Prophylactic Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin Versus Unfractionated Heparin in Spine Surgery (PLUSS): A Pilot Matched Cohort Study

Chemical prophylaxis and venous thromboembolism following elective spinal surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is a potentially devastating complication after surgery. Spine surgery is associated with an increased risk of postoperative bleeding, such as spinal epidural hematomas (SEH), which complicates the use of anticoagulation. Despite this dilemma, there is a lack of consensus around perioperative VTE prophylaxis. This systematic review investigates the relationship between chemoprophylaxis and the incidence rates of VTE and SEH in the elective spine surgical population.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to identify studies published after 2,000 that compared VTE chemoprophylaxis use in elective spine surgery. Studies involving patients aged < 18 years or with known trauma, cancer, or spinal cord injuries were excluded. Pooled incidence rates of VTE and SEH were calculated for all eligible studies, and meta-analyses were performed to assess the relationship between chemoprophylaxis and the incidences of VTE and SEH.

Results

Nineteen studies met our eligibility criteria, comprising a total of 220,932 patients. The overall pooled incidence of VTE was 3.2%, including 3.3% for DVT and 0.4% for PE. A comparison of VTE incidence between patients that did and did not receive chemoprophylaxis was not statistically significant (OR 0.97, p=.95, 95% CI 0.43-2.19). The overall pooled incidence of SEH was 0.4%, and there was also no significant difference between patients that did and did not receive chemoprophylaxis (OR 1.57, p=.06, 95% CI 0.99-2.50).

Conclusions

The use of perioperative chemoprophylaxis may not significantly alter rates of VTE or SEH in the elective spine surgery population. This review highlights the need for additional randomized controlled trials to better define the risks and benefits of specific chemoprophylactic protocols in various subpopulations of elective spine surgery.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocols and Spinal Deformity

The authors outline a review of preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative considerations surrounding adult spinal deformity. Preoperative management topics include imaging, hemoglobin A1c levels before spine surgery, osteoporotic management, and prehabilitation. Topics surrounding intraoperative management include the use of antibiotics, liposomal bupivacaine, and Foley catheters. The authors also discuss postoperative questions surrounding analgesia, nausea and vomiting, thromboembolic prophylaxis, and early mobilization. Throughout their discussion, the authors incorporate enhanced recovery after surgery protocols to hopefully lead to future discussions regarding optimizing complex spinal patients.

Rivaroxaban versus nadroparin for thromboprophylaxis following thoracic surgery for lung cancer: A randomized, noninferiority trial

The benefit of rivaroxaban in thromboprophylaxis after oncologic lung surgery remains unknown. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban, patients who underwent thoracic surgery for lung cancer were enrolled, and randomly assigned to rivaroxaban or nadroparin groups in a 1:1 ratio; anticoagulants were initiated 12-24 h after surgery and continued until discharge. Four hundred participants were required according to a noninferiority margin of 2%, assuming venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurrence rates of 6.0% and 12.6% for patients in the rivaroxaban and nadroparin groups, respectively. The primary efficacy outcome was any VTE during the treatment and 30-day follow-up periods. The safety outcome was any on-treatment bleeding event. Finally, 403 patients were randomized (intention-to-treat [ITT] population), with 381 included in per-protocol (PP) population. The primary efficacy outcomes occurred in 12.5% (25/200) of the rivaroxaban group and 17.7% (36/203) of the nadroparin group (absolute risk reduction, -5.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], [-12.2-1.7]), indicating the noninferiority of rivaroxaban in ITT population. Sensitivity analysis was performed in the PP population and yielded similar results, confirming the noninferiority of rivaroxaban. In the safety analysis population, the incidence of any on-treatment bleeding events did not differ significantly between the groups (12.2% for rivaroxaban vs. 7.0% for nadroparin; relative risk [RR], 1.9; 95% CI, [0.9-3.7]; p = .08), including major bleeding (9.7% vs. 6.5%; RR, 1.6 [95% CI, 0.9-3.7]; p = .24), and nonmajor bleeding (2.6% vs. 0.5%; RR, 5.2 [95% CI, 0.6-45.2]; p = .13). Rivaroxaban for thromboprophylaxis after oncologic lung surgery was shown to be noninferior to nadroparin.

Venous thromboembolism risk after spinal cord injury: A secondary analysis of the CLOTT study

INTRODUCTION

Patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) are at high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis (VTEppx) is frequently delayed in patients with SCI because of concerns for bleeding risk. Here, we hypothesized that delaying VTEppx until >48 hours would be associated with increased risk of thrombotic events.

METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of the 2018 to 2020 prospective, observational, cohort Consortium of Leaders in the Study of Traumatic Thromboembolism (CLOTT) study of patients aged 18 to 40 years, at 17 US level 1 trauma centers. Patients admitted for >48 hours with documented SCI were evaluated. Timing of initiation of VTEppx, rates of thrombotic events (deep vein thrombosis [DVT] and pulmonary embolism [PE]), and missed VTEppx doses were analyzed. The primary outcome was VTE (DVT + PE).

RESULTS

There were 343 patients with SCI. The mean ± SD age was 29.0 ± 6.6 years, 77.3% were male, and 78.7% sustained blunt mechanism. Thrombotic events occurred in 33 patients (9.6%): 30 DVTs (8.7%) and 3 PEs (0.9%). Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis started at ≤24 hours in 21.3% of patients and 49.3% at ≤48 hours. The rate of VTE for patients started on VTEppx ≤48 hours was 7.1% versus 12.1% if started after 48 hours ( p = 0.119). After adjusting for differences in risk factors between cohorts, starting ≤48 hours was independently associated with fewer VTEs (odds ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.101-0.978; p = 0.044). Unfractionated heparin was associated with a VTE rate of 21.0% versus 7.5% in those receiving enoxaparin as prophylaxis ( p = 0.003). Missed doses of VTEppx were common (29.7%) and associated with increased thrombotic events, although this was not significant on multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Rates of thrombotic events in patients with SCI are high. Prompt initiation of VTEppx with enoxaparin and efforts aimed at avoiding missed doses are critical to limit thrombotic events in these high-risk patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV.