Antithrombotic prophylaxis for women with thrombophilia and pregnancy complications--No

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis for women at risk during pregnancy and the early postnatal period

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), although rare, is a major cause of maternal mortality and morbidity. Some women are at increased risk of VTE during pregnancy and the early postnatal period (e.g. caesarean section, family history of VTE, or thrombophilia), and so prophylaxis may be considered. As some methods of prophylaxis carry risks of adverse effects, and risk of VTE is often low, benefits of thromboprophylaxis may be outweighed by harms.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy and the early postnatal period on the risk of venous thromboembolic disease and adverse effects in women at increased risk of VTE.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (18 October 2019). In addition, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) for unpublished, planned and ongoing trial reports (18 October 2019).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing one method of thromboprophylaxis with placebo or no treatment, or two (or more) methods of thromboprophylaxis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and judged certainty of evidence for selected critical outcomes (using GRADE). We conducted fixed-effect meta-analysis and reported data (all dichotomous) as summary risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-nine trials (involving 3839 women), overall at moderate to high risk of bias were included. Trials were conducted across the antenatal, peripartum and postnatal periods, with most in high-income countries. Interventions included types and regimens of heparin (low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin (UFH)), hydroxyethyl starch (HES), and compression stockings or devices. Data were limited due to a small number of trials in comparisons and/or few or no events reported. All critical outcomes (assessed for comparisons of heparin versus no treatment/placebo, and LMWH versus UFH) were considered to have very low-certainty evidence, downgraded mainly for study limitations and imprecise effect estimates.  Maternal death was not reported in most studies. Antenatal (± postnatal) prophylaxis For the primary outcomes symptomatic thromboembolic events pulmonary embolism (PE) and/or deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and the critical outcome of adverse effects sufficient to stop treatment, the evidence was very uncertain.  Symptomatic thromboembolic events: - heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.08 to 1.98; 4 trials, 476 women; very low-certainty evidence); - LMWH versus UFH (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.09 to 2.49; 4 trials, 404 women; very low-certainty evidence); Symptomatic PE: - heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.02 to 7.14; 3 trials, 187 women; very low-certainty evidence); - LMWH versus UFH (no events; 3 trials, 287 women); Symptomatic DVT: - heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.04 to 3.10; 4 trials, 227 women; very low-certainty evidence); - LMWH versus UFH (no events; 3 trials, 287 women); Adverse effects sufficient to stop treatment: - heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.05 to 5.31; 1 trial, 139 women; very low-certainty evidence); - LMWH versus UFH (RR 0.07; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.54; 2 trials, 226 women; very low-certainty evidence). Peripartum/postnatal prophylaxis Vaginal or caesarean birth When UFH and no treatment were compared, the effects on symptomatic thromboembolic events (RR 0.16; 95% CI 0.02 to 1.36; 1 trial, 210 women; very low-certainty evidence), symptomatic PE (RR 0.16; 95% CI 0.01 to 3.34; 1 trial, 210 women; very low-certainty evidence), and symptomatic DVT  (RR 0.27; 95% CI 0.03 to 2.55; 1 trial, 210 women; very low-certainty evidence) were very uncertain.  Maternal death and adverse effects sufficient to stop treatment were not reported. Caesarean birth Symptomatic thromboembolic events: - heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 1.30; 95% CI 0.39 to 4.27; 4 trials, 840 women; very low-certainty evidence); - LMWH versus UFH (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99; 3 trials, 217 women; very low-certainty evidence); Symptomatic PE: - heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 1.10; 95% CI 0.25 to 4.87; 4 trials, 840 women; very low-certainty evidence); - LMWH versus UFH (no events; 3 trials, 217 women);  Symptomatic DVT: - heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 1.30; 95% CI 0.24 to 6.94; 5 trials, 1140 women; very low-certainty evidence); LMWH versus UFH (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99; 3 trials, 217 women; very low-certainty evidence); Maternal death: - heparin versus placebo (no events, 1 trial, 300 women); Adverse effects sufficient to stop treatment: - heparin versus placebo (no events;  1 trial, 140 women). Postnatal prophylaxis No events were reported for LMWH versus no treatment/placebo for: symptomatic thromboembolic events, symptomatic PE and symptomatic DVT (all 2 trials, 58 women), or maternal death (1 trial, 24 women). Adverse effects sufficient to stop treatment were not reported. We were unable to conduct subgroup analyses due to lack of data. Sensitivity analysis including the nine studies at low risk of bias did not impact overall findings.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence is very uncertain about benefits and harms of VTE thromboprophylaxis in women during pregnancy and the early postnatal period at increased risk of VTE. Further high-quality very large-scale randomised trials are needed to determine effects of currently used treatments in women with different VTE risk factors. As sufficiently large definitive trials are unlikely to be funded, secondary data analyses based on high-quality registry data are important.

Prophylaxis for venous thromboembolic disease in pregnancy and the early postnatal period

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), although rare, is a major cause of maternal mortality and morbidity, and methods of prophylaxis are therefore often used for women considered to be at risk. This may include women who have given birth by caesarean section, those with a personal or family history of VTE and women with inherited or acquired thrombophilias (conditions that predispose people to thrombosis). Many methods of prophylaxis carry risks of adverse effects, and as the risk of VTE is often low, it is possible that the benefits of thromboprophylaxis may be outweighed by harms. Guidelines for clinical practice have been based on expert opinion rather than high-quality evidence from randomised trials.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of thromboprophylaxis in women who are pregnant or have recently given birth and are at increased risk of VTE on the incidence of VTE and adverse effects of treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (27 November 2013). 

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing one method of thromboprophylaxis with placebo or no treatment, and randomised trials comparing two (or more) methods of thromboprophylaxis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors assessed trial eligibility and quality and extracted the data.

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen trials, at an overall moderate risk of bias, met the inclusion criteria for the review. Only 16 trials, involving 2592 women, assessing a range of methods of thromboprophylaxis, contributed data to the review. Six trials compared methods of antenatal prophylaxis: heparin versus no treatment/placebo (two trials), and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) versus unfractionated heparin (UFH) (four trials). Nine trials assessed prophylaxis after caesarean section: four compared heparin with placebo; three compared LMWH with UFH; one compared hydroxyethyl starch (HES) with UFH; and one compared five-day versus 10-day LMWH. One study examined prophylaxis with UFH in the postnatal period (including following vaginal births).For antenatal prophylaxis, none of the included trials reported on maternal mortality, and no differences were detected for the other primary outcomes of symptomatic thromboembolic events, symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) and symptomatic deep venous thrombosis (DVT) when LMWH or UFH was compared with no treatment/placebo or when LMWH was compared with UFH. The risk ratios (RR) for symptomatic thromboembolic events were: antenatal LMWH/UFH versus no heparin, RR 0.33; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 2.99 (two trials, 56 women); and antenatal LMWH versus UFH, RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.09 to 2.49 (four trials, 404 women). No differences were shown when antenatal LMWH or UFH was compared with no treatment/placebo for any secondary outcomes. Antenatal LMWH was associated with fewer adverse effects sufficient to stop treatment (RR 0.07; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.54; two trials, 226 women), and fewer fetal losses (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.95; three trials, 343 women) when compared with UFH. In two trials, antenatal LMWH compared with UFH was associated with fewer bleeding episodes (defined in one trial of 121 women as bruises > 1 inch (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.36); and in one trial of 105 women as injection site haematomas of ≥ 2 cm, bleeding during delivery or other bleeding (RR 0.28; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.53)), however in a further trial of 117 women no difference between groups was shown for bleeding at delivery. The results for these secondary outcomes should be interpreted with caution, being derived from small trials that were not of high methodological quality.For post-caesarean/postnatal prophylaxis, only one trial comparing five-day versus 10-day LMWH after caesarean section reported on maternal mortality, observing no deaths. No differences were seen across any of the comparisons for the other primary outcomes (symptomatic thromboembolic events, symptomatic PE and symptomatic DVT). The RRs for symptomatic thromboembolic events were: post-caesarean LMWH/UFH versus no heparin, RR 1.30; 95% CI 0.39 to 4.27 (four trials, 840 women); post-caesarean LMWH versus UFH, RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99 (three trials, 217 women); post-caesarean five-day versus 10-day LMWH, RR 0.36; 95% CI 0.01 to 8.78 (one trial, 646 women); postnatal UFH versus no heparin, RR 0.16; 95% CI 0.02 to 1.36 (one trial, 210 women). For prophylaxis after caesarean section, in one trial (of 580 women), women receiving UFH and physiotherapy were more likely to have bleeding complications ('complications hémorragiques') than women receiving physiotherapy alone (RR 5.03; 95% CI 2.49 to 10.18). In two additional trials, that compared LMWH with placebo, no difference between groups in bleeding episodes (major bleeding; major bruising; bleeding/bruising reported at discharge) were detected. No other differences in secondary outcomes were shown when LMWH was compared with UFH post-caesarean, nor when post-caesarean HES was compared with UFH, post-caesarean five-day LMWH was compared with 10-day LMWH, or when UFH was compared to no heparin postnatally.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence on which to base recommendations for thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy and the early postnatal period, with the small number of differences detected in this review being largely derived from trials that were not of high methodological quality. Large scale, high-quality randomised trials of currently used interventions are warranted.

