Wound problems following hip arthroplasty before and after the introduction of a direct thrombin inhibitor for thromboprophylaxis

Principles for management of hip fracture for older adults taking direct oral anticoagulants: an international consensus statement

Hip fracture is a common serious injury among older adults, yet the management of hip fractures for patients taking direct oral anticoagulants remains inconsistent worldwide. Drawing from a synthesis of available evidence and expert opinion, best practice approaches for managing patients with a hip fracture and who are taking direct oral anticoagulants pre-operatively were considered by a working group of the Fragility Fracture Network Hip Fracture Audit Special Interest Group. The literature and related clinical guidelines were reviewed and a two-round modified Delphi study was conducted with a panel of experts from 16 countries and involved seven clinical specialities. Four consensus statements were achieved: peripheral nerve blocks can reasonably be performed on presentation for patients with hip fracture who are receiving direct oral anticoagulants; hip fracture surgery can reasonably be performed for patients taking direct oral anticoagulants < 36 h from last dose; general anaesthesia could reasonably be administered for patients with hip fracture and who are taking direct oral anticoagulants < 36 h from last dose (assuming eGFR > 60 ml.min-1.1.73 m-2); and it is generally reasonable to consider recommencing direct oral anticoagulants (considering blood loss and haemoglobin) < 48 h after hip fracture surgery. No consensus was achieved regarding timing of spinal anaesthesia. The consensus statements were developed to aid clinicians in their decision-making and to reduce practice variations in the management of patients with hip fracture and who are taking direct oral anticoagulants. Each statement will need to be considered specific to each individual patient's treatment.

Should we use dabigatran or aspirin thromboprophylaxis in total hip and knee arthroplasty? A natural experiment

Background

Despite long clinical experience some authorities recommend against the use of aspirin for perioperative VTE prophylaxis and favour alternatives such as dabigatran. A change from Dabigatran to an Aspirin based protocol in a British district general hospital created the conditions of a natural experiment.

Methods

We conducted a single centre, retrospective study of 6-months using a dabigatran based protocol (THA n = 191, TKA n = 155) and 6-months using and aspirin based protocol (THA n = 165, TKA n = 136). Outcomes addressed include: VTE used, VTE events within 90-days, 30-day return to theatre (RTT) rates, and 90-day mortality.

Results

Pre-intervention, the dabigatran prescription rate was 73% (n = 139) and 78% (n = 123) with aspirin prescription post-intervention in 67% (n = 110) and 70% (n = 90) for THA and TKA respectively. We found a similar VTE rate when comparing dabigatran and aspirin groups for THA (2.2% vs. 0%, p = 0.17) and TKA (0.64% vs. 0%, p = 0.32). Similarly, no difference in the RTT rate was seen for THA (0.7% vs.2.7%, p = 0.23) or TKA (1.6% vs. 3.2%, p = 0.38).

Conclusion

No significant differences in safety were found comparing aspirin to dabigatran for VTE prophylaxis for lower limb arthroplasty which, has not been previously reported and represents significant cost saving implications.

Effect of oral factor Xa inhibitor and low-molecular-weight heparin on surgical complications following total hip arthroplasty

This prospective study was conducted to report the effect of oral factor Xa inhibitor and low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) on surgical complications following total hip arthroplasty (THA). The patients with an age < 60 years were randomly assigned to three groups (rivaroxaban, enoxaparin, and placebo) and the patients with an age ≥ 60 years were assigned to two groups (rivaroxaban and enoxaparin). All drug regimens started at 12 hours postoperatively and continued for two weeks after surgery. Primary measure outcome was major surgical wound complications defined as haematoma requiring any intervention, superficial wound infection, deep periprosthetic infection, and increased wound bleeding. Secondary measured outcome included minor surgical complications (swelling, drainage, erythema, and oozing), organ bleeding, and venous thromboembolic (VTE) events. A total of 184 patients aged < 60 years and 167 patients aged ≥ 60 years were included as the analysis population per group. Up to 14 days after surgery, the overall incidence of major surgical complications associated with thromboprophylaxis was 6.5 % (58/886). There were no significant differences in the rate of major surgical complications among all the three groups of the patients aged < 60 years and between two groups of the patients aged ≥ 60 years. For the patients aged < 60 years, wound oozing continued significantly longer in the pharmacological group than in the placebo group, but wound infection did not occur in any case. The VTE events were similar in all the groups.

Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin and the Relative Risk of Surgical Site Bleeding Complications: Results of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials of Venous Thromboprophylaxis in Patients After Total Joint Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism causes significant morbidity and mortality in patients after total joint arthroplasty. Although network meta-analyses have demonstrated a benefit of various thromboprophylactic agents, there remains a concern in the surgical community regarding the resulting wound complications. There is currently no systematic review of the surgical site bleeding complications of thromboprophylactic agents. The aim of this study was to systematically review the surgical site bleeding outcomes of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in this population.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Randomized controlled trials comparing more than one of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), warfarin, rivaroxaban, apixaban, dabigatran, aspirin, or no pharmacologic treatment in patients after total hip or knee arthroplasty were selected for inclusion. Five meta-analyses were performed to compare LMWH with control, warfarin, apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran.

RESULTS

Forty-five randomized controlled trials of 56,730 patients were included. LMWH had a significantly increased relative risk of surgical site bleeding in comparison with control (relative risk, 2.32; 95% confidence interval, 1.40-3.85) and warfarin (1.54; 1.23-1.94). The relative risk of LMWH trended higher than apixaban (1.27; 1.00-1.63) and was similar to rivaroxaban (0.95; 0.74-1.23). Only 1 study reported the risk of surgical site bleeding in LMWH vs dabigatran (5.97; 2.08-17.11).

CONCLUSION

LMWH increased the risk of surgical site bleeding compared with control, warfarin. and dabigatran and trended toward an increased risk compared with apixaban. The risk of surgical site bleeding was similar with LMWH and rivaroxaban.

A comparison of apixaban and dabigatran etexilate for thromboprophylaxis following hip and knee replacement surgery

INTRODUCTION

Patients who have undergone hip or knee replacement surgery are exposed to a high risk of developing a post-operative venous thromboembolus and so have a need for an effective, medication-based, thrombosis prophylaxis. New orally active anticoagulants have been available for a few years now. These specific substances directly block either thrombin (e.g., dabigatran etexilate) or Factor Xa (e.g., apixaban). It is not clear whether there are any efficacy differences between these two substances because there have never been any head-to-head studies carried out.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We have carried out a study comparing two new orally active anticoagulants dabigatran etexilate (Pradaxa^®) and apixaban (Eliquis^®) that were each given to two groups of 200 patients respectively, who had undergone elective hip or knee arthroplasty (100 each). Each patient was assessed for pre- and post-operative hemoglobin concentrations, post-operative blood loss, the number of transfused erythrocyte concentrates, the duration of wound secretion, clinical thromboembolic complications (deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarct), as well as gastrointestinal, intracranial or wound-related bleeding complications.

RESULTS

Dabigatran etexilate treatment led to a significant increase in the duration of wound secretion in both arthroplasty groups when compared to apixaban: wound secretion lasted 1.2 days longer on average in the dabigatran etexilate group than in the apixaban group (4.1 ± 2.1 vs. 2.9 ± 1.8 days). There were no significant differences observed between the two anticoagulant groups when comparing pre- and post-operative Hb values, post-operative blood loss and the other clinical parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Thus, it appears that the direct thrombin inhibitor, dabigatran etexilate, is associated with a longer period of wound secretion following the implantation of hip and knee endoprostheses than that associated with the Factor Xa inhibitor, apixaban.

Systematic review of aspirin for thromboprophylaxis in modern elective total hip and knee arthroplasty

AIMS

There is uncertainty regarding the optimal means of thromboprophylaxis following total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA, TKA). This systematic review presents the evidence for acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) as a thromboprophylactic agent in THA and TKA and compares it with other chemoprophylactic agents.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search of literature published between 2004 and 2014 was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A total of 13 studies were eligible for inclusion.

