Aims. We studied the safety and efficacy of multimodal thromboprophylaxis in patients with a history of venous thromboembolism (VTE) who undergo total hip arthroplasty (THA) within the first 120 postoperative days, and the mortality during the first year. Multimodal prophylaxis includes discontinuation of procoagulant medications, VTE risk stratification, regional anaesthesia, an intravenous bolus of unfractionated heparin prior to femoral preparation, rapid mobilization, the use of pneumatic compression devices, and chemoprophylaxis tailored to the patient’s risk of VTE. Methods. Between 2004 to 2018, 257 patients with a proven history of VTE underwent 277 primary elective THA procedures by two surgeons at a single institution. The patients had a history of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (186, 67%), pulmonary embolism (PE) (43, 15.5%), or both (48, 17.5%). Chemoprophylaxis included aspirin (38 patients), anticoagulation (215 patients), or a combination of aspirin and anticoagulation (24 patients). A total of 50 patients (18%) had a vena cava filter in situ at the time of surgery. Patients were followed for 120 days to record complications, and for one year to record mortality. Results. Postoperative VTE was diagnosed in seven patients (2.5%): DVT in five, and PE with and without DVT in one patient each. After hospitalization, three patients required readmiss-ion for evacuation of a haematoma, one for wound drainage, and one for monitoring of an elevated international normalized ratio (INR). Seven patients died (2.5%). One patient died five months postoperatively of a PE during open thrombectomy. She had discontinued anticoagulation. One patient died of a haemorrhagic stroke while receiving Coumadin. PE or bleeding was not suspected in the remaining five fatalities. Conclusion. Multimodal prophylaxis is safe and effective in patients with a history of VTE. Postoperative anticoagulation should be prudent as very few patients developed VTE (2.5%) or died of suspected or confirmed PE. Mortality during the first year was mostly unrelated to either VTE or bleeding. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7 Supple B):71–77

We performed a meta-analysis of modern total joint replacement (TJR) to determine the post-operative mortality and the cause of death using different thromboprophylactic regimens as follows: 1) no routine chemothromboprophylaxis (NRC); 2) Potent anticoagulation (PA) (unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin, ximelagatran, fondaparinux or rivaroxaban); 3) Potent anticoagulation combined (PAC) with regional anaesthesia and/or pneumatic compression devices (PCDs); 4) Warfarin (W); 5) Warfarin combined (WAC) with regional anaesthesia and/or PCD; and 6) Multimodal (MM) prophylaxis, including regional anaesthesia, PCDs and aspirin in low-risk patients. Cause of death was classified as autopsy proven, clinically certain or unknown. Deaths were grouped into cardiopulmonary excluding pulmonary embolism (PE), PE, bleeding-related, gastrointestinal, central nervous system, and others (miscellaneous). Meta-analysis based on fixed effects or random effects models was used for pooling incidence data. In all, 70 studies were included (99 441 patients; 373 deaths). The mortality was lowest in the MM (0.2%) and WC (0.2%) groups. The most frequent cause of death was cardiopulmonary (47.9%), followed by PE (25.4%) and bleeding (8.9%). The proportion of deaths due to PE was not significantly affected by the thromboprophylaxis regimen (PA, 35.5%; PAC, 28%; MM, 23.2%; and NRC, 16.3%). Fatal bleeding was higher in groups relying on the use of anticoagulation (W, 33.8%; PA, 9.4%; PAC, 10.8%) but the differences were not statistically significant. Our study demonstrated that the routine use of PA does not reduce the overall mortality or the proportion of deaths due to PE

The number of arthroplasties being performed increases each year. Patients undergoing an arthroplasty are at risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and appropriate prophylaxis has been recommended. However, the optimal protocol and the best agent to minimise VTE under these circumstances are not known. Although many agents may be used, there is a difference in their efficacy and the risk of bleeding. Thus, the selection of a particular agent relies on the balance between the desire to minimise VTE and the attempt to reduce the risk of bleeding, with its undesirable, and occasionally fatal, consequences.

Acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) is an agent for VTE prophylaxis following arthroplasty. Many studies have shown its efficacy in minimising VTE under these circumstances. It is inexpensive and well-tolerated, and its use does not require routine blood tests. It is also a ‘milder’ agent and unlikely to result in haematoma formation, which may increase both the risk of infection and the need for further surgery. Aspirin is also unlikely to result in persistent wound drainage, which has been shown to be associated with the use of agents such as low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and other more aggressive agents.

The main objective of this review was to summarise the current evidence relating to the efficacy of aspirin as a VTE prophylaxis following arthroplasty, and to address some of the common questions about its use.

There is convincing evidence that, taking all factors into account, aspirin is an effective, inexpensive, and safe form of VTE following arthroplasty in patients without a major risk factor for VTE, such as previous VTE.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1420–30.

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.