Nonadherence in outpatient thrombosis prophylaxis with low molecular weight heparins after major orthopaedic surgery

Effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban or low-molecular-weight heparin in non-major orthopedic surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing non-major orthopedic surgery often face an increased risk of venous thromboembolism due to the necessity of immobilization postoperatively. Current guidelines commonly recommend the use of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for prophylaxis, but it is associated with low patient compliance and certain side effects. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban or LMWH for thromboprophylaxis following non-major orthopedic surgery.

METHOD

Relevant literature was systematically searched in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase from their inception to October 1, 2023, to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban or LMWH in RCTs for thromboprophylaxis following non-major orthopedic surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 5 randomized controlled trials involving 5,101 patients were included. There was no statistically significant difference in the preventive effect against venous thromboembolism (VTE) when using rivaroxaban or LMWH following non-major orthopedic surgery (RR 0.80; 95%CI 0.31 to 2.07). In terms of safety, there was also no statistically significant difference in the incidence of bleeding events in patients undergoing non-major orthopedic surgery when using rivaroxaban or LMWH (RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.76).

CONCLUSION

In non-major orthopedic surgery, the risk of venous thromboembolism and bleeding complications is similar when using rivaroxaban or LMWH.

Is It Safe to Resume Direct Oral Anticoagulants upon Discharge after Hip Fracture Surgery? A Retrospective Study

This study aimed to examine the incidence rate of early reoperations following hip fracture surgery and determine the safety of resuming direct oral anticoagulants. Many orthopedic surgeons are reluctant to resume chronic anticoagulation therapy for patients after surgical intervention for hip fractures. One of the main reasons is the potential for reoperation in the case of surgical complications. We conducted a retrospective cohort study at an Academic Level I trauma center, reviewing the records of 425 geriatric patients (age > 60) who underwent hip fracture surgery between 2018 and 2020, including a subgroup treated with direct oral anticoagulants prior to hospitalization. The study assessed the incidence rate of complications requiring early reoperation. Out of the 425 patients, only nine (2%) required reoperation within a month after discharge, with two (0.5%) on chronic anticoagulation therapy. None of the reoperations were urgent, and all were performed at least 24 h after re-admission. The findings revealed a very low incidence rate of reoperations in patients who underwent hip fracture surgery, with no reoperations performed within 24 h of re-admission. Consequently, we believe that resuming chronic direct oral anticoagulants is a safe and effective approach when discharging patients after hip fracture surgery.

Effectiveness of Thromboprophylaxis Agents Following Hip Fracture: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background

Multiple studies have compared different pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis agents after hip fracture surgery, including aspirin, unfractionated heparin (UFH), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC), and warfarin, resulting in variability in clinical practice. To guide clinical management, a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA), which enables the simultaneous assessment of the effects of multiple interventions for the same patient population, was performed. This study aimed to determine the comparative effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis in reducing venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with surgically treated hip fractures.

Methods

The primary outcome was the effect of the treatment on the VTE rate, and the secondary outcome was the treatment effect on the bleeding rate. Relevant studies were identified by a systematic search of Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from January 2000 to February 2022. Title, abstract, and full-text screening; data extraction; and risk-of-bias assessment were performed. All studies examining thromboprophylaxis interventions (DOAC, LMWH, UFH, aspirin, and warfarin) in patients with a surgically treated hip fracture were included. Bayesian NMA was performed, and dichotomous outcome data were pooled using the odds ratio. Interventions were ranked using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) for each outcome.

Results

A total of 19 studies were included after the screening of 466 citations and 77 full-text articles. Of the included studies, 15 studies had a high overall risk of bias. The NMA of the VTE outcome included 19 studies, 49,409 participants, and 6 thromboprophylaxis interventions. The NMA of the bleeding outcome included 3 studies, 18,163 participants, and 3 interventions. The mean age ranged from 43.5 to 86.2 years among the included studies. No thromboprophylaxis intervention was statistically different from any other intervention in its effect on the VTE or bleeding rate in hip fracture patients.

Conclusions

This NMA demonstrated that there was no difference between the thromboprophylaxis interventions in reducing VTE or bleeding rates in hip fracture patients. More robust randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the most effective thromboprophylaxis interventions for patients with hip fractures.

Level of Evidence

Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Evaluating patient recall following operative orthopaedic trauma

INTRODUCTION

Orthopedic trauma patients may have poor recall of their injuries and treatment. This may lead to poor adherence to instructions. The purposes of this project were to quantify recall about injury and treatment information, and to assess adherence to postoperative instructions and satisfaction with care.

METHODS

A prospective cohort of 110 consecutive adult orthopaedic trauma patients treated for acute injury at a Level 1 trauma center were included. All had undergone surgical treatment of fractures of the pelvis or lower extremity. A brief survey to assess patient recall about injury and treatment knowledge, adherence to weightbearing and DVT recommendations and to evaluate patient satisfaction was administered during the first post-hospital clinic visit.

RESULTS

Patients correctly answered 64% of recall-oriented questions. 82% and 83% of patients, respectively, reported adherence to their weightbearing restrictions and their DVT prophylaxis regimen, while 66% of patients reported adherence to both. Forty-two percent of non-adherent patients could not remember their weightbearing restrictions, while 78% of non-adherent patients could not remember their DVT prophylaxis regimen. Average patient satisfaction was 4.3 (range 1-5), with 15% of patients indicating neutral sentiment or dissatisfaction with their care.

CONCLUSION

Orthopaedic trauma patients have poor recall, which likely reduces postoperative adherence and may impair patient satisfaction. A postoperative educational protocol focused on improving patient recall may be useful.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 4, prognostic.

Post-discharge patient-reported non-adherence to aspirin compared to enoxaparin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after hip or knee arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Aspirin and enoxaparin are commonly used for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis following total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this study was to compare non-adherence after discharge to aspirin or enoxaparin following THA or TKA.

METHODS

A subset of participants in the CRISTAL study were selected for participation. Additional inclusion criteria were no preoperative anticoagulant use and discharge from hospital before the prophylaxis period ended. The first four consecutive patients from each arm at each participating hospital were planned to be recruited (planned sample size n = 248). A patient-reported adherence questionnaire was completed by telephone at 36-41 days after THA and at 15-20 days after TKA. The primary outcome was non-adherence. Secondary outcomes were number of missed doses and the reasons for non-adherence.

RESULTS

There were 178 participants included from 15 sites, less than planned explained by early stopping of trial recruitment. There was no significant between-group difference in patient-reported non-adherence: 24% (17/71) for aspirin, 30% (32/107) for enoxaparin, odds ratio = 1.4 (95% CI 0.7-2.9). The mean number of missed doses was 2.5 for aspirin and 3.4 for enoxaparin (mean difference = 0.9 doses, 95% CI -1.2 to 3.1). For aspirin, the most commonly reported reason for non-adherence was forgotten doses and for enoxaparin it was clinician-recommended change.

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of non-adherence and the number of missing doses were similar for patients regardless of drug prescribed. The most common reasons for non-adherence were unrelated to the mode of administration.

A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Enoxaparin & Rivaroxaban for Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Orthopaedic Trauma

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether there is a difference in orthopaedic trauma patient medication satisfaction and adherence using an oral versus subcutaneous injectable anticoagulant for venous thromboembolism chemoprophylaxis.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Single academic Level 1 trauma center.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred twenty adult orthopaedic trauma patients with operative pelvic or lower extremity fractures were randomized and completed the study.

INTERVENTION

Three weeks of either the service standard 40 mg once daily enoxaparin versus trial medication 10 mg once daily rivaroxaban postoperatively.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient satisfaction as measured by the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM-9). Medication adherence as measured by the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8).

RESULTS

Medication adherence was similar in both groups. Medication satisfaction was significantly higher in the oral rivaroxaban group based on the TSQM-9 and patient-reported data. Secondary outcomes found no significant difference in the incidence of bleeding events or clinically relevant venous thromboembolism. The enoxaparin group experienced more adverse medication-related events. The rivaroxaban medication regimen costs 7.5-10× less out of pocket for uninsured patients.

CONCLUSION

The results of this randomized controlled trial demonstrate that patients with surgical orthopaedic trauma prefer an oral anticoagulant for postoperative venous thromboembolism chemoprophylaxis and suggest that rivaroxaban may be a viable option. Furthermore, large-scale studies are needed to confirm safety and efficacy for rivaroxaban in this population as a potential alternative to enoxaparin and aspirin.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Inpatient compliance with venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after orthopaedic trauma: results from a randomized controlled trial of aspirin versus low molecular weight heparin

Objectives:

To compare inpatient compliance with venous thromboembolism prophylaxis regimens.

Design:

A secondary analysis of patients enrolled in the ADAPT (A Different Approach to Preventing Thrombosis) randomized controlled trial.

Setting:

Level I trauma center.

Patients/Participants:

Patients with operative extremity or any pelvic or acetabular fracture requiring venous thromboembolism prophylaxis.

Intervention:

We compared patients randomized to receive either low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) 30 mg or aspirin 81 mg BID during their inpatient admission.

Main Outcome Measurements:

The primary outcome measure was the number of doses missed compared with prescribed number of doses.

Results:

A total of 329 patients were randomized to receive either LMWH 30 mg BID (164 patients) or aspirin 81 mg BID (165 patients). No differences observed in percentage of patients who missed a dose (aspirin: 41.2% vs LMWH: 43.3%, P = .7) or mean number of missed doses (0.6 vs 0.7 doses, P = .4). The majority of patients (57.8%, n = 190) did not miss any doses. Missed doses were often associated with an operation.

Conclusions:

These data should reassure clinicians that inpatient compliance is similar for low molecular weight heparin and aspirin regimens.

Venous thromboprophylaxis after total hip arthroplasty: aspirin, warfarin, enoxaparin, or factor Xa inhibitors?

INTRODUCTION

Debate over the ideal agent for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis after total hip arthroplasty (THA) has led to changes in prescribing trends of commonly used agents. We investigate variation in utilisation and the differences in VTE incidence and bleeding risk in primary THA after administration of aspirin, warfarin, enoxaparin, or factor Xa inhibitors.

METHODS

8829 patients were age/sex matched from a large database of primary THAs performed between 2007 and 2016. Utilisation was calculated using compound annual growth rate. Incidence of postoperative deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), bleeding-related complications, postoperative anaemia, and transfusion were identified at 2 weeks, 30 days, 6 weeks, and 90 days.

RESULTS

Aspirin use increased by 33%, enoxaparin by 7%, and factor Xa inhibitors by 31%. Warfarin use decreased by 1%. Factor Xa inhibitors (1.7%) and aspirin (1.7%) had the lowest incidence of DVT followed by enoxaparin (2.6%), and warfarin (3.7%) at 90 days. Factor Xa inhibitors (12%) and aspirin (12%) had the lowest incidence of blood transfusion followed by warfarin (15%) and enoxaparin (17%) at 90 days. There was no difference in incidence of blood transfusion or bleeding-related complications nor any detectable difference in symptomatic PE incidence.

CONCLUSIONS

The utilisation of aspirin and factor Xa inhibitors increased over time. Aspirin and factor Xa inhibitors provided improved DVT prophylaxis with lower rates of postoperative anaemia compared to enoxaparin and warfarin.

Dabigatran (Pradaxa) Is Safe for Extended Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis After Surgery for Pancreatic Cancer

BACKGROUND

The American College of Chest Physicians and American Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association recommend using low-molecular-weight heparin for 28 days postoperatively for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after cancer surgery. Dabigatran is a once daily oral anticoagulant that is FDA approved for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after orthopedic surgery, uses fixed dosing, and has an antidote.

METHODS

Patients undergoing surgery for malignant pancreatic tumors (neuroendocrine excluded) from January 2017 to January 2018 were converted to dabigatran 220 mg daily on discharge until postoperative day 28; patients with medical or insurance contraindications were converted to enoxaparin or another direct oral anticoagulant. The primary endpoint was bleeding complications through 90 days.

RESULTS

A total of 134 patients were considered for this study (median age 67 ± 10; 58.9% male). Eighty-seven (82.9%) patients received dabigatran and 18 (17.1%) received another form of anticoagulation. There were 19 (4.2%) patients not prescribed dabigatran due to medical or inpatient contraindications. Four patients experienced bleeding complications after discharge while on dabigatran. Two (2%) were major bleeds (Clavien-Dindo IV and V), and 2 (2%) were minor (Clavien-Dindo I). Patient compliance was excellent, with 93% of prescribed patients fully completing their prophylaxis. There were 2 patients that developed symptomatic deep vein thrombosis.

CONCLUSION

The use of a direct oral anticoagulant as extended venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after major gastrointestinal surgery has not been studied to date. These results show dabigatran to be a safe alternative to low-molecular-weight heparin for extended venous thromboembolism prophylaxis with regard to bleeding complications.

Post-discharge adherence with venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after orthopedic trauma: Results from a randomized controlled trial of aspirin versus low molecular weight heparin

BACKGROUND

Orthopedic trauma patients are often treated with venous thromboembolism (VTE) chemoprophylaxis with aspirin or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) after discharge from their index admission, but adherence patterns are not known. We hypothesized that overall adherence would be moderate and greater with aspirin compared to LMWH.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized controlled trial of adult trauma patients with an operative extremity fracture or any pelvic/acetabular fracture requiring VTE prophylaxis. Patients were randomized to receive either LMWH 30 mg BID or aspirin 81 mg BID. Patients prescribed outpatient prophylaxis were contacted between 10 and 21 days after discharge to assess adherence measured by the validated Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8). Adherence scores were compared between the two treatment arms with similar results for intention-to-treat and as-treated analyses. As-treated multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine factors associated with low-medium adherence scores.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty patients (64 on LMWH, 86 on aspirin) on chemoprophylaxis at time of follow-up completed the questionnaire. As-treated analysis showed that adherence was high overall (mean MMAS 7.2 out of 8, SD 1.5) and similar for the two regimens (LMWH: 7.4 vs. aspirin: 7.0, p = 0.13). However, patients on LMWH were more likely to feel hassled by their regimen (23% vs. 9%, p = 0.02). In a multivariable model, low-medium adherence was associated with taking LMWH as the prophylaxis medication (aOR 2.34, CI 1.06-5.18, p = 0.04), having to self-administer the prophylaxis (aOR 4.44, CI 1.45-13.61, p < 0.01), being of male sex (aOR 2.46, CI 1.10-5.49, p = 0.03), and of younger age (aOR 0.72 per additional 10 years of age, CI 0.57-0.91, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall post-discharge adherence with VTE prophylaxis was high. Several factors, including prophylaxis by LMWH, were associated with decreased adherence. These factors should be considered when managing patients and designing efficacy trials.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, level II.

Aspirin: are patients actually taking it?-A quality assessment study

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the study was to assess patient adherence to an aspirin-based prophylactic deep venous thromboembolism (DVT) care management plan after total lower extremity arthroplasty.

METHODS

Using a cross-sectional study design, patients who underwent total hip or knee replacement surgery by a single senior surgeon were surveyed at their routine 6-week follow-up appointment regarding adherence to aspirin DVT prophylaxis. Postoperatively, patients were advised to take 325 mg of aspirin twice daily for 6 weeks to prevent DVT.

RESULTS

Of the 101 patients surveyed, 45 underwent total hip arthroplasty while 56 underwent total knee arthroplasty. There were 48 (48%) patients who were still taking aspirin at their routine 6-week postoperative follow-up appointment and 53 (52%) patients who were not taking aspirin (nonadherent group). Of the latter, 3 (6%) never took aspirin postoperatively, 14 (26%) discontinued within 2 weeks postoperatively, and 23 (43%) did not take it any longer for half the time prescribed. In the nonadherent group, 8 patients reported that they felt they did not need the aspirin prophylaxis, 5 experienced side effects, and 10 were unsure of how long they needed to take it. There was 1 patient with a calf DVT and no episodes of pulmonary embolism.

CONCLUSIONS

Over half of our study, patients did not finish their aspirin regimen. We suggest a consistent outline of medication duration throughout the pre/postop course and communication regarding aspirin cessation.

Effects of Natural Hirudin and Low Molecular Weight Heparin in Preventing Deep Venous Thrombosis in Aged Patients with Intertrochanteric Fracture

Our objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of natural hirudin and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in the prevention of perioperative deep venous thrombosis (DVT) in elderly patients with intertrochanteric fracture. From June 2014 to June 2017, 96 patients with intertrochanteric fractures were treated with proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) were randomly divided into two groups. For DVT prevention, 45 patients were treated with oral natural hirudin and subcutaneous LMWH-calcium (test group) and 51 patients were treated with subcutaneous LMWH-calcium (control group). The mean intraoperative bleeding, wound drainage and incisional hematoma were higher in the test group, with no significant differences between the groups. There were significant differences in distal intramuscular venous thrombosis (P = 0.043). Both activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), thrombin time (TT), and prothrombin time (PT) lengthened in both groups postoperatively, and there was a significant difference between the two groups two weeks postoperatively. D-dimer were significantly different and platelet count (PLT) did not differ between groups two weeks postoperatively. In elderly patients with unilateral intertrochanteric fracture after PFNA on anticoagulant therapy, the combination of natural hirudin and LMWH was more effective than that of LMWH-calcium alone, with no significant difference with regard to safety.

Efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin or rivaroxaban in hip and knee replacement surgery

Prospective trials have shown that rivaroxaban thromboprophylaxis is superior over low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in patients undergoing hip and knee replacement surgery. However, patients treated under trial conditions are different from unselected routine patients, which may affect efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis. The objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban or LMWH thromboprophylaxis in unselected patients undergoing hip and knee replacement surgery in daily care. In a monocentric, retrospective cohort study in 5,061 consecutive patients undergoing hip and knee replacement surgery a comparison of LMWH (hospital standard in 2006–2007) and rivaroxaban (since 2009) was made with regard to rates of symptomatic VTE, bleeding and surgical complications and length of hospital stay. Rates of symptomatic VTE were 4.1 % (LMWH) and 2.1 % (rivaroxaban; p=0.005) with rates for distal DVT 2.5 vs. 1.1 % (p<0.001). Rates of major VTE were numerically higher with LMWH (1.7 vs. 1.1%, not statistically significant). Rates of major bleeding (overt bleeding leading to surgical revision or death, occurring in a critical site, or transfusion of at least two units of packed red blood cells) were statistically lower with rivaroxaban (2.9 vs. 7.0%; p<0.001). Rivaroxaban patients had fewer surgical complications (1.1 vs. 3.7%; p<0.001) and a shorter length of hospitalisation (8.3 days; 95% CI 8.1– 8.5 vs. 11.1 days; 10.7– 11.5; p< 0.001). We conclude that rivaroxaban thromboprophylaxis is more effective than LMWH in unselected patients undergoing hip and knee replacement surgery in daily care and that switching from LMWH to rivaroxaban could be beneficial. Prospective comparisons are warranted to confirm our findings.

Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis After TKA: Aspirin, Warfarin, Enoxaparin, or Factor Xa Inhibitors?

BACKGROUND

There is considerable debate regarding the ideal agent for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis after TKA. Numerous studies and meta-analyses have yet to provide a clear answer and often omit one or more of the commonly used agents such as aspirin, warfarin, enoxaparin, and factor Xa inhibitors.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

Using a large database analysis, we asked: (1) What are the differences in VTE incidence in primary TKA after administration of aspirin, warfarin, enoxaparin, or factor Xa inhibitors? (2) What are the differences in bleeding risk among these four agents? (3) How has use of these agents changed with time?

METHODS

We queried a combined Humana and Medicare database between 2007 and Quarter 1 of 2016, and identified all primary TKAs performed using ICD-9 and Current Procedural Terminology codes. All patients who had any form of antiplatelet or anticoagulation prescribed within 1 year before TKA were excluded from our study cohort. We then identified patients who had either aspirin, warfarin, enoxaparin, or factor Xa inhibitors prescribed within 2 weeks of primary TKA. Each cohort was matched by age and sex. Elixhauser comorbidities and Charlson Comorbidity Index for each group were calculated. We identified 1016 patients with aspirin, and age- and sex-matched 6096 patients with enoxaparin, 6096 patients with warfarin, and 5080 patients with factor Xa inhibitors. Using ICD-9 codes, with the understanding that patients at greater risk may have had more-attentive surveillance, the incidence of postoperative deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), bleeding-related complications (bleeding requiring surgical intervention, hemorrhage, hematoma, hemarthrosis), postoperative anemia, and transfusion were identified at 2 weeks, 30 days, 6 weeks, and 90 days postoperatively. A four-way chi-squared test was used to determine statistical significance. Utilization was calculated using compound annual growth rate.

