Abstract
The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has thus far relied on historical data and predominantly industry-sponsored trials to provide evidence for venous thromboembolic (VTE) prophylaxis in joint replacement patients. We argue that the NICE guidelines may be reliant on assumptions that are in need of revision. Following the publication of large scale, independent observational studies showing little difference between low-molecular-weight heparins and aspirin, and recent changes to the guidance provided by other international bodies, should NICE reconsider their recommendations?
Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2014;3:146–9.
Introduction
Hip and knee replacements are highly effective procedures for the relief of pain and restoration of function in patients with end-stage arthritis. They demonstrate functional longevity, with low rates of failure and mortality.1,2 In England and Wales, around 150 000 such procedures are performed each year, with a 90-day mortality rate between 0.3% and 0.4%.2 NICE guidelines currently recommend extended venous thromboembolic (VTE) prophylaxis for all hip and knee replacement patients (between 10Â and 14 days for knee replacement and 28 to 35 days for hips) using low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or newer oral agents.3 These recommendations are derived from an extensive network extrapolation of randomised trial data only. Aspirin is not recommended. We have undertaken a critical review of the NICE guidelines relating to hip and knee replacement surgery, which suggests the evidence for prophylaxis is not robust. There are a number of concerns.
Risk data
Risk data, on which the guidelines are based, are historical and may not be applicable to current orthopaedic practice. The last ten years have seen a major change in the delivery of orthopaedic services. The implementation of strategies such as day of surgery admission, the widespread adoption of regional anaesthesia, reduced operating times and fast-track analgesia, allow early mobilisation and aggressive rehabilitation, resulting in a mean length of stay in hospital of five days.4 These strategies contribute to a reduction in risk of death in the peri-operative period5 and may reduce VTE. The papers cited by NICE6-15 to form the basis of their guidelines, are between 10 and 35 years old, when restricted ambulation and prolonged length of stay were commonplace after joint replacement. Now, patients routinely walk within 24 hours of surgery,16 and many on the same day with enhanced recovery initiatives. Results from these studies may lack relevance to modern orthopaedic practice, as they are likely to overestimate the size of the problem, and evidence of absolute VTE risk in the modern era is lacking. It is important to reflect the role of non-pharmacologic strategies upon the prevention of VTE in the production of guidelines.
Incidence of VTE after joint replacement
The incidence of VTE after joint replacement may be smaller than appreciated. Mortality within 90 days of elective hip and knee replacement performed for osteoarthritis was 2.9 per 1000 in 2011 in England and Wales. However, excess mortality attributable to the procedure (exceeding the baseline population risk) may only be 1.2 per 1000 patients.17 Based on 150 000 joint replacements per year,2 the excess mortality attributable to the operation is approximately 180 cases per year. The proportion of these deaths resulting from pulmonary embolism (PE) is between 18% and 25%,16,18-20 representing approximately 30 to 45 patients annually. Cardiac-related death following surgery is more common and may be more relevant, given the well-established anti-platelet effects of aspirin in secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease21 and the potential to reduce peri-operative mortality.22
Given that the number of potentially preventable deaths from VTE is small, we must question the cost-effectiveness of widespread (expensive) anti-coagulant use, particularly as no anticoagulant has been proven to reduce mortality (even in the historic era of prolonged immobilisation).3 The annual cost of potent anticoagulants in these joint replacement patients across England and Wales is approximately £13 million (For example Clexane (Sanofi-Aventis Ltd, Paris, France) £3.03 per 40mg (daily) syringe, 14 days for 90 842 knee replacements and 35 days for 86 488 hip replacements),23 and this ignores community nurse fees to administer the drug to large numbers of patients. In comparison, the estimated cost of administering aspirin is around £110Â 000 per year (less than 1% of the more expensive agents). One study,24 which estimated the lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs per QALY gained when LMWH was used instead of aspirin, found a low probability that LWMH is cost-effective for all patients undergoing hip replacement and for elderly patients undergoing knee replacement. For younger patients requiring knee replacement, the cost-effectiveness of LMWH compared with aspirin is uncertain.24 The true size of the problem and the cost implications need to be more fully appreciated in any subsequent analyses carried out by NICE.
Assumptions used by NICE may need to be revised
The use of VTE prophylaxis after elective surgery is a balance of risks and benefits. However, the inclusion of only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) restricts the evidence available. Moreover, industry sponsorship is endemic within these trials. NICE state that there is no published evidence for the effects of VTE prophylaxis on fatal PE, non-fatal PE and all-cause mortality after knee replacement and no data on the effects on fatal PE and all-cause mortality after hip replacement.3 A recent systematic review of all published trials to determine the comparative effectiveness, benefits, and adverse effects of VTE prophylaxis following orthopaedic surgery concluded that, while there is a real risk of developing deep vein thrombosis (DVT), PE, and major bleeding after major orthopaedic surgery, there are inadequate data to say whether DVT causes PE, and DVT was not found to be an independent predictor of PE occurrence.25 The relationship of DVT to PE is complex (and this uncertainty is described in the NICE guidelines).3,18,20
There are also concerns regarding the manner in which major bleeding complication data were handled. In the NICE analysis, bleeding risk associated with aspirin (based on data from ten knee replacement studies) was not thought plausible, as the risk was low. It was therefore disregarded, fundamentally changing the cost-effectiveness analysis (in which aspirin was most cost-effective) and, as a result, altering the prophylaxis recommendations for knee replacement patients. In a recent study on apixaban, bleeding complications occurred around ten times more frequently (10% to 11%) than major VTE, including symptomatic or asymptomatic proximal DVT, non-fatal PE and death from VTE (0.7% to 1.5%).25
Although symptomatic and asymptomatic DVT are commonly used as outcome measures in prophylaxis trials, the long-term impact of these on patients’ perceived quality of life has never been evaluated. NICE assume that longer-term complications of VTE following joint replacement surgery, such as post-thrombotic syndrome and chronic pulmonary hypertension, are a major cause of morbidity3; there is no supporting data for this in the literature. However, there is published evidence that venous ulceration is found equally amongst those with and without a history of VTE following joint replacement,26 and when those who underwent joint replacement without chemical thromboprophylaxis were compared with the general population.27
Other clinically relevant effects of potent anticoagulants as randomised trials have not routinely reported the incidence of wound complications, return to theatre and deep joint sepsis. An observational study of over 17 000 procedures found “an etiological relationship between the administration of LMWH and the ensuing risk related to surgical site infections”.28 There is also evidence of higher wound complications with rivaroxaban compared with LMWH.29,30 Prolonged wound ooze and surgical site complications cause distress to patients, delay discharge and can necessitate additional surgical interventions. Surgical site infection (SSI) is a serious complication of joint replacement. The Health Protection Agency in England reports an incidence of 6 per 1000 but the true figure may be higher.4 This can necessitate prolonged antibiotics, repeat operations and revision surgery as well as occasional fusion of the joint or, rarely, amputation. Each infection costs over £20 000 to treat and across the NHS, SSI costs approximately £92 million per year.31 Patients who develop SSI and undergo revision surgery have poorer functional outcomes and satisfaction when compared with uncomplicated primary replacements, even when the infection has been eradicated.23,32 The financial and emotional costs incurred when treating the side effects of potent anticoagulants are considerable, and need to be factored into future recommendations. As there is a trade-off between increased efficacy and increased bleeding, any harm caused (such as bleeding resulting in transfusion, infection, readmission or re-operation) should be determined in all cases. However, few trials report these harms.33
Cohort studies
Large, contemporary cohort studies show little difference in terms of efficacy and safetybetween aspirin and LMWH. Randomised trials have thus far been underpowered to detect differences in rare events such as PE and mortality after joint replacement. However, observational studies are well suited to the evaluation of this type of data. An article34 in The Lancet by Professor Sir Michael Rawlins, Chair of NICE, states:
Decision makers need to assess and appraise all the available evidence irrespective of whether it has been derived from randomised controlled trials or observational studies; and the strengths and weaknesses of each need to be understood if reasonable and reliable conclusions are to be drawn.
Furthermore: “decision makers need to avoid adopting entrenched positions about the nature of evidence; and accept that the interpretation of evidence requires judgment”. This would seem to conflict with the approach used by NICE for the current VTE guidance. The inclusion of large-scale, non-randomised, contemporaneously-controlled observational studies should be considered, including joint registry data.35-37 Such registry reports have documented the outcome in many hundreds of thousands of patients. Although they provide lower levels of evidence, these studies are important when it is not feasible to conduct RCTs to answer the questions posed. Observational analyses reflect the real effect of VTE prophylaxis in a contemporary setting, without the artificial environment of a RCT.
Comparative effectiveness research
The comparative effectiveness research initiative approach is specifically designed to generate and synthesise evidence that compares the benefits and harms of alternative methods to prevent, diagnose, treat and monitor a clinical condition, or to improve the delivery of care. It appreciates the importance of combining evidence from a variety of sources, including both RCTs and observational sources, to reach a conclusion that has direct application within clinical practice.38 The subject has recently been awarded USD $1.1 billion of funding by United States Congress. One of the first 100 projects to be commissioned using this funding is a comparison of the effectiveness of different anticoagulant therapies (e.g. warfarin, aspirin, injectable anticoagulants) for patients undergoing hip and knee arthroplasty surgery.39 This suggests an appreciation for the need to combine both RCT and observational approaches across a range of anti-coagulant agents when evaluating their efficacy following hip and knee replacements.
International guidelines differ from those of NICE
Both the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) now recommend aspirin as a method of VTE prophylaxis after elective hip and knee replacement in their revised guidelines.40,41 These guidelines state that the goal of prophylaxis continues to be the prevention of venous thromboemboli and pulmonary emboli, but the risks of prophylaxis must be considered. The revised guidelines give clinicians more autonomy in choosing a prophylactic agent (including aspirin), with greater emphasis placed on dialogue between the surgeon and patient as to the choice of prophylaxis when balancing the risks and benefits of prophylaxis.42 The ACCP and AAOS guidelines differ from NICE, despite consideration of the same available evidence. Major guideline bodies should not present conflicting advice based on the same available evidence.
Conclusion
There is a case for revision of the NICE guidelines for the prevention of VTE after elective hip and knee replacement. The size of the problem may be much smaller in the modern era, assumptions linking DVT with PE/death may not be valid and there is an under-appreciation of the number of wound problems, infective complications and bleeding events the potent anticoagulants are causing. All of these factors are likely to have an effect on the cost-benefit of expensive anti-coagulants when compared with agents such as aspirin, which is cheaper, safer and equally efficacious.
We strongly recommend that NICE consider all the evidence for VTE prophylaxis (including lesser levels of evidence where trial data is not sufficient), given the lack of a clear benefit from the use of potent anticoagulants, as well as the concerns expressed within the orthopaedic community regarding unmeasured risks of prophylaxis and cost implications.
1 McMinn DJ , SnellKI, DanielJ, et al.Mortality and implant revision rates of hip arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis: registry based cohort study. BMJ2012;344:3319.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
2 No authors listed. National Joint Registry for England and Wales: 8th Annual Report, 2011. http://www.njrcentre.org.uk/NjrCentre/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=1TQ%2bEiNejm0%3d& tabid=86& mid=523 (date last accessed 30 October 2013). Google Scholar
3 No authors listed. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: reducing the risk of venous thromboembolism (deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism) in patients admitted to hospital http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/12695/47920/47920.pdf (date last accessed 17 April 2014). Google Scholar
4 No authors listed. Surveillance of Surgical Site Infections in NHS Hospitals in England: Health Protection Agency. 2012. http://www.hpa.org.uk (date last accessed 17 April 2014). Google Scholar
5 Malviya A , MartinK, HarperI, et al.Enhanced recovery program for hip and knee replacement reduces death rate. Acta Orthop2011;82:577–581.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
6 No authors listed. Prevention of deep vein thrombosis with low molecular-weight heparin in patients undergoing total hip replacement: a randomized trial. The German Hip Arthroplasty Trial (GHAT) Group Arch Orthop Trauma Surg1992;111:110–120. Google Scholar
7 Mannucci PM , CitterioLE, PanajotopoulosN. Low-dose heparin and deep-vein thrombosis after total hip replacement. Thromb Haemost1976;36:157–164.PubMed Google Scholar
8 Levine MN , HirshJ, GentM, et al.Prevention of deep vein thrombosis after elective hip surgery. A randomized trial comparing low molecular weight heparin with standard unfractionated heparin. Ann Intern Med1991;114:545–551.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
9 Harris WH , SalzmanEW, AthanasoulisCA, WaltmanAC, DeSanctisRW. Aspirin prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism after total hip replacement. N Engl J Med1977;297:1246–1249.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
10 Eriksson BI , KäleboP, AnthymyrBA, et al.Prevention of deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism after total hip replacement. Comparison of low-molecular-weight heparin and unfractionated heparin. J Bone Joint Surg [Am]1991;73-A:484–493.PubMed Google Scholar
11 Bauer KA , ErikssonBI, LassenMR, TurpieAG. ; Steering Committee of the Pentasaccharide in Major Knee Surgery Study. Fondaparinux compared with enoxaparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after elective major knee surgery. N Engl J Med2001;345:1305–1310. Google Scholar
12 Comp PC , SpiroTE, FriedmanRJ, et al.Prolonged enoxaparin therapy to prevent venous thromboembolism after primary hip or knee replacement: enoxaparin Clinical Trial Group. J Bone Joint Surg [Am]2001;83-A:336–345. Google Scholar
13 Haas SB , InsallJN, ScuderiGR, WindsorRE, GhelmanB. Pneumatic sequential- compression boots compared with aspirin prophylaxis of deep-vein thrombosis after total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Am]1990;72:27–31. Google Scholar
14 Leclerc JR , GeertsWH, DesjardinsL, 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 Haemost1992;67:417–423. Google Scholar
15 McKenna R , GalanteJ, BachmannF, et al.Prevention of venous thromboembolism after total knee replacement by high-dose aspirin or intermittent calf and thigh compression. Br Med J1980;280:514–517.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
16 Khan SK , MalviyaA, MullerSD, et al.Reduced short-term complications and mortality following Enhanced Recovery primary hip and knee arthroplasty: results from 6,000 consecutive procedures. Acta Orthop2014;85:26–31.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
17 Lie SA , PrattN, RyanP, et al.Duration of the increase in early postoperative mortality after elective hip and knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg [Am]2010;92-A:58–63.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
18 Poultsides LA , Gonzalez Della ValleA, MemtsoudisSG, et al.Meta-analysis of cause of death following total joint replacement using different thromboprophylaxis regimens. J Bone Joint Surg [Br]2012;94-B:113–121.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
19 Cusick LA , BeverlandDE. The incidence of fatal pulmonary embolism after primary hip and knee replacement in a consecutive series of 4253 patients. J Bone Joint Surg [Br]2009;91-B:645–648.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
20 Howie C , HughesH, WattsAC. Venous thromboembolism associated with hip and knee replacement over a ten-year period: a population-based study. J Bone Joint Surg [Br]2005;87-B:1675–1680.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
21 Antithrombotic Trialists’ Collaboration. Collaborative meta-analysis of randomised trials of antiplatelet therapy for prevention of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in high risk patients BMJ2002;324:71–86. Google Scholar
22 Devereaux PJ , XavierD, PogueJ, et al.Characteristics and short-term prognosis of perioperative myocardial infarction in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med2011;154:523–528.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
23 No authors listed. National Joint Registry for England and Wales: 10th Annual Report, 2013. www.njrcentre.org.uk (date last accessed 17 April 2014). Google Scholar
24 Schousboe JT , BrownGA. Cost-effectiveness of low-molecular-weight heparin compared with aspirin for prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism after total joint arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Am]2013;95-A:1256–1264.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
25 Raskob GE , GallusAS, PineoGF, et al.Apixaban versus enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis after hip or knee replacement: pooled analysis of major venous thromboembolism and bleeding in 8464 patients from the ADVANCE-2 and ADVANCE-3 trials. J Bone Joint Surg [Br]2012;94-B:257–264.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
26 Muller SD , KhawFM, MorrisR, CrozierAE, GreggPJ. Ulceration of the lower leg after total knee replacement a five-year review. J Bone Joint Surg [Br]2001;83-B:1116–1118.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
27 Gould VC , WyldeV, SmithAJ, BlomAW. Patient-reported history of leg ulceration 12-16 years after total primary knee or hip replacement. Acta Orthop2011;82:471–474. Google Scholar
28 Wang Z , ChenF, WardM, BhattacharyyaT. Compliance with Surgical Care Improvement Project measures and hospital-associated infections following hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Am]2012;94-A:1359–1366.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
29 Jameson SS , RymaszewskaM, HuiAC, et al.Wound complications following rivaroxaban administration: a multicenter comparison with low-molecular-weight heparins for thromboprophylaxis in lower limb arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Am]2012;94-A:1554–1558.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
30 Jensen CD , StevalA, PartingtonPF, ReedMR, MullerSD. Return to theatre following total hip and knee replacement, before and after the introduction of rivaroxaban: a retrospective cohort study. J Bone Joint Surg [Br]2011;93-B:91–95.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
31 Vanhegan IS , MalikAK, JayakumarP, Ul IslamS, HaddadFS. A financial analysis of revision hip arthroplasty: the economic burden in relation to the national tariff. J Bone Joint Surg [Br]2012;94-B:619–623.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
32 Baker P , PetheramTG, KurtzS, et al.Patient reported outcome measures after revision of the infected TKR: comparison of single versus two-stage revision. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc2013;21:2713–2720.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
33 No authors listed. Comparative effectiveness review summary guides for clinicians: venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in orthopedic surgery. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2007. Google Scholar
34 Rawlins M . De testimonio: on the evidence for decisions about the use of therapeutic interventions. Lancet2008;372:2152–2161.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
35 Jameson SS , CharmanSC, GreggPJ, ReedMR, van der MeulenJH. The effect of aspirin and low-molecular-weight heparin on venous thromboembolism after hip replacement: a non-randomised comparison from information in the National Joint Registry. J Bone Joint Surg [Br]2011;93-B:1465–1470.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
36 Jameson SS , BakerPN, CharmanSC, et al.The effect of aspirin and low-molecular-weight heparin on venous thromboembolism after knee replacement: a non-randomised comparison using National Joint Registry Data. J Bone Joint Surg [Br]2012;94-B:914–918.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
37 Bozic KJ , VailTP, PekowPS, et al.Does aspirin have a role in venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in total knee arthroplasty patients?J Arthroplasty2010;25:1053–1060.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
38 Sox HC , GreenfieldS. Comparative effectiveness research: a report from the Institute of MedicineAnn Intern. Med2009;151:203–205. Google Scholar
39 No authors listed. Institute of Medicine: Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research. www.iom.edu/cerpriorities (date last accessed 31 October 2013). Google Scholar
40 Guyatt GH , AklEA, CrowtherM, et al.Executive summary: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest2012;141(2 Suppl):7S–47S.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
41 No authors listed. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons: preventing venous thromboembolic disease in patients undergoing elective hip and knee arthroplasty: evidence-based guideline and evidence report. http://www.aaos.org/research/guidelines/VTE/VTE_full_guideline.pdf (date last accessed 17 April 2014). Google Scholar
42 Knesek D , PetersonTC, MarkelDC. Thromboembolic prophylaxis in total joint arthroplasty. Thrombosis2012;2012:837896.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
Funding statement:
S. S. Jameson has received travel and accommodation remuneration from Stryker, Smith & Nephew, Orthofix and DePuy for educational meetings and conferences which are not related to this article. M. R. Reed reports that his institution, Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation trust, has received grants from Hereaus cement, Ethicon sutures, Convatec, AHSN, The Heath Foundation, Biomet, Carefusion and Boehringer-Ingelheim. M. R. Reed has received funding from Biomet, Hereaus, Carefusion, Convatec, BMI Healthcare and AHSN; all of these are not related to this article.
Author contributions:
S.S Jameson: Main author, Developed concept
P. N. Baker: Co-author
D. J. Deehan: Edited paper, Developed concept
A.Port: Edited paper
M. R. Reed: Edited paper, Developed concept
ICMJE Conflict of Interest:
None declared
©2014 The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attributions licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, but not for commercial gain, provided the original author and source are credited.