RESULTS

Evidence from one good quality randomised controlled trial (RCT) showed no difference in rates of venous thrombo-embolism (VTE) in patients given aspirin or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) following TKA. There was insufficient evidence from trials with moderate to severe risk of bias being present to suggest aspirin is more or less effective than LMWH, warfarin or dabigatran for the prevention of VTE in TKA or THA. Compared with aspirin, rates of asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in TKA may be reduced with rivaroxaban but insufficient evidence exists to demonstrate an effect on incidence of symptomatic DVT. Compared with aspirin there is evidence of more wound complications following THA and TKA with dabigatran and in TKA with rivaroxaban. Some studies highlighted concerns over bleeding complications and efficacy of aspirin.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest aspirin may be considered a suitable alternative to other thromboprophylactic agents following THA and TKA. Further investigation is required to fully evaluate the safety and efficacy of aspirin. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1056-61.

Unfractionated heparin and mechanical thromboprophylaxis in hip arthroplasty

OBJECTIVE:

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of unfractionated heparin associated with mechanical prophylaxis as a method for preventing venous thromboembolism in hip arthroplasty.

METHOD:

We retrospectively reviewed the records of 181 hip arthroplasties out of 216 consecutive cases performed over a period of 39 months in our hospital. We excluded 35 cases due to non-adherence to the standardized method of thromboprophylaxis or loss to follow-up. All arthroplasties evaluated completed one-year follow-up after surgery with five consultations at predefined periods. Efficacy of the proposed method was evaluated by the occurrence of symptomatic venous thromboembolism confirmed by specific tests and safety was determined by the lack of occurrence of major bleeding according to criteria established by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis.

RESULTS:

There were four cases of symptomatic venous thromboembolism (2.2%), with three cases of deep vein thrombosis (1.65%) and one case of pulmonary embolism (0.55%). We found one case of severe bleeding (0.55%).

CONCLUSION:

Unfractionated heparin associated with mechanical prophylaxis proved to be an effective and safe method for preventing venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing hip arthroplasty, presenting rates of thromboembolic complications and major bleeding within the range reported with other methods currently used of thromboprophylaxis. Level of Evidence IV, Case Series

Common contra-indications and interactions of drugs in orthopaedic practice

Drug therapy forms an integral part of the management of many orthopaedic conditions. However, many medicines can produce serious adverse reactions if prescribed inappropriately, either alone or in combination with other drugs. Often these hazards are not appreciated. In response to this, the European Union recently issued legislation regarding safety measures which member states must adopt to minimise the risk of errors of medication. In March 2014 the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and NHS England released a Patient Safety Alert initiative focussed on errors of medication. There have been similar initiatives in the United States under the auspices of The National Coordinating Council for Medication Error and The Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. These initiatives have highlighted the importance of informing and educating clinicians. Here, we discuss common drug interactions and contra-indications in orthopaedic practice. This is germane to safe and effective clinical care.

New oral pharmacotherapeutic agents for venous thromboprophylaxis after total hip arthroplasty

Patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) are at high risk for developing venous thromboembolism and, therefore, require short term prophylaxis with antithrombotic agents. Recently, target specific oral anticoagulants (TSOA) including the direct thrombin inhibitor, dabigatran, and the factor Xa inhibitors rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban have been approved for THA thrombopropylaxis in various countries. The TSOAs provide a rapid acting, oral alternative to parenteral agents including low-molecular weight heparins (LMWH) and fondaparinux; and compared to warfarin, they do not require routine laboratory monitoring and possess much fewer drug-drug interactions. Based on phase III clinical studies, TSOAs have established themselves as an effective and safe option for thromboprophylaxis after THA compared to LMWH, particularly enoxaparin, but require additional evaluation in specific populations such as the renally impaired or elderly. The ability to monitor and reverse these TSOAs in the case of bleeding complications or suspected sub- or supra-therapeutic anticoagulation is of importance, but remains investigational. This review will focus on the drug-specific characteristics, efficacy, safety, and economic impact of the TSOAs for thromboprophylaxis following THA, as well as the aspects of therapeutic monitoring and anticoagulation reversal in the event of bleeding complications or a need for urgent reversal.

Comparison of minor bleeding complications using dabigatran or enoxaparin after cemented total hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Orally administered chemical thromboprophylactic agents for total hip replacement (THR) have become popular in recent years. Certain clinical trials suggest that the efficacy and the risk of major bleeding after administration of direct thrombin inhibitor dabigatran etexilate are equivalent to the clinical trial comparator, subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin enoxaparin. Our aim was to compare and evaluate the incidence of minor haemorrhagic and soft-tissue adverse effects of enoxaparin and dabigatran.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

122 patients who were treated by elective cemented primary THR were enrolled in our quasi-randomised study. Two groups were formed according to which perioperative thromboprophylactic agent was used: 61 patients in enoxaparin group versus 61 patients in dabigatran group. Thigh volume changes, calculated perioperative blood loss, area of haematoma, wound bleeding, duration of wound discharge and intensity of serous wound discharge on postoperative day 3 and day 7 were recorded.

RESULTS

The duration and intensity of serous wound discharge differed significantly between the two groups. Duration of wound discharge after drain removal was 2.2 (±2.7) days in the dabigatran group and 1.2 (±1.9) days in the enoxaparin group (p < 0.05). Significant increase in serous discharge was found in the dabigatran group (p < 0.05) on third and seventh postoperative days compared to the enoxaparin group.

CONCLUSION

Both thromboprophylactic agents were found to have appropriate antithrombotic effects after THR. However, dabigatran was associated with an increased incidence of prolonged serous wound discharge, which might cause longer hospitalization and might instigate the use of prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis.

Thromboprophylaxis with dabigatran leads to an increased incidence of wound leakage and an increased length of stay after total joint replacement

Since the introduction of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines on thromboprophylaxis and the use of extended thromboprophylaxis with new oral agents, there have been reports of complications arising as a result of their use. We have looked at the incidence of wound complications after the introduction of dabigatran for thromboprophylaxis in our unit.

We investigated the rate of venous thromboembolism and wound leakage in 1728 patients undergoing primary joint replacement, both before and after the introduction of dabigatran, and following its subsequent withdrawal from our unit.

We found that the use of dabigatran led to a significant increase in post-operative wound leakage (20% with dabigatran, 5% with a multimodal regimen; p < 0.001), which also resulted in an increased duration of hospital stay. The rate of thromboembolism in patients receiving dabigatran was higher (1.3%) than in those receiving the multimodal thromboprophylaxis regimen, including low molecular weight heparin as an inpatient and the extended use of aspirin (0.3%, p = 0.047). We have ceased the use of dabigatran for thromboprophylaxis in these patients.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:122–6.

Concerns regarding the use of dabigatran for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation

Dabigatran is an oral thrombin inhibitor which has been approved in several countries as an alternative to vitamin-K-antagonists for the prevention of stroke or embolism in atrial fibrillation patients. Dabigatran is introduced into clinical practice, although many issues regarding this drug are still unclear, like laboratory monitoring, use in elderly patients, drug- and food-interactions and use in patients with renal insufficiency. Additionally, there is no antidote for dabigatran. Thus, aim of the present review is to give an overview of concerns and unresolved issues concerning dabigatran.

Improving prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism: clinical trial results

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) incurs considerable socioeconomic costs, partly owing to the fact that the treatment and prevention of VTE via effective thromboprophylaxis remains suboptimal in the inpatient and outpatient settings of many healthcare systems. A number of organizations-including the National Quality Forum, The Joint Commission, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services-have established measures to assess and reduce the healthcare burden of VTE. These improvement strategies focus on increasing the use of thromboprophylaxis, implementing existing guidelines, and improving awareness.

FINDINGS

Based on clinical trial results, the oral anti-coagulants rivaroxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran etexilate have been approved in many countries for the prevention of VTE in patients after elective hip or knee replacement surgery. Recently, dabigatran etexilate and rivaroxaban have also been approved in the US for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. In addition, rivaroxaban is currently the only newer anti-coagulant that has been approved in Europe for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis and for the long-term prevention of recurrent VTE. These oral anti-coagulants have several advantages over established anti-coagulants, including no need for routine coagulation monitoring and only minimal food and drug interactions. These characteristics, together with convenient oral administration, may improve adherence and quality of life for patients, which could result in reductions in the rate of VTE.

CONCLUSIONS

These three oral agents have several advantages over established anti-coagulants and could, therefore, address the unmet needs of patients, physicians, and healthcare systems, with the potential to reduce the burden of anti-coagulant management and the occurrence of VTE.