Download PDF
Thromb Haemost 2003; 90(04): 654-661
DOI: 10.1160/TH03-02-0086
Blood Coagulation, Fibrinolysis and Cellular Haemostasis
Schattauer GmbH

Optimal low-molecular-weight heparin regimen in major orthopaedic surgery

A meta-analysis of randomised trials
Paul Zufferey
1   Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Department and the University Hospital of Saint-Etienne, France
2   Clinical Pharmacology Unit, Thrombosis Research Group, University Hospital of Saint-Etienne, France
,
Silvy Laporte
2   Clinical Pharmacology Unit, Thrombosis Research Group, University Hospital of Saint-Etienne, France
,
Sara Quenet
2   Clinical Pharmacology Unit, Thrombosis Research Group, University Hospital of Saint-Etienne, France
,
Serge Molliex
1   Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Department and the University Hospital of Saint-Etienne, France
,
Christian Auboyer
1   Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Department and the University Hospital of Saint-Etienne, France
,
Hervé Decousus
2   Clinical Pharmacology Unit, Thrombosis Research Group, University Hospital of Saint-Etienne, France
,
Patrick Mismetti
2   Clinical Pharmacology Unit, Thrombosis Research Group, University Hospital of Saint-Etienne, France
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received 07 February 2003

Accepted after revision 11 June 2003

Publication Date:
05 December 2017 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) are routinely used for thromboprophylaxis in major lower limb orthopaedic surgery. However the optimal LMWH regimen, offering the greatest efficacy with an acceptable risk of bleeding, has not been clearly established with regard to dose and timing of treatment initiation. We performed a meta-analysis of all available randomised trials comparing LMWH to placebo. Relative risks (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. By means of subgroup analysis, we evaluated the consistency of the results according to the timing of treatment initiation (preoperative versus postoperative) and dose of LMWH used (low doses, i.e. 4000 anti-Xa IU or below versus high doses). The possibility of a dose-effect relationship of LMWH was also evaluated by meta-regression. Thirteen studies were included (1925 patients). In four studies, LMWH treatment was started postoperatively. Daily LMWH doses ranged from 3000 anti-Xa IU to over 6000 anti-Xa IU. Compared to placebo, LMWH significantly reduced the risk of asymptomatic deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) (RR=0.51, 95% CI=[0.45-0.59], p<0.001) without significantly increasing the risk of major haemorrhage (RR=0.80 [0.36-1.79], p=0.58). We found no convincing evidence that starting prophylaxis preoperatively was associated with a significantly reduced risk of asymptomatic DVT relative to starting postoperatively. Our results showed a strong correlation between the risk of DVT and LMWH dose (meta-regression, test of slope p=0.03).These findings are tentative because the comparisons are across trials, but nevertheless suggest that the different LMWH regimens currently recommended are effective and safe.

Keywords

Deep-vein thrombosis/prevention - heparins/low-molecular-weight heparins - orthopaedic surgery - meta-analysis
 

  • References

  • 1 Nicolaides AN, Breddin HK, Fareed J. et al. Prevention of venous thromboembolism. International Consensus Statement. Guidelines compiled in accordance with the scientific evidence. Int Angiol 2001; 20: 1-37.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Geerts WH, Heit JA, Clagett GP. et al. Prevention of venous thromboembolism. Chest 2001; 119: 132-75S.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Turpie AG, Levine MN, Hirsh J. et al. A ran-domized controlled trial of a low-molecular-weight heparin (enoxaparin) to prevent deep-vein thrombosis in patients undergoing elective hip surgery. N Engl J Med 1986; 315: 925-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Lassen MR, Borris LC, Christiansen HM. et al. Heparin/dihydroergotamine for venous thrombosis prophylaxis: comparison of low-dose heparin and low molecular weight heparin in hip surgery. Br J Surg 1988; 75: 686-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Lassen MR, Borris LC, Christiansen HM. et al. Prevention of thromboembolism in 190 hip arthroplasties. Comparison of LMW heparin and placebo. Acta Orthop Scand 1991; 62: 33-8.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Torholm C, Broeng L, Jorgensen PS. et al. Thromboprophylaxis by low-molecular-weight heparin in elective hip surgery. A placebo controlled study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1991; 73: 434-8.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Sourmelis S, Patoulis G, Tzortzis G. Prevention of deep vein thrombosis with low molecular weight heparin in fractures of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1995; 77 (suppl 2) 173
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Levine MN, Gent M, Hirsh J. et al. Ardeparin (low-molecular-weight heparin) vs graduated compression stockings for the prevention of venous thromboembolism. A randomized trial in patients undergoing knee surgery. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156: 851-6.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kearon C, Hirsh J. Starting prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism postoperatively. Arch Intern Med 1995; 155: 366-72.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Hull RD, Brant RF, Pineo GF. et al. Preoperative vs postoperative initiation of low-molecular-weight heparin prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing elective hip replacement. Arch Intern Med 1999; 159: 137-41.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Strebel N, Prins M, Agnelli G. et al. Preoperative or postoperative start of prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism with low-molecular-weight heparin in elective hip surgery?. Arch Intern Med 2002; 162: 1451-6.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Vandenbroucke JP. Passive smoking and lung cancer: a publication biais?. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1988; 296: 391-2.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Berlin JA, Longnecker MP, Greenland S. Meta-analysis of epidemiologic dose-response data. Epidemiology 1993; 4: 218-28.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Kew J, Lee YL, Davey IC. et al. Deep vein thrombosis in elderly Hong Kong Chinese with hip fractures detected with compression ultrasound and Doppler imaging: incidence and effect of low molecular weight heparin. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1999; 119: 156-8.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Fong YK, Ruban P, Yeo SJ. et al. Use of low molecular weight heparin for prevention of deep vein thrombosis in total knee arthroplasty: a study of its efficacy in an Asian population. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2000; 29: 439-41.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Lassen MR, Borris LC, Christiansen HM. et al. Prevention of thromboembolism in hip-fracture patients. Comparison of low-dose heparin and low-molecular-weight heparin combined with dihydroergotamine. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1989; 108: 10-3.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Jorgensen PS, Knudsen JB, Broeng L. et al. The thromboprophylactic effect of a low-molecular-weight heparin (Fragmin) in hip fracture surgery. A placebo-controlled study. Clin Orthop 1992; 66: 95-100.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Leclerc JR, Geerts WH, Desjardins L. et al. Prevention of deep vein thrombosis after major knee surgery: a randomized, double-blind trial comparing a low molecular weight heparin fragment (enoxaparin) to placebo. Thromb Haemost 1992; 67: 417-23.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Warwick D, Bannister GC, Glew D. et al. Perioperative low-molecular-weight heparin. Is it effective and safe. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1995; 77: 715-9.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kalodiki EP, Hoppensteadt DA, Nicolaides AN. et al. Deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin and elastic compression in patients having total hip replacement. A randomised controlled trial. Int Angiol 1996; 15: 162-8.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Samama CM, Clergue F, Barre J. et al. Low molecular weight heparin associated with spinal anaesthesia and gradual compression stockings in total hip replacement surgery. Arar Study Group. Br J Anaesth 1997; 78: 660-5.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Yoo MC, Kang CS, Kim YH. et al. A prospective randomized study on the use of nadroparin calcium in the prophylaxis of thromboembolism in Korean patients undergoing elective total hip replacement. Int Orthop 1997; 21: 399-402.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Leizorovicz A, Haugh MC, Chapuis FR. et al. Low molecular weight heparin in prevention of perioperative thrombosis. Br Med J 1992; 305: 913-20.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Howard AW, Aaron SD. Low molecular weight heparin decreases proximal and distal deep venous thrombosis following total knee arthroplasty. A meta-analysis of randomized trials. Thromb Haemost 1998; 79: 902-6.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Planes A, Vochelle N, Ferru J. et al. Enoxaparine low molecular weight heparin: its use in the prevention of deep venous thrombosis following total hip replacement. Haemostasis 1986; 16: 152-8.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Drouet JC, Bernard JM, Bourreli B. et al. Low-molecular-weight heparin (fraxiparine) to prevent deep vein thrombosis in patients undergoing orthopedic surgery: a clinical report of two regimens. Haemostasis 1988; 18: 135-6.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Colwell Jr CW , Spiro TE, Trowbridge AA. et al. Use of enoxaparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin, and unfractionated heparin for the prevention of deep venous thrombosis after elective hip replacement. A clinical trial comparing efficacy and safety. Enoxaparin Clinical Trial Group. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1994; 76: 3-14.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Planes A, Vochelle N, Chevret S. et al. Dose-finding studies of reviparin in elective hip surgery. Semin Thromb Hemost 1993; 19 (suppl 1) 44-8.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Bhandari M, Morrow F, Kulkarni AV. et al. Meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery. A systematic review of their methodologies. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001; 83: 15-24.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Hull RD, Pineo GF, Francis C. et al. Low-molecular-weight heparin prophylaxis using dalteparin in close proximity to surgery vs warfarin in hip arthroplasty patients: a double-blind, randomized comparison. The North American Fragmin Trial Investigators. Arch Intern Med 2000; 160: 2199-207.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Thompson SG, Higgins JP. How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted?. Stat Med 2002; 21: 1559-73.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar