anesthesiologic interventions.

Management of venous thromboembolism and the potential to impact overall survival in patients with cancer

The risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer is 6-12-fold higher than in the general population, and VTE is the second leading cause of death in this population, after cancer itself. The etiology underlying the increased risk of VTE is multifactorial and complex, involving patient-, tumor-, and treatment-related factors. In patients with cancer, cumulative results from studies in those with VTE versus without VTE suggest that anticoagulation therapy, particularly with low-molecular-weight heparins, prevents morbidity and may reduce mortality. Despite the availability of effective and safe therapeutic options, VTE is often underrecognized and suboptimally managed. Interventions such as assessing individual patient risk of VTE, providing VTE prophylaxis and/or prompt treatment, and adopting VTE guidelines are essential aspects of cancer-related care. Aggressive VTE management and strategies are critical to improving survival in patients with cancer and VTE.

State-of-the-Art Review: Assessing the Safety Profiles of New Anticoagulants for Major Orthopedic Surgery Thromboprophylaxis

Background: The safety and efficacy of new anticoagulants are often initially tested for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention in patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery. Concern among surgeons about the risks for bleeding may result in suboptimal use of thrombophylaxis. Objective: To evaluate the definitions used to define bleeding outcomes in studies of new anticoagulants and to examine the influence the definition has on the perceived bleeding risk of thromboprophylaxis. Methods: The MedLine database was searched for phase III studies of new anticoagulants versus the standard comparator, enoxaparin, in patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery. Results: The definitions for major bleeding outcomes varied widely both across and within clinical trial programs of new anticoagulants. Studies which did not include surgical site bleeding in their definition for major bleeding showed lower major bleeding rates in comparison to those that did include this outcome. Other factors that influenced the rate of major bleeding included the timing of prophylaxis initiation in relation to surgery and the dose of anticoagulant therapy. The wide range of definitions used for major bleeding made it difficult to compare bleeding risk among studies of new anticoagulants. Conclusions: The definitions of bleeding events that clinical trials of thromboprophylaxis use in their assessment of new anticoagulants strongly influences each drug’s perceived safety profile and may underestimate bleeding risks. Clinical studies of new anticoagulants urgently need standardization of bleeding definitions to allow intertrial comparability and to ensure consistent reporting of clinically relevant outcomes.

Lessons from ximelagatran: issues for future studies evaluating new oral direct thrombin inhibitors for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in orthopedic surgery

Venous thromboembolism is a frequent complication of total hip and knee replacement requiring prophylaxis with anticoagulants. A direct thrombin inhibitor-ximelagatran-did not show advantages over other anticoagulants and it was withdrawn from the market; however, new drugs are being developed. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify conditions under which ximelagatran might potentially be superior to current standards. Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and grey literature were screened for randomized trials comparing ximelagatran with warfarin or low-molecular-weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis in total hip or knee replacement. Two reviewers independently assessed and extracted data. A meta-analysis with especial attention to statistical heterogeneity was conducted. This study suggested that the risk-benefit profile of ximelagatran-and probably other similar agents-depends on the type of surgery, the initial timing of administration, and probably the dose. These issues should be explicitly explored in future trials evaluating new direct thrombin inhibitors.

Rivaroxaban versus enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis after total knee arthroplasty (RECORD4): a randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism is recommended for at least 10 days after total knee arthroplasty; oral regimens could enable shorter hospital stays. We aimed to test the efficacy and safety of oral rivaroxaban for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after total knee arthroplasty.

METHODS

In a randomised, double-blind, phase III study, 3148 patients undergoing knee arthroplasty received either oral rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily, beginning 6-8 h after surgery, or subcutaneous enoxaparin 30 mg every 12 h, starting 12-24 h after surgery. Patients had mandatory bilateral venography between days 11 and 15. The primary efficacy outcome was the composite of any deep-vein thrombosis, non-fatal pulmonary embolism, or death from any cause up to day 17 after surgery. Efficacy was assessed as non-inferiority of rivaroxaban compared with enoxaparin in the per-protocol population (absolute non-inferiority limit -4%); if non-inferiority was shown, we assessed whether rivaroxaban had superior efficacy in the modified intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00362232.

FINDINGS

The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 67 (6.9%) of 965 patients given rivaroxaban and in 97 (10.1%) of 959 given enoxaparin (absolute risk reduction 3.19%, 95% CI 0.71-5.67; p=0.0118). Ten (0.7%) of 1526 patients given rivaroxaban and four (0.3%) of 1508 given enoxaparin had major bleeding (p=0.1096).

INTERPRETATION

Oral rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily for 10-14 days was significantly superior to subcutaneous enoxaparin 30 mg given every 12 h for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after total knee arthroplasty.

FUNDING

Bayer Schering Pharma AG, Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development.