RESULTS

There was a difference in the incidence of DVT at 90 days (p < 0.01). Factor Xa inhibitors (2.9%) had the lowest incidence of DVT followed by aspirin (3.0%) and enoxaparin (3.5%), and warfarin (4.8%). There was a difference in the incidence of PE at 90 days (p < 0.01). Factor Xa inhibitors (0.9%) had the lowest incidence of PE followed by enoxaparin (1.1%), aspirin (1.2%), and warfarin (1.6%). There was a difference in the incidence of postoperative anemia at 90 days (p < 0.01). Aspirin (19%) had the lowest incidence of postoperative anemia followed by warfarin (22%), enoxaparin (23%), and factor Xa inhibitors (23%). There was a difference in the incidence of a blood transfusion at 90 days (p < 0.01). Aspirin (7%) had the lowest incidence of a blood transfusion followed by factor Xa inhibitors (9%), warfarin (12%), and enoxaparin (13%). There were no differences in bleeding-related complications (p = 0.81) between the groups. Aspirin use increased at a compound annual growth rate of 30%, enoxaparin at 3%, and factor Xa inhibitors at 43%, while warfarin use decreased at a compound annual growth rate of -3%.

CONCLUSIONS

Factor Xa inhibitors had the highest growth in utilization during our study period, followed by aspirin, when compared with enoxaparin and warfarin. When selected for the right patient, factor Xa inhibitors provided improved VTE prophylaxis compared with enoxaparin and warfarin, with a lower rate of blood transfusion. Aspirin provided comparable VTE prophylaxis compared with factor Xa inhibitors with improved VTE prophylaxis compared with enoxaparin and warfarin with the lowest risk of bleeding.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Patients' perceptions and experiences of the prevention of hospital-acquired thrombosis: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To examine patients' understanding of hospital-associated thrombosis, and their experiences of thromboprophylaxis.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with 31 patients requiring venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis following a recent hospital admission. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically using framework analysis.

SETTING

4 hospitals in Birmingham and Oxford.

RESULTS

All the participants received thromboprophylaxis following surgical procedures. Participants were aware of a risk of blood clots; however, they lacked a good understanding of VTE and its components. Experiences of VTE prophylaxis were characterised with good adherence to heparin injections and poor adherence to elastic compression stockings, largely due to perceived lack of clarity in guidance from health professionals. Participants had limited knowledge of the signs and symptoms of VTE and would value improved education on VTE.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that patient education is often inadequate and impacts negatively on patients' involvement in VTE prevention. An enhanced patient education programme incorporating a consistent message on the appropriate use of elastic compression stockings and description of VTE symptoms is likely to optimise the effectiveness of the prevention of hospital-associated thrombosis. Physicians may use the results of this study to improve individual patient education.

Patient Adherence and Experience with Extended Use of Prophylactic Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin Following Pancreas and Liver Resection

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend 28 days venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) following major abdominal surgery for cancer. Overall adherence with these recommendations is poor, but little is known about feasibility and tolerability from a patient perspective.

METHODS

An institution-wide policy for routine administration of 28 days of post-operative LMWH following major hepatic or pancreatic resection for cancer was implemented in April 2013. Patients having surgery from July 2013 to June 2015 were approached to participate in an interview examining adherence and experience with extended duration LMWH.

RESULTS

There were 100 patients included, with 81.4 % reporting perfect adherence with the regimen. The most frequent reasons for non-adherence were that a healthcare provider stopped the regimen or because of poor experience with injections. Most patients were able to correctly recall the reason for being prescribed LMWH (82.6 %), and 78.4 % of patients performed all injections themselves. Over half the patients (55.7 %) did not find the injections bothersome.

CONCLUSION

Patients reported high adherence and a manageable experience with post-operative extended-duration LMWH in an ambulatory setting following liver or pancreas resection. These findings suggest that patient adherence is not a major contributor to poor compliance with VTE prophylaxis guidelines.

The compliance of thromboprophylaxis affects the risk of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery

Objective

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is major problem after hip fracture surgery with substantial morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to assess the postoperative compliance of thromboprophylaxis in elderly patients undergoing hip fracture surgery and to confirm the correlation between compliance and VTE risk.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included consecutive elderly hip fracture patients who undergoing surgery. According to the thromboprophylaxis regimens, patients were divided into non-compliant group (<14days), poor compliant group (14–27days) and good compliant group (≥28days). The primary outcome was the incidence of symptomatic DVT, PE within 6weeks postoperatively.

