Abstract
Background
The most appropriate form of chemical thromboprophylaxis following knee replacement is a contentious issue. Most national guidelines recommend the use of low molecular weight Heparin (LMWH) whilst opposing the use of aspirin. We compared thromboembolic events, major haemorrhage and death after knee replacement in patients receiving either aspirin or LMWH.
Methods
Data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales was linked to an administrative database of hospital admissions in the English National Health Service. A total of 156 798 patients undergoing knee replacement between April 2003 and September 2008 were included and followed up for 90 days. Multivariable risk modelling was used to estimate odds ratios adjusted for baseline risk factors (AOR). An AOR < 1 indicates that risk rates are lower with LMWH than with aspirin.
Results
In all, 23.1% of patients were prescribed aspirin and 76.9% LMWH. We found no statistically significant differences in the rate of pulmonary embolism (aspirin 0.49%, LMWH 0.45%, AOR 0.88; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.74 to 1.05), 90-day mortality (0.39% versus 0.45%, AOR 1.13; 95% CI 0.94–1.37) and major haemorrhage (0.37% versus 0.39%, AOR 1.01; 95% CI 0.83–1.22). There was a significantly greater likelihood of requirement for return to theatre in the aspirin group (0.26% versus 0.19%, AOR 0.73; 95% CI 0.58–0.94).
Discussion
Between patients receiving LMWH or aspirin, there was no difference in the risk of pulmonary embolus, 90-day mortality and major haemorrhage. These results should be considered when the existing guidelines for thromboprophylaxis after knee replacement are reviewed.
