C0190: Switching from Low Molecular Weight Heparin to Dabigatran in Patients Undergoing Elective Total Hip or Knee Replacement Surgery is Effective with a Good Safety Profile

2014 ◽  
Vol 133 ◽  
pp. S39-S40
Author(s):  
C. Wuring ◽  
A. Clemens ◽  
H. Rauscher ◽  
E. Kleine ◽  
M. Feuring ◽  
...  
2013 ◽  
Vol 109 (01) ◽  
pp. 154-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jörg Lützner ◽  
Lars Donath ◽  
Luise Tittl ◽  
Holger Knoth ◽  
Oliver C. Radke ◽  
...  

SummaryProspective trials have shown that rivaroxaban thromboprophylaxis is superior over low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in patients undergoing hip and knee replacement surgery. However, patients treated under trial conditions are different from unselected routine patients, which may affect efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis. The objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban or LMWH thromboprophylaxis in unselected patients undergoing hip and knee replacement surgery in daily care. In a monocentric, retrospective cohort study in 5,061 consecutive patients undergoing hip and knee replacement surgery a comparison of LMWH (hospital standard in 2006–2007) and rivaroxaban (since 2009) was made with regard to rates of symptomatic VTE, bleeding and surgical complications and length of hospital stay. Rates of symptomatic VTE were 4.1 % (LMWH) and 2.1 % (rivaroxaban; p=0.005) with rates for distal DVT 2.5 vs. 1.1 % (p<0.001). Rates of major VTE were numerically higher with LMWH (1.7 vs. 1.1%, not statistically significant). Rates of major bleeding (overt bleeding leading to surgical revision or death, occurring in a critical site, or transfusion of at least two units of packed red blood cells) were statistically lower with rivaroxaban (2.9 vs. 7.0%; p<0.001). Rivaroxaban patients had fewer surgical complications (1.1 vs. 3.7%; p<0.001) and a shorter length of hospitalisation (8.3 days; 95% CI 8.1– 8.5 vs. 11.1 days; 10.7– 11.5; p< 0.001). We conclude that rivaroxaban thromboprophylaxis is more effective than LMWH in unselected patients undergoing hip and knee replacement surgery in daily care and that switching from LMWH to rivaroxaban could be beneficial. Prospective comparisons are warranted to confirm our findings.


2014 ◽  
Vol 120 (4) ◽  
pp. 852-860 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cynthia So-Osman ◽  
Rob G. H. H. Nelissen ◽  
Ankie W. M. M. Koopman-van Gemert ◽  
Ewoud Kluyver ◽  
Ruud G. Pöll ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Patient blood management is introduced as a new concept that involves the combined use of transfusion alternatives. In elective adult total hip- or knee-replacement surgery patients, the authors conducted a large randomized study on the integrated use of erythropoietin, cell saver, and/or postoperative drain reinfusion devices (DRAIN) to evaluate allogeneic erythrocyte use, while applying a restrictive transfusion threshold. Patients with a preoperative hemoglobin level greater than 13 g/dl were ineligible for erythropoietin and evaluated for the effect of autologous blood reinfusion. Methods: Patients were randomized between autologous reinfusion by cell saver or DRAIN or no blood salvage device. Primary outcomes were mean intra- and postoperative erythrocyte use and proportion of transfused patients (transfusion rate). Secondary outcome was cost-effectiveness. Results: In 1,759 evaluated total hip- and knee-replacement surgery patients, the mean erythrocyte use was 0.19 (SD, 0.9) erythrocyte units/patient in the autologous group (n = 1,061) and 0.22 (0.9) erythrocyte units/patient in the control group (n = 698) (P = 0.64). The transfusion rate was 7.7% in the autologous group compared with 8.3% in the control group (P = 0.19). No difference in erythrocyte use was found between cell saver and DRAIN groups. Costs were increased by €298 per patient (95% CI, 76 to 520). Conclusion: In patients with preoperative hemoglobin levels greater than 13 g/dl, autologous intra- and postoperative blood salvage devices were not effective as transfusion alternatives: use of these devices did not reduce erythrocyte use and increased costs.


2013 ◽  
Vol 72 (Suppl 3) ◽  
pp. A578.3-A578
Author(s):  
W. F. Peter ◽  
C. Tilbury ◽  
R. Tordoir ◽  
S. H. Verdegaal ◽  
R. Onstenk ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document