Balancing patient preferences and clinical needs: community versus hospital based care for patients with suspected DVT

OBJECTIVE

To establish patients' preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for different service models for suspected deep vein thrombosis (DVT).

METHODS

We analysed patient responses to a discrete choice experiment (DCE) questionnaire which had been targeted at patients in Leicester, UK. The questionnaire elicited preferences/WTP for attributes of DVT provision including speed of diagnosis; access; continuity of care; and minimizing hospital visits. Additionally we evaluated trade-offs between clinical and service attributes. We analysed responses from 256 patients with suspected DVT (65% response rate).

RESULTS

Respondents are WTP pound 4.82 per extra hour of dedicated DVT service provision; pound 17.12 per hospital visit avoided; pound 115.73 per day's reduction in diagnostic wait; and pound 179.32 for 'much' not 'some' continuity, or pound 56.88 for 'some' not 'lack' of continuity in nursing.

CONCLUSIONS

Research evaluating different DVT service models usually reports on clinical efficacy in centres of excellence. Results show prompt diagnosis is valued by patients and may improve efficacy by reducing unnecessary anticoagulation. However, patients value 'process' measures such as continuity of care also. To ensure optimal provision, clinical benefit measurement ought to be augmented with information on patients' preferences.

Evidence-based guide to perioperative medicine

The discipline of perioperative medicine is assuming greater importance as increasing numbers of older patients with medical comorbidity undergo complex surgical procedures. If patient outcomes and use of limited hospital resources are to be optimized, physicians with skills and interest in perioperative risk assessment and therapeutic intervention are needed. This systematic review attempts to provide an evidence-based update in several key areas in the management of the perioperative patient.

Management of venous thromboembolism in the elderly

In this review the authors discuss the use of oral and parenteral anticoagulants for the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in the elderly. The use of anticoagulant agents in VTE prophylaxis and treatment in the elderly is complicated by an increase with age in the presence of multiple risk factors and co-morbidities that may increase the risk of both VTE and bleeding. Age itself is identified as an independent risk factor for thromboembolism. VTE is underdiagnosed in the elderly population, and routine prophylaxis frequently falls short of the levels required according to level of risk. Although appropriate anticoagulation of at-risk patients offers a means of reducing the significant VTE burden in this population, concerns have been raised over the use of anticoagulants in a patient group in whom multiple risk factors are common. Bleeding in the elderly can be exacerbated by reduced renal clearance and hypersensitivity to oral anticoagulants that may lead to over-anticoagulation. Although bleeding due to anticoagulant therapy is a serious issue in the elderly, it is often overemphasized, given the therapeutic value otherwise observed in treating this patient group. Warfarin is still used in VTE prophylaxis after orthopaedic surgery and for long-term VTE treatment. Unfractionated and low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) have been shown to be safe and effective in the prophylaxis of VTE, and are now being shown to be as effective as warfarin in the initial and long-term treatment of VTE. LMWHs confer the advantage over unfractionated heparin of subcutaneous once-daily administration with no requirement for laboratory monitoring of their anticoagulant effect, which allows for the convenience of outpatient therapy. New anticoagulants that may be of potential benefit in this patient population include fondaparinux sodium, but clinical experience of this drug in the elderly remains limited.

Ximelagatran versus warfarin for prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in major orthopedic surgery: systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Ximelagatran has been recently studied for prophylaxis in surgical orthopedic cases.

PURPOSE

We proposed to establish whether interventions involving ximelagatran, as compared with warfarin, would increase thromboembolic prophylaxis in patients undergoing major orthopedic knee surgery.

DATA SOURCE

Studies with random assignment were identified by an electronic search of the medical literature up to 2006. Data were double-entered into the Review Manager software, version 4.2.5.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We included three well-conducted clinical trials involving 4,914 participants. Sub-groups with two dosages of ximelagatran (24 mg and 36 mg, b.i.d.), were defined. Ximelagatran showed significantly lower frequency of total venous thromboembolism (VTE) than warfarin, but only with the 36-mg dosage (risk relative, RR: 0.72; 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.64-0.81; p < 0.00001). For the 24-mg subgroup, total VTE frequency was similar (RR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.73-1.01; p = 0.06). No significant differences were shown with either ximelagatran dosage for deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism, any bleeding or severe bleeding. At the end of the treatment, alanine aminotransferase (ALT) elevation was less frequent in the 24-mg ximelagatran sub-group (RR: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.12-0.91; p = 0.03], but during the follow-up period, the ALT elevation rate was greater in the 36-mg ximelagatran group (RR: 6.97; 95% CI: 1.26-38.50; p = 0.03].

CONCLUSIONS

Ximelagatran appears to be more effective than warfarin when used in higher dosages (36 mg b.i.d.), but at the expense of increased frequency of ALT elevation during the follow-up period.