European guidelines on perioperative venous thromboembolism prophylaxis: Patients with preexisting coagulation disorders and after severe perioperative bleeding

Rates of venous thromboembolism and use of thromboprophylaxis after major orthopedic surgery in patients with congenital hemophilia A or B: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a well-recognized complication after total joint replacement (TJR). Persons with hemophilia A or B are considered at low postoperative VTE risk due to their coagulation factor deficiencies, and administering pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is often considered contraindicated. However, using factor replacement therapy could increase the postoperative VTE risk.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze best available evidences of VTE rates in persons with hemophilia A or B undergoing lower limb TJR and the use of postoperative pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis.

METHODS

We systematically screened 4 online biomedical databases to identify studies reporting VTE rates in patients with hemophilia after TJR. Case reports and case series with less than 10 patients were excluded.

RESULTS

Twenty-six observational studies were included in this systematic review, reporting 1181 TJRs in patients with hemophilia A or B. Eight studies had VTE rates as the primary outcome. Five studies reported screen-detected VTE, while 21 reported symptomatic VTE events. Overall, 17 VTE events were reported (1.4%; 95% CI, 0.9%-2.3%), including 10 (6.6%) after 151 surgeries with postoperative VTE screening and 7 (0.7%) after 1080 surgeries without postoperative screening. Thromboprophylaxis protocols were specified in 21 studies; postoperative thromboprophylaxis was used in 15 (1.3%) surgeries. This information was not available for 29.0% of the analyzed population.

CONCLUSION

Despite the low thromboprophylaxis use in patients with hemophilia, rates of symptomatic VTE after TJR appeared to be low. We also highlighted the need to better report the thrombotic outcome in persons with hemophilia to face the ongoing changes in the hemophilia landscape.

Pharmacological Thromboprophylaxis in People with Hemophilia Experiencing Orthopedic Surgery: What Does the Literature Say in 2023?

This narrative review of the literature, consisting of papers found in PubMed and The Cochrane Library published up to 31 July 2023, analyzed those that were deemed to be closely related to the title of this paper. It was encountered that the peril of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in people with hemophilia (PWH) after orthopedic surgery is very small, such that pharmacological thromboprophylaxis is not necessary in most cases. The hemophilia literature states that the use of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis should only be performed in PWH undergoing major orthopedic surgery (total-knee arthroplasty, total-hip arthroplasty, ankle arthrodesis) who have additional venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk factors, such as old age, prior VTE, varicose veins, general anesthesia, cancer, factor V (Leiden) mutation, overweight, and treatment with the oral contraceptive pill (in females with von Willebrand's illness). If we notice various risk factors for VTE in PWH who experience orthopedic surgery, theoretically, we should perform the identical type of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis advised for non-hemophilia patients: low-molecular weight heparins (LMWHs), such as enoxaparin (40 mg subcutaneous/24 h); or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), either thrombin inhibitors (dabigatran, 150 mg oral/12 h) or activated factor X (FXa) inhibitors (rivaroxaban, 20 mg oral/24 h; apixaban, 5 mg oral/24 h), or subcutaneous fondaparinux (2.5 mg/24 h subcutaneously). However, the review of the literature on hemophiliac patients has shown that only a few authors have used pharmacological prophylaxis with LMWH (subcutaneous enoxaparin) for a short period of time (10-14 days) in some patients who had risk factors for VTE. Only one group of authors used a low dose of DOAC in the dusk after the surgical procedure and the next day, specifically in individuals at elevated risk of VTE and elevated risk of bleeding after the surgical procedure.

Thromboembolic Disease in Haemophilic Patients Undergoing Major Orthopaedic Surgery: Is Thromboprophylaxis Mandatory?

Haemophilia is a rare genetic disorder, that results from various degrees of deficiency of coagulation factor VIII (haemophilia A), or factor IX (haemophilia B), with an X-linked transmission. The patients affected are in the majority of cases males (who inherit the affected X-chromosome from the maternal side), with rare cases of females with haemophilia (FVIII or FIX < 40 IU/dL), situations in which both X-chromosomes are affected, or one is affected, and the other one is inactive (known as carrier). The hypocoagulable state due to the deficiency of clotting factors, manifests as an excessive, recurrent tendency to bleeding, which positively correlates with plasmatic levels. Severe haemophilia results in hemarthrosis, although recent data have shown that moderate or even mild disease can lead to joint bleeding. Recurrent episodes of haemorrhages, usually affecting large joints such as knees, elbows, or ankles, lead to joint remodelling and subsequent haemophilic arthropathy, which may require arthroplasty as a last therapeutic option. Orthopaedic patients have the highest risk among all for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) with morbid and potentially fatal consequences. While for the rest of the population thromboprophylaxis in orthopaedic surgery is efficient, relatively safe, and widely used, for patients with haemophilia who are considered to have a low thromboembolic risk, there is great controversy. The great heterogeneity of this particular population, and the lack of clinical trials, with only case reports or observational studies, makes thromboprophylaxis in major orthopaedic surgery a tool to be used by every clinician based on experience and case particularities. This review aims to briefly summarise the latest clinical data and to offer an insight into the current recommendations that readers would find useful in daily practice.

Guidelines and evidence-based recommendations in anaesthesia: where do we stand?

Clinical practice guidelines are increasingly important to guide clinical care. However, they can vary widely in quality, and many recommendations are based on low-level evidence. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for new flexible formats for rigorously developed guidelines. Future guideline development should be standardised, graded, registered, and updated to ensure that they are 'living' works in progress.

[What the (general and abdominal) surgeon should know about thrombosis prophylaxis]

A persisting problem in the clinical operative routine is surgery-associated venous thromboembolisms with the possible complications. The competent and reliably realized prophylaxis of thromboembolism is part of the original and elementary tasks of the surgeon, both the operator as well as the clinically active physician. Many preventive approaches were developed and established in the daily management but a residual risk for development of thrombosis still remains. Under this aspect a search was carried out particularly with respect to scientific literature with review and guideline character on the topic of risk stratification, prophylactic procedures in general and for specific indications.

Levels of Evidence Supporting the North American and European Perioperative Care Guidelines for Anesthesiologists between 2010 and 2020: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Although there are thousands of published recommendations in anesthesiology clinical practice guidelines, the extent to which these are supported by high levels of evidence is not known. This study hypothesized that most recommendations in clinical practice guidelines are supported by a low level of evidence.

METHODS

A registered (Prospero CRD42020202932) systematic review was conducted of anesthesia evidence-based recommendations from the major North American and European anesthesiology societies between January 2010 and September 2020 in PubMed and EMBASE. The level of evidence A, B, or C and the strength of recommendation (strong or weak) for each recommendation was mapped using the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association classification system or the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. The outcome of interest was the proportion of recommendations supported by levels of evidence A, B, and C. Changes in the level of evidence over time were examined. Risk of bias was assessed using Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II.

RESULTS

In total, 60 guidelines comprising 2,280 recommendations were reviewed. Level of evidence A supported 16% (363 of 2,280) of total recommendations and 19% (288 of 1,506) of strong recommendations. Level of evidence C supported 51% (1,160 of 2,280) of all recommendations and 50% (756 of 1,506) of strong recommendations. Of all the guidelines, 73% (44 of 60) had a low risk of bias. The proportion of recommendations supported by level of evidence A versus level of evidence C (relative risk ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.18 to 4.74; P = 0.933) or level of evidence B versus level of evidence C (relative risk ratio, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.72 to 3.72; P = 0.243) did not increase in guidelines that were revised. Year of publication was also not associated with increases in the proportion of recommendations supported by level of evidence A (relative risk ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.23; P = 0.340) or level of evidence B (relative risk ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.15; P = 0.283) compared to level of evidence C.

CONCLUSIONS

Half of the recommendations in anesthesiology clinical practice guidelines are based on a low level of evidence, and this did not change over time. These findings highlight the need for additional efforts to increase the quality of evidence used to guide decision-making in anesthesiology.

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

Chinese expert consensus on diagnosis and treatment of trauma-induced hypercoagulopathy

Trauma-induced coagulopathy (TIC) is caused by post-traumatic tissue injury and manifests as hypercoagulability that leads to thromboembolism or hypocoagulability that leads to uncontrollable massive hemorrhage. Previous studies on TIC have mainly focused on hemorrhagic coagulopathy caused by the hypocoagulable phenotype of TIC, while recent studies have found that trauma-induced hypercoagulopathy can occur in as many as 22.2-85.1% of trauma patients, in whom it can increase the risk of thrombotic events and mortality by 2- to 4-fold. Therefore, the Chinese People's Liberation Army Professional Committee of Critical Care Medicine and the Chinese Society of Thrombosis, Hemostasis and Critical Care, Chinese Medicine Education Association jointly formulated this Chinese Expert Consensus comprising 15 recommendations for the definition, pathophysiological mechanism, assessment, prevention, and treatment of trauma-induced hypercoagulopathy.

The concept of peri-operative medicine to prevent major adverse events and improve outcome in surgical patients: A narrative review

: Peri-operative Medicine is the patient-centred and value-based multidisciplinary peri-operative care of surgical patients. Peri-operative stress, that is the collective response to stimuli occurring before, during and after surgery, is, together with pre-existing comorbidities, the pathophysiological basis of major adverse events. The ultimate goal of Peri-operative Medicine is to promote high quality recovery after surgery. Clinical scores and/or biomarkers should be used to identify patients at high risk of developing major adverse events throughout the peri-operative period. Allocation of high-risk patients to specific care pathways with peri-operative organ protection, close surveillance and specific early interventions is likely to improve patient-relevant outcomes, such as disability, health-related quality of life and mortality.

Risk factors for venous thromboembolism in individuals undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting

OBJECTIVE

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) can easily occur after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). We assessed the proportion of patients with a diagnosis of VTE after CABG and determined the associated risk factors and complications in these patients.

METHODS

We assessed all the patients included in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2012 to 2015 who had undergone CABG. The demographic characteristics, surgical parameters, and complications were analyzed using single-factor and binary logistic regression analyses to identify the risk factors for VTE after CABG.

RESULTS

Overall, 8956 patients were identified. Postoperative VTE was found in 1.75% of these patients, with pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis accounting for 0.61% and 1.28%, respectively; 0.15% of the patients had both conditions. The patients who had developed VTE had greater odds of being white and having an American Society of Anesthesiologists classification of ≥5. Multivariate analysis showed that a history of bleeding disorders, congestive heart failure, and operative time of ≥310 minutes were risk factors for the development of postoperative VTE. Patients with VTE had worse outcomes, including greater odds of returning to the operating room, hospitalization, unplanned reoperation, and readmission. The occurrence of VTE was associated with several postoperative complications, including emergency intubation, ventilator time >48 hours, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, peri- and postoperative transfusions, gradual kidney function reduction, acute kidney failure, cardiac arrest necessitating cardiopulmonary resuscitation, myocardial infarction, and septic shock.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall VTE rate after CABG has been low. However, the condition has been associated with worse 30-day postoperative outcomes and complications. The independent predictors of VTE development included a history of bleeding disorders, congestive heart failure in the 30 days before surgery, and operative time of ≥310 minutes. Understanding these risk factors should aid physicians in the decisions regarding prophylaxis and treatment.