Results

Between 2008 and 2012, 1214 eligible patients were included in this study. 761 (64.7%) patients were non-compliant, 224 (19.0%) patients were poor compliant, and 192 (16.3%) patients were good compliant. The overall VTE rate was 7.9% (73/1177), PE rate was 0.3% (4/1177). The VTE rate in good compliant group was lowest among three groups (4.2 vs. 5.4 vs. 9.6%, P=0.013), but the PE rates showed no significant differences (0 vs. 0.9 vs. 0.3%, P=0.241). The multivariate analysis showed that non-compliance was an independent risk factor of suffering VTE undergoing hip fracture surgery.

Conclusions

In this study we found fewer than 1 in 5 patients maintained compliant with thromboprophylaxis guidelines after discharge following hip surgery. This is particularly concerning because those who were non-compliant had a higher risk of VTE postoperatively compared with those who were good compliant.

Prevention of hospital-acquired thrombosis from a primary care perspective: a qualitative study

Background

Although there is considerable risk for patients from hospital-acquired thrombosis (HAT), current systems for reducing this risk appear inefficient and have focused predominantly on secondary care, leaving the role of primary care underexplored, despite the onset of HAT often occurring post-discharge.

Aim

To gain an understanding of the perspectives of primary care clinicians on their contribution to the prevention of HAT. Their current role, perceptions of patient awareness, the barriers to better care, and suggestions for how these may be overcome were discussed.

Design and setting

Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews in Oxfordshire and South Birmingham, England.

Method

Semi-structured telephone interviews with clinicians working at practices of a variety of size, socioeconomic status, and geographical location.

Results

A number of factors that influenced the management of HAT emerged, including patient characteristics, a lack of clarity of responsibility, limited communication and poor coordination, and the constraints of limited practice resources. Suggestions for improving the current system include a broader role for primary care supported by appropriate training and the requisite funding.

Conclusion

The role of primary care remains limited, despite being ideally positioned to either raise patient awareness before admission or support patient adherence to the thromboprophylaxis regimen prescribed in hospital. This situation may begin to be addressed by more robust lines of communication between secondary and primary care and by providing more consistent training for primary care staff. In turn, this relies on the allocation of appropriate funds to allow practices to meet the increased demand on their time and resources.

Worldwide adherence to ACCP guidelines for thromboprophylaxis after major orthopedic surgery: A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Increased risk of venous thromboembolism following major orthopedic surgery (MOS) is well described. The American Academy of Chest Physician (ACCP) has generated evidence-based recommendations for thromboprophylaxis; however, there is a gap between guidelines recommendations and clinical practice. The aim of this study is to compare worldwide adherence rates to the last 4 editions of ACCP guidelines for thromboprophylaxis after MOS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review of literature and meta-analysis was performed. Studies reporting adherence to ACCP guidelines between January 2004 and October 2014 were included. Adherence rates after MOS for in-hospital (IH), extended (EXT), and global thromboprophylaxis (in-hospital plus extended) were assessed.

RESULTS

Of 3993 titles, 13 studies reporting data of 35,303 patients were selected. Studies assessing the 6th, 7th or 8th editions of ACCP guidelines were found. No studies evaluating the 9th edition were available. For MOS, global adherence rates for the 6th, 7th and 8th editions were 62% (95% CI: 61%-63%), 70% (95% CI: 69%-71%), and 42% (95% CI: 41%-43%), respectively. Likewise, in-hospital adherence was 52% (95% CI: 50%-54%), 51% (95% CI: 50%-52%) and 85% (95% CI: 84%-86%). For extended prophylaxis, adherence rates were reported only for the 8th edition (59%; 95% CI: 58%-60%).

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to ACCP recommendations for thromboprophylaxis during hospitalization has increased over time. Nevertheless, adherence rates to global thromboprophylaxis decrease due to an insufficient implementation of recommendations after discharge.

Continuation of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after hospital discharge into the outpatient setting: the ACCEPT study

Transition from the hospital into the outpatient setting is a critical event for the appropriate provision of VTE prophylaxis. Data for this transition for the situation in Germany is scant. This was a retrospective, observational study in patients receiving in-hospital thromboprophylaxis and discharged with or without a recommendation to continue. Patient with previous thromboembolism were excluded. A total of 3,211 patients were identified by 518 physicians of which 2,853 had all data available for the present analysis; mean patient's age was 57.4 ± 17.5 (SD) years, 48.2% were male and bodyweight was 79.8 ± 16.1 kg. During hospitalization 95.5% of surgical and 84.0% of medical patients received any thromboprophylaxis, the mean hospital duration being 12.7 ± 20.3 days. Surgical patients had high, medium and low risk in 53.8, 37.1 and 9.1%, respectively. Medical patients had high, medium and low risk in 78.8, 19.8 and 1.4%. A hospital recommendation to continue thromboprophylaxis was given to 84.6% (95% CI 83.1-85.9%) of surgical and 64.9% (95% CI 59.1-70.6%) of medical patients and implemented in 96.6 and 94.3%, respectively. On the other hand, in patients without a respective hospital recommendation (15.4% of surgical and 35.1% of medical patients), thromboprophylaxis was continued in 65.3% of surgical and 73.1% of medical patients because of high risk. Our data illustrate acceptable rates of prophylaxis in surgical and medical patients in Germany. As the results show, it is essential that not only hospital physicians are aware of the actual risk at discharge, but office based physicians assess thromboembolic risk.

Current and emerging strategies in the management of venous thromboembolism: benefit-risk assessment of dabigatran

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a disease state that carries significant morbidity and mortality, and is a known cause of preventable death in hospitalized and orthopedic surgical patients. There are many identifiable risk factors for VTE, yet up to half of VTE incident cases have no identifiable risk factor and carry a high likelihood of recurrence, which may warrant extended therapy. For many years, parenteral unfractionated heparin, low-molecular weight heparin, fondaparinux, and oral vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) have been the standard of care in VTE management. However, limitations in current drug therapy options have led to suboptimal treatment, so there has been a need for rapid-onset, fixed-dosing novel oral anticoagulants in both VTE treatment and prophylaxis. Oral VKAs have historically been challenging to use in clinical practice, with their narrow therapeutic range, unpredictable dose responsiveness, and many drug-drug and drug-food interactions. As such, there has also been a need for novel anticoagulant therapies with fewer limitations, which has recently been met. Dabigatran etexilate is a fixed-dose oral direct thrombin inhibitor available for use in acute and extended treatment of VTE, as well as prophylaxis in high-risk orthopedic surgical patients. In this review, the risks and overall benefits of dabigatran in VTE management are addressed, with special emphasis on clinical trial data and their application to general clinical practice and special patient populations. Current and emerging therapies in the management of VTE and monitoring of dabigatran anticoagulant-effect reversal are also discussed.

Validation of the Adherence Barriers Questionnaire - an instrument for identifying potential risk factors associated with medication-related non-adherence

Background

Medication non-adherence is a major challenge in the real-life treatment of chronically ill patients. To meet this challenge, adherence interventions with a tailored approach towards patient-specific adherence barriers that are identified with a reliable and practicable questionnaire are needed. The aim of this investigation was to develop and validate such a questionnaire, the “Adherence Barriers Questionnaire (ABQ)”.

Methods

The German ABQ was developed and tested in 432 patients with atrial fibrillation in a multicentre observational cohort study. Evaluation of the questionnaire included an assessment of internal consistency as well as factor analysis. Criterion-related external validity was assessed by comparing the ABQ score with (1) the degree of self-reported adherence and (2) the time in therapeutic range which describes the anticoagulation quality achieved by patients treated with oral anticoagulation.

Results

The final 14-item ABQ scale demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.820). Factor analysis identified a three-factor solution, representing intentional adherence barriers with 5 items (31.9% of the variance), medication-/health care system-related adherence barriers with 5 items (13.3% of the variance) and unintentional adherence barriers with 4 items (7.7% of the variance).

The ABQ correlated significantly with self-reported non-adherence (Spearman’s rho = 0.438, p < 0.001) as well as time in therapeutic range (Spearman’s rho = − 0.161, p < 0.010). Patients with above-average ABQ scores (increased number and/or strength of existing adherence barriers) were significantly (p < 0.005, Pearson Chi-Square) more likely to have a poor anticoagulation quality (TTR < 60%) than patients with a lower ABQ score (44.6% versus 27.3%).

Conclusions

The ABQ is a practicable, reliable and valid instrument for identifying patient-specific barriers to medication-related adherence. Future research is required to examine the ability of the ABQ to identify patient perception/behaviour changes over time which may be important for the measurement of success of adherence interventions.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-015-0809-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban or fondaparinux thromboprophylaxis in major orthopedic surgery: findings from the ORTHO-TEP registry

BACKGROUND

Thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban (R) is superior to enoxaparin in patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery (MOS). However, rivaroxaban has never been directly compared with fondaparinux (F), which also shows superior efficacy over enoxaparin. The clinical impact of switching from fondaparinux to rivaroxaban thromboprophylaxis is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban or fondaparinux thromboprophylaxis in unselected patients undergoing MOS.

PATIENTS/METHODS

This is a monocentric, retrospective cohort study in 5061 consecutive patients undergoing MOS at our centre, comparing rates of symptomatic VTE, bleeding and surgical complications, length of hospital stay and risk factors for VTE.

RESULTS

Rates of symptomatic VTE were 5.6% (F) and 2.1% (R; P < 0.001), with rates for distal DVT being 3.9 vs. 1.1% (P < 0.001). Rates of major VTE were numerically higher with fondaparinux (1.8 vs. 1.1%), but not statistically significant. Rates of severe bleeding (bleeding leading to surgical revision or death, occurring in a critical site, or transfusion of at least two units of packed red blood cells) were statistically lower with rivaroxaban compared with fondaparinux (2.9 vs. 4.9%; P = 0.010). The mean length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the rivaroxaban group (8.3 days, 95% CI 8.1-8.5 vs. 9.3 days, 9.1-9.5; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Based on an indirect comparison of two consecutive cohorts, our data suggest that thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban is associated with less VTE and bleeding events than fondaparinux in unselected patients undergoing MOS. Prospective comparisons are warranted to confirm our findings.

ADHERENCE IN PREGNANCY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

“Clinical decisions and research programs ultimately depend on the reliable and valid measurement of adherence. Yet, 50 years of research in this field have not provided the data necessary to answer critical measurement questions.”.