Prophylaxis for venous thromboembolic disease in pregnancy and the early postnatal period

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolic disease (TED), although rare, is a major cause of maternal mortality and morbidity, hence methods of prophylaxis are often used for women at risk. This may include women delivered by caesarean section, those with a personal or family history of TED and women with inherited or acquired thrombophilias (conditions that predispose people to thrombosis). Many methods of prophylaxis carry a risk of side effects, and as the risk of TED is low, it is possible that the benefits of thromboprophylaxis may be outweighed by harm. Current guidelines for clinical practice are based on expert opinion only, rather than high quality evidence from randomised trials.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of thromboprophylaxis in women who are pregnant or have recently delivered and are at increased risk of TED on the incidence of venous TED and side effects of treatment.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (May 2009).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing one method of thromboprophylaxis with placebo or no treatment, and randomised trials comparing two (or more) methods of thromboprophylaxis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data independently and resolved any discrepancies by discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixteen trials met the inclusion criteria but only 13 trials, involving 1774 women, examining a range of methods of thromboprophylaxis, contributed data for the outcomes of interest. Four of them compared methods of antenatal prophylaxis: low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) versus unfractionated heparin (UFH) (two studies), and heparin versus no treatment (two studies). Eight studies assessed postnatal prophylaxis after caesarean section; one compared hydroxyethyl starch with unfractionated heparin; four compared heparin with placebo; and the other three compared UFH with LMWH. One study examined prophylaxis in the postnatal period.The small number of statistically significant findings in this review are largely derived from trials which are not of high methodological quality. It was not possible to assess the effects of any of these interventions on most outcomes, and especially on rare outcomes such as death, TED and osteoporosis, because of small sample sizes and the small number of trials making the same comparisons.There was some evidence of side effects associated with thromboprophylaxis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence on which to base recommendations for thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy and the early postnatal period. Large scale randomised trials of currently-used interventions should be conducted.

SPIN (Scottish Pregnancy Intervention) study: a multicenter, randomized controlled trial of low-molecular-weight heparin and low-dose aspirin in women with recurrent miscarriage

To assess whether treatment with enoxaparin and low-dose aspirin, along with intensive pregnancy surveillance, reduces rate of pregnancy loss compared with intensive pregnancy surveillance alone in women with history of 2 or more consecutive previous pregnancy losses, a parallel group, multicenter, randomized controlled trial was performed in the United Kingdom and New Zealand. Participants (n = 294) presenting for initial antenatal care at fewer than 7 weeks' gestation with history of 2 or more consecutive previous pregnancy losses at 24 or fewer weeks' gestation and no evidence of anatomic, endocrine, chromosomal, or immunologic abnormality were randomly assigned to receive either enoxaparin 40 mg subcutaneously and 75 mg of aspirin orally once daily along with intense pregnancy surveillance or intense pregnancy surveillance alone from random assignment until 36 weeks' gestation. The primary outcome measure was pregnancy loss rate. Of the 147 participants receiving pharmacologic intervention, 32 (22%) pregnancy losses occurred, compared with 29 losses (20%) in the 147 subjects receiving intensive surveillance alone, giving an odds ratio of 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.52-1.59) of having a successful pregnancy with pharmacologic intervention. Thus, we observed no reduction in pregnancy loss rate with antithrombotic intervention in pregnant women with 2 or more consecutive previous pregnancy losses. The trial was registered at http://www.controlled-trials.com as ISRCTN06774126.

Thrombophilia and pregnancy complications: cause or association?

Both acquired and inherited thrombophilia is associated with an increased risk of pregnancy failure (i.e. sporadic and recurrent miscarriage, late fetal loss), as well as hypertensive pregnancy complications such as pre-eclampsia and HELLP syndrome. The question of whether this relationship can be considered causal is rather philosophical. For practical purposes, the consistency and strengths of associations, potential mechanisms and, most importantly, the possibility to intervene with anticoagulants are reviewed. Relevant methodological issues in the case of thrombophilia and pregnancy complications consist of differences between observational and experimental research and quality issues in randomized controlled trials. The mechanisms associating thrombophilia and pregnancy complications are likely to involve effects on trophoblast differentiation rather than mere hypercoagulability. Therapeutic options comprise aspirin as well as (low molecular weight) heparin. For women with antiphospholipid antibody syndrome, this treatment is often suggested although the evidence is limited. For women with inherited thrombophilia and unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss, at present there is no evidence supporting treatment. Observational research is hampered by severe methodological flaws or inconsistent results. Two published randomized trials have not used an adequate comparator (i.e. no treatment or placebo). Currently, randomized controlled trials with no treatment or placebo are being carried out and results should be awaited before implementing a potentially harmful intervention in pregnant women with inherited thrombophilia and a history of pregnancy complications.

Outcome of the subsequent pregnancy after a first loss in women with the factor V Leiden or prothrombin 20210A mutations

BACKGROUND

The factor V Leiden (FVL) and prothrombin 20210A (PTm) mutations are associated with single late pregnancy loss and recurrent early pregnancy loss. The prognosis after an initial loss in women with thrombophilia is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the pregnancy outcome of the second pregnancy after a first loss in women with and without either FVL or PTm mutations.

METHODS

We selected women with a first pregnancy loss out of two family cohorts of first degree relatives of probands with FVL or PTm mutations and a history of documented venous thromboembolism or premature atherosclerosis.

RESULTS

Ninety-three women had had a first pregnancy loss and became pregnant a second time. Their risk of loss of the subsequent pregnancy was higher than in 825 women with a successful first pregnancy [25 vs. 12%, relative risk (RR) 2.0, 95% CI 1.4-3.0]. The live birth rate of the second pregnancy after an early first loss ( 12 weeks), the live birth rates were 68% (95% CI 46-85) and 80% (95% CI 49-94) for carriers and non-carriers, respectively (RR 0.9, 95% CI 0.5-1.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Women with a first pregnancy loss have a 2-fold increased risk of loss of the subsequent pregnancy, regardless of their carrier status. More importantly, the outcome of the second pregnancy is rather favorable in absolute terms, even for those with thrombophilia and a late loss, which raises concern regarding the risks and presumed benefits of anticoagulant therapy in these women.

Pregnancy Failure and Heritable Thrombophilia

Heritable thrombophilia is associated with an increased risk for pregnancy failure, defined as sporadic and recurrent miscarriage, late fetal loss, and other vascular pregnancy complications such as preeclampsia and intrauterine growth retardation. The pathogenesis is likely to include effects on trophoblast differentiation and not solely hypercoagulability. This is in line with the observation that most recurrent miscarriages occur early. Therapeutic options include aspirin as well as low-molecular-weight heparin. However, in women with heritable thrombophilia and unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss, evidence is not available as published trials have not used an adequate comparator (no treatment or placebo). Currently, randomized controlled trials with no treatment or placebo are being carried out and results should be awaited before implementing a potentially harmful intervention in pregnant women with heritable thrombophilia and a history of pregnancy failure. Both infertility and pregnancy failure are extremely distressing for couples with the desire to have children. Pregnancy failure comprises (recurrent) early miscarriage, as well as late pregnancy loss. The role of heritable thrombophilia in pregnancy failure is reviewed, with a focus on recurrent miscarriage, in terms of epidemiology, etiology, and potential therapeutic implications.

Genetic prothrombotic risk factors in women with unexplained pregnancy loss

INTRODUCTION

Inherited thrombophilia has been associated with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) and stillbirth. This thrombotic tendency can manifest as thrombotic lesions in the placenta, and may lead to abortion and stillbirth. The aim of our case-control study was to investigate the prevalence of FVL and FII G20210A in women with adverse pregnancy outcome, compared to the prevalence of the same mutations in our health control group.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

102 consecutive women with unexplained pregnancy loss (55 with history of RPL, and 47 with history of stillbirth) were studied for hereditary thrombophilia. The health control group consisted of 217 healthy women from the general population.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Of the 55 women with recurrent abortions, we found the same prevalence for the FVL and the FII G20210A(9.1%, 5 pts). (p=NS compared to control group). Of the 47 women with stillbirth, 11 (23.4%) had the FVL and 9 (19.1%) had the FII G20210A(p<0.0005 for both mutations). In our experience the prevalence of FVL and the FII G20210Amutations was significantly higher in women with unexplained stillbirth, instead the prevalence of genetic thrombophilia was high but not statistically significant in women with recurrent pregnancy loss.

Thrombophilia and adverse pregnancy outcome

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Recent case-control studies and metaanalyses have attempted to quantify the risks associated with individual thrombophilic defects and adverse clinical events in pregnancy, including fetal loss, preeclampsia, placental abruption and intrauterine growth restriction. This review has examined the evidence.

RECENT FINDINGS

The literature is in general agreement that thrombophilia increases the risk of venous thromboembolism and adverse pregnancy outcomes, including pregnancy loss, preeclampsia, placental abruption and intrauterine growth restriction in pregnancy. However, the size of the estimated risks varies between individual studies due to heterogeneity in study design. Low-molecular-weight heparin has been shown to be the superior choice, on the grounds of safety and effectiveness, in preventing venous thromboembolism and improving pregnancy loss. Large-scale, randomized controlled studies are required, however, to confirm these findings. Although selective thrombophilia screening based on prior venous thromboembolism history has been shown to be marginally more cost-effective than universal screening in pregnancy, the overall clinical and economic benefit of universal and selective screening is unsupported.

SUMMARY

Despite the growing evidence in the literature, there are still gaps in our knowledge of thrombophilia and pregnancy. In particular, accurate estimates are required of the risks of venous thromboembolism and adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with some thrombophilias and the relative clinical and cost-effectiveness of different anticoagulation therapies in the prevention of venous thromboembolism and pregnancy loss. More large-scale studies are required to better inform clinicians and help determine optimum management and prevention strategies of thrombophilia and associated adverse clinical events in pregnancy.

Low-molecular-weight heparin versus low-dose aspirin in women with one fetal loss and a constitutional thrombophilic disorder

The prospective evaluation of the effect of thromboprophylaxis in women with one unexplained pregnancy loss from the 10th week of amenorrhea was performed. A total of 160 patients with heterozygous factor V Leiden mutation, prothrombin G20210A mutation, or protein S deficiency were given 5 mg folic acid daily before conception, to be continued during pregnancy, and low-dose aspirin 100 mg daily or low-molecular-weight heparin enoxaparin 40 mg was taken from the 8th week. Twenty-three of the 80 patients treated with low-dose aspirin and 69 of the 80 patients treated with enoxaparin had a healthy live birth (odds ratio [OR], 15.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7-34, P <.0001). Enoxaparin was superior to low-dose aspirin in each subgroup defined according to the underlying constitutional thrombophilic disorder. An associated protein Z deficiency and/or positive antiprotein Z antibodies were associated with poorer outcomes. The neonate weight was higher in the women successfully treated with enoxaparin, and neonates small for gestational age were more frequent in patients treated with low-dose aspirin. No significant side effects of the treatments could be evidenced in patients or newborns. As there is no argument to prove that low-dose aspirin may have been deleterious, these results support enoxaparin use during such at-risk pregnancies.

Thrombophilia and New Anticoagulant Drugs

Venous thromboembolism, which includes deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, is the result of an imbalance among procoagulant, anticoagulant and profibrinolytic processes. This imbalance reflects a complex interplay between genetic and environmental or acquired risk factors. Genetic thrombophilic defects influence the risk of a first episode of thrombosis. How these defects influence the risk of recurrence in patients whose first episode of venous thromboembolism was unprovoked is less certain. Thus, when anticoagulants are stopped, patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism have a risk of recurrence of at least 7% to 10% per year, even in the absence of an underlying thrombophilic defect. Consequently, there is a trend toward longer durations of anticoagulation therapy for these patients, which is problematic given the limitation of existing anticoagulants. This chapter provides an overview of the thrombophilic defects and how they influence the risk of venous thromboembolism. The chapter also details advances in anticoagulant therapy, focusing on new inhibitors of factor Xa and thrombin.

In Section I, Dr. Saskia Middeldorp describes the various thrombophilic defects and reviews their relative importance in the pathogenesis of a first episode of venous thromboembolism. She then discusses the influence of these defects on the risk of recurrent thrombotic events in patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism and in those whose thrombosis occurred in association with a known risk factor, such as surgery.

In Section II, Dr. William Geerts reviews the pharmacology of new parenteral and oral factor Xa inhibitors and describes the results of the Phase II and III clinical trials with these agents. He then provides perspective on the potential advantages and drawbacks of these drugs for the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism.

In Section III, Dr. John Heit focuses on direct thrombin inhibitors. He discusses their mechanism of action and compares and contrasts their pharmacological profiles prior to describing the results of Phase II and III clinical trials. Dr. Heit then provides perspective on the potential advantages and limitations of these drugs relative to existing anticoagulants.