Post-operative complications after total hip
or knee replacement can delay recovery, prolong hospitalisation, increase
rates of re-admission and, in the most severe cases, lead to long-term
disability or even death. In this analysis of pooled data from four
large, randomised, phase III clinical trials that compared the oral,
direct Factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban with subcutaneous enoxaparin
for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after total hip or
knee replacement (n = 12 729), the incidence of complications, including
bleeding and adverse events related to surgery (such as wound infection,
wound dehiscence and haemarthrosis) are reported. Interventions
and procedures relating to surgery are also compared between the
groups. Bleeding events, including excessive wound haematoma and
surgical-site bleeding, occurred at similar rates in the rivaroxaban
and enoxaparin groups. Over the total study duration, adverse surgical
events occurred at a similar rate in the rivaroxaban group compared
with the enoxaparin group after total knee replacement (2.26% This analysis shows that the incidence of adverse surgical events
with rivaroxaban was similar to enoxaparin.
Rivaroxaban has been recommended for routine use as a thromboprophylactic agent in patients undergoing lower-limb arthroplasty. However, trials supporting its use have not fully evaluated the risks of wound complications. This study of 1048 total hip/knee replacements records the rates of return to theatre and infection before and after the change from a low molecular weight heparin (tinzaparin) to rivaroxaban as the agent of chemical thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing lower-limb arthroplasty. During a period of 13 months, 489 consecutive patients undergoing lower-limb arthroplasty received tinzaparin and the next 559 consecutive patients received rivaroxaban as thromboprophylaxis. Nine patients in the control (tinzaparin) group (1.8%, 95% confidence interval 0.9 to 3.5) returned to theatre with wound complications within 30 days, compared with 22 patients in the rivaroxaban group (3.94%, 95% confidence interval 2.6 to 5.9). This increase was statistically significant (p = 0.046). The proportion of patients who returned to theatre and became infected remained similar (p = 0.10). Our study demonstrates the need for further randomised controlled clinical trials to be conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban in clinical practice, focusing on the surgical complications as well as the potential prevention of venous thromboembolism.
A once-daily dose of rivaroxaban 10 mg, an oral, direct Factor Xa inhibitor, was compared with enoxaparin 40 mg subcutaneously once daily for prevention of venous thromboembolism in three studies of patients undergoing elective hip and knee replacement (RECORD programme). A pooled analysis of data from these studies (n = 9581) showed that rivaroxaban was more effective than enoxaparin in reducing the incidence of the composite of symptomatic venous thromboembolism and all-cause mortality at two weeks (0.4% vs 0.8%, respectively, odds ratio 0.44; 95% confidence interval 0.23 to 0.79; p = 0.005), and at the end of the planned medication period (0.5% vs 1.3%, respectively; odds ratio 0.38; 95% confidence interval 0.22 to 0.62; p <
0.001). The rate of major bleeding was similar at two weeks (0.2% for both) and at the end of the planned medication period (0.3% vs 0.2%). Rivaroxaban started six to eight hours after surgery was more effective than enoxaparin started the previous evening in preventing symptomatic venous thromboembolism and all-cause mortality, without increasing major bleeding.