Efficacy and safety of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis with apixaban in major orthopedic surgery

Over the last 15 years, low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) have been accepted as the “gold standard” for pharmaceutical thromboprophylaxis in patients at high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in most countries around the world. Patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery (MOS) represent a population with high risk of VTE, which may remain asymptomatic or become symptomatic as deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. Numerous trials have investigated LMWH thromboprophylaxis in this population and demonstrated high efficacy and safety of these substances. However, LMWHs have a number of disadvantages, which limit the acceptance of patients and physicians, especially in prolonged prophylaxis up to 35 days after MOS. Consequently, new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) were developed that are of synthetic origin and act as direct and very specific inhibitors of different factors in the coagulation cascade. The most developed NOACs are dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban, all of which are approved for thromboprophylaxis in MOS in a number of countries around the world. This review is focused on the pharmacological characteristics of apixaban in comparison with other NOACs, on the impact of NOAC on VTE prophylaxis in daily care, and on the management of specific situations such as bleeding complications during NOAC therapy.

Toward identifying the causes and combinations of causes increasing the risks of nonadherence to medical regimens: combined results of two German self-report surveys

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to identify the causes of the nonadherence (NA) of German patients to their prescribed medication. In the course of the investigation, the NA risk profiles resulting from the combination of the various causes were identified.

METHODS

Two cross-sectional surveys with a total of 1517 patients (comprising 1177 patients contacted by telephone and forming survey 1 and a different set of 340 patients interviewed in-depth and face-to-face forming survey 2) were conducted. Self-reported NA was measured by the generic Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS). Survey 1 used a four-item MMAS and Survey 2 an eight-item MMAS.

RESULTS

Approximately 35% to 40% of the patients can be described as nonadherent. In survey 1, a few causes explain the NA (chronic disease, younger age, and fewer medications required to be taken). The more detailed survey 2 shows that the existence of intentional NA has considerably more influence than any other causal factors. Positive medication beliefs, a positive mood, and a good patient-doctor relationship reduce the NA risk. Furthermore, patients who are easily able to recognize the correct medication, as evidenced by ability to correctly identify the packaging, have a reduced NA probability. Concerning additive risk, patients who are chronically ill but display no other causes of risk have an NA probability of 10.4%. By contrast, in patients displaying all the identified causes of risk, the rate increases to 93.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

About one-third of patients can be classified as nonadherent. Intentional/medication-based NA causal factors explain the NA considerably better than do socioeconomics. The existence of more than one cause of risk considerably increases the NA risk of a patient.

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after hospital discharge: transition to preventive care

Deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, the common clinical manifestations of venous thromboembolism (VTE), are among the most preventable complications of hospitalized patients. However, survey data repeatedly show poor rates of compliance with guideline-based preventive strategies. This has led the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to deny reimbursement for hospital readmission for thromboembolic complications in patients undergoing total hip or knee arthroplasty. Multiple strategies and national initiatives have been developed to improve rates of VTE prophylaxis during hospitalization; however, most VTE occurs in the outpatient setting. Epidemiologic data suggest that recent surgery or hospitalization is a strong risk factor for the development of VTE and that this risk may persist for up to 6 months. These observations call into question whether VTE prophylaxis should be administered only during hospitalization or if this preventive strategy should be continued after hospital discharge. Many of the randomized trials showing efficacy of VTE prophylaxis have used longer durations of prophylaxis than are typical for current length of hospital stay, highlighting the issue of how long the duration of prophylaxis should be. Several patient groups have undergone formal testing to evaluate the risks and benefits of extended-duration VTE prophylaxis, but this issue is less clear for other categories of patients. Although there is clear consensus that most hospitalized patients should receive VTE prophylaxis, there is uncertainty about whether to continue VTE prophylaxis in the immediate post-hospital period or for an extended duration. The transition from inpatient to outpatient care is a key event in the coordination of continuity of care, but VTE-specific care transition guidance is limited. In this article, we review the evidence for both standard- and extended-duration VTE prophylaxis and discuss the difficulties in effectively maintaining VTE prophylaxis during the transition from inpatient to outpatient care.

[Patient pathways in thrombosis prophylaxis after hip and knee replacement surgery : results of a survey]

A key element of patient care after hip and knee replacement is medication-based thrombosis prophylaxis. Due to decreasing lengths of acute hospital stays the question arises to what extent outpatients are taking responsibility thrombosis prophylaxis (patient pathway analysis).To analyze patient pathways a telephone survey of 668 patients was conducted. On average patients were interviewed 38 days following surgery with a focus on low molecular weight heparins. The analysis showed that nearly 90% of patients need to carry out thrombosis prophylaxis in an outpatient or home environment for at least 1 day and for 47.2% of patients a linking period between acute and rehabilitation stay is relevant. The obviously existing quantitative importance of outpatient thrombosis prophylaxis is also reflected by its duration and 45.7% of interviewed patients needed at least 5 days of outpatient prophylaxis.Outpatient thrombosis prophylaxis clearly makes high demands on the patients, in particular when combined with the task of administering complex forms of injections. Those involved in inpatient and outpatient provision of care should not assume that all patients carry out the necessary prophylaxis at the required level of reliability. On the contrary initial evidence shows that the non-adherence of patients during ambulatory thrombosis prophylaxis presents a genuine challenge to care providers.