Postcesarean thromboprophylaxis with two different regimens of bemiparin

Evaluating Thromboprophylaxis Strategies for High-Risk Pregnancy: A Current Perspective

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) represents one of the leading causes of death during pregnancy. The greatest risk for it is the presence of medical or family history of VTE, stillbirth, cesarean section and selected thrombophilia. Appropriate thromboprophylaxis has the potential to decrease the risk of VTE in at-risk pregnant patients by 60-70%. Based on this, the authors reviewed the PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases to identify the possibilities of thromboprophylaxis in pregnant patients with a high risk of VTE. Moreover, they summarized its management in specific situations, such as cesarean delivery or neuraxial blockade. Currently, low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) are the preferred drugs for anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis in the course of pregnancy and postpartum due to easy administration and a lower rate of adverse events.

Efficacy of Postpartum Pharmacologic Thromboprophylaxis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of pharmacologic venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in postpartum patients.

DATA SOURCES

On February 21, 2022, a literature search was conducted on Embase.com, Ovid-Medline All, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov using terms postpartum period AND thromboprophylaxis AND antithrombin medications including heparin and low molecular weight heparin.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Studies that evaluated the outcome of VTE among postpartum patients exposed to pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis with or without a comparator group were eligible for inclusion. Studies of patients who received antepartum VTE prophylaxis, studies in which this prophylaxis could not be definitively ruled out, and studies of patients who received therapeutic dosing of anticoagulation for specific medical problems or treatment of VTE were excluded. Titles and abstracts were independently screened by two authors. Relevant full-text articles were retrieved and independently reviewed for inclusion or exclusion by two authors.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

A total of 944 studies were screened by title and abstract, and 54 full-text studies were retrieved for further evaluation after 890 studies were excluded. Fourteen studies including 11,944 patients were analyzed: eight randomized controlled trials (8,001 patients) and six observational studies (3,943 patients). Among the eight studies with a comparator group, there was no difference in the risk of VTE between patients who were exposed to postpartum pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis and those who were unexposed (pooled relative risk 1.02, 95% CI 0.29-3.51); however, six of eight studies had no events in either the exposed or unexposed group. Among the six studies without a comparator group, the pooled proportion of postpartum VTE events was 0.00, likely due to five of six studies having no events.

CONCLUSION

The current literature provided an insufficient sample size to conclude whether postpartum VTE rates differ between those exposed to postpartum pharmacologic prophylaxis and those unexposed, given the rarity of VTE events.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42022323841.

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.

Preventing postpartum venous thromboembolism: A call to action to reduce undue maternal morbidity and mortality

Postpartum venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of maternal mortality in developed countries and can carry significant long-term morbidity. Despite being able to identify postpartum VTE risk factors in a large proportion of the obstetrical population, there is little high-quality evidence available to guide practice on who should receive postpartum thromboprophylaxis. Based on epidemiological data, women with a prior history of VTE or known potent thrombophilia are likely to benefit from an extended duration of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) prophylaxis. However, significant controversy exists around the benefit and harm of postpartum thromboprophylaxis in women with more modest risk factors, such as those with mild thrombophilias or transient situational risk factors around labor and delivery, such as cesarean delivery. We review the available data for postpartum VTE risk factors and thromboprophylaxis in these patients. This review highlights the latest evidence in the area of postpartum VTE prevention, and is a call to action for further research in this area to improve maternal morbidity and mortality.

Bemiparin versus enoxaparin as thromboprophylaxis following vaginal and abdominal deliveries: a prospective clinical trial

Background

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of maternal mortality and morbidity, with the highest incidence occurring during the postpartum period. This study compared the ability of two types of low-molecular-weight heparin, enoxaparin and bemiparin, to decrease the incidence of VTE following elective caesarean section, emergency caesarean section, and vaginal delivery in women who had risk factors for thromboembolism.

Methods

In this prospective clinical trial using a sequential group allocation method, 7020 haemodynamically stable women delivered vaginally or abdominally at the Maternity Teaching Hospital, Kurdistan region, Erbil, Iraq, between May 1, 2012, and November 1, 2013. These women had risk factors for VTE and were allocated to the following groups: treatment with 3500 IU/day of bemiparin, 4000 IU/day of enoxaparin, or no intervention (control). The first dose was administered 6 hours after vaginal or abdominal delivery, or 8 hours after delivery in women receiving spinal anaesthesia. Subsequent doses were administered daily for up to 6 days. The incidence of VTE was assessed for up to 40 days postpartum. Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 19. Proportions were compared using the chi square test of association or Fisher’s exact test. Binary logistic regression analysis was used with VTE as the dependent variable.

Results

VTE occurred in 1 (0.042%) woman in the bemiparin group, two (0.085%) women in the enoxaparin group, and nine (0.384%) women in the control group (P = 0.017). Regression analysis showed that women on bemiparin (OR = 0.106; 95% CI = 0.013–0.838) and enoxaparin (OR = 0.226; 95% CI = 0.049–1.049) were at lower risk of developing VTE than control women. Adverse events in the enoxaparin group included wound dehiscence, haematoma, and separation. None of these occurred in the bemiparin group.

Conclusions

Postpartum bemiparin is significantly effective as a prophylaxis for VTE. Wound complications develop after use of enoxaparin, but not after bemiparin.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov; Identifier: NCT01588171; date: April 26, 2012.

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.