Efficacy and Safety of VTE Prophylaxis with Oral Rivaroxaban Compared to Fondaparinux or Low-Molecular Weight Heparin In a Large Cohort of Consecutive Patients Undergoing Major Orthopaedic Surgery

Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 210-210
Author(s):  
Jan Beyer-Westendorf ◽  
Lars Donath ◽  
Jörg Lützner ◽  
Sebastian Werth ◽  
Oliver Radke ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 210 Efficacy and safety of VTE prophylaxis with oral rivaroxaban compared to fondaparinux or low-molecular weight heparin in a large cohort of consecutive patients undergoing major orthopaedic surgery. Aim: Patients undergoing major orthopaedic surgery (MOS) have a high risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE). Several types of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis are approved for this indication. In phase III VTE prevention trials in MOS, the new oral facor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban proved superior efficacy over LMWH in preventing VTE without increasing bleeding complications. However, study populations consist of selected patients screened for strict exclusion criteria before randomisation. Little is known about efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban prophylaxis in large unselected cohorts of patients undergoing MOS in daily practice. Method: We retrospectively evaluated 5346 consecutive patients undergoing MOS at our centre between January 2005 and June 2011 for the rate of VTE events, bleeding complications and surgical revisions by review of patient charts, complication and transfusion databases and autopsy reports. All events were analyzed according to the type of thromboprophylaxis used. Results: Of the 5346 patients, 1055 patients received thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban (R; hospital standard since 2010), 1683 patients received LMWH (hospital standard 2005–2007), 2069 received fondaparinux (F; hospital standard 2007–2009) and 539 patients received other prophylaxis. Symptomatic VTE event rates for patients receiving R, F or LMWH were 2.5%, 5.5% and 3.9%, respectively (table 1). R was significantly more effective to prevent symptomatic VTE compared to F or LMWH, mostly due to significantly lower rates of distal VTE. Overall, the safety of VTE prophylaxis with R was superior over F or LMWH with significantly lower rates of surgical revisions (1.1%, 1.8% and 4.7%, respectively) and lower rates of severe bleeding complications (7.4%, 11.1% and 14.9%, respectively, which also was statistically significant. Conclusion: VTE prophylaxis with rivaroxaban is superior over prophylaxis with fondaparinux or LMWH with regard to the prevention of symptomatic VTE complications. Furthermore, rivaroxaban prophylaxis was also safer with regard to severe bleeding complications and surgical complications compared to fondaparinux or LMWH, which is in contrast to the results of large phase III trials and the current opinion, that superior efficacy of prophylaxis has the downside of higher bleeding complications. We conclude that real world patients undergoing MOS are different from study populations and may especially benefit from rivaroxaban prophylaxis with regard to both efficacy and safety. Disclosures: Beyer-Westendorf: Bayer Healthcare: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

2014 ◽  
Vol 111 (02) ◽  
pp. 199-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane Liang ◽  
David Bergqvist ◽  
Roger Yusen ◽  
Russell Hull

SummarySurgeons consider the benefit-to-harm ratio when making decisions regarding the use of anticoagulant venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis. We evaluated the benefit-to-harm ratio of the use of newer anticoagulants as thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing major orthopaedic surgery using the likelihood of being helped or harmed (LHH), and assessed the effects of variation in the definition of major bleeding on the results. A systematic literature search was performed to identify phase II and phase III studies that compared regulatory authority-approved newer anticoagulants to the low-molecularweight heparin enoxaparin in patients undergoing major orthopaedic surgery. Analysis of outcomes data estimated the clinical benefit (number-needed-to-treat [NNT] to prevent one symptomatic VTE) and clinical harm (number-needed-to-harm [NNH] or the NNT to cause one major bleeding event) of therapies. We estimated each trial’s benefitto-harm ratio from NNT and NