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.
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:
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:
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)