BACKGROUND: The benefit-to-risk ratio of vitamin K antagonists (VKA), relative to active comparators, especially low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH), for preventing venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery is debated. OBJECTIVES: We performed a meta-analysis of all randomized trials in orthopedic surgery comparing adjusted doses of VKA to control treatments. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An exhaustive literature search, both manual and computer-assisted, was performed. Studies were selected on the basis of randomization procedure (VKA vs. a control group). At least one of the following outcome measures was to be evaluated: deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), death, major hemorrhage or wound hematoma. Four reviewers assessed each article to determine eligibility for inclusion and outcome measures. RESULTS: VKAs were more effective than placebo or no treatment in reducing DVT [567 patients, relative risk (RR) = 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37, 0.84, P < 0.01] and clinical PE (651 patients, RR = 0.23, 95% CI 0.09, 0.59, P < 0.01). These results were obtained at the cost of a higher rate of wound hematoma (162 patients, RR = 2.91, 95% CI 1.09, 7.75, P = 0.03). VKAs were also more effective than intermittent pneumatic compression (534 patients, RR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.25, 0.82, P = 0.009) in preventing proximal DVT. In contrast, VKAs were less effective than LMWH in preventing total DVT and proximal DVT (9822 patients, RR = 1.51, 95% CI 1.27, 1.79, P < 0.001; and 6131 patients, RR = 1.51, 95% CI 1.04, 2.17, P = 0.028, respectively). The differences between VKA and LMWH in major hemorrhage and wound hematoma were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery, VKAs are less effective than LMWH, without any significant difference in the bleeding risk.
BACKGROUND: The benefit-to-risk ratio of vitamin K antagonists (VKA), relative to active comparators, especially low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH), for preventing venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery is debated. OBJECTIVES: We performed a meta-analysis of all randomized trials in orthopedic surgery comparing adjusted doses of VKA to control treatments. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An exhaustive literature search, both manual and computer-assisted, was performed. Studies were selected on the basis of randomization procedure (VKA vs. a control group). At least one of the following outcome measures was to be evaluated: deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), death, major hemorrhage or wound hematoma. Four reviewers assessed each article to determine eligibility for inclusion and outcome measures. RESULTS: VKAs were more effective than placebo or no treatment in reducing DVT [567 patients, relative risk (RR) = 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37, 0.84, P < 0.01] and clinical PE (651 patients, RR = 0.23, 95% CI 0.09, 0.59, P < 0.01). These results were obtained at the cost of a higher rate of wound hematoma (162 patients, RR = 2.91, 95% CI 1.09, 7.75, P = 0.03). VKAs were also more effective than intermittent pneumatic compression (534 patients, RR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.25, 0.82, P = 0.009) in preventing proximal DVT. In contrast, VKAs were less effective than LMWH in preventing total DVT and proximal DVT (9822 patients, RR = 1.51, 95% CI 1.27, 1.79, P < 0.001; and 6131 patients, RR = 1.51, 95% CI 1.04, 2.17, P = 0.028, respectively). The differences between VKA and LMWH in major hemorrhage and wound hematoma were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery, VKAs are less effective than LMWH, without any significant difference in the bleeding risk.
Authors: Gordon H Guyatt; John W Eikelboom; Michael K Gould; David A Garcia; Mark Crowther; M Hassan Murad; Susan R Kahn; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Charles W Francis; Maarten G Lansberg; Elie A Akl; Jack Hirsh Journal: Chest Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Geoffrey D Barnes; Nancy Birkmeyer; Scott A Flanders; James B Froehlich; Mark Hemmila; Peter K Henke; Richard L Prager; Tom Leyden; David Share Journal: J Thromb Thrombolysis Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 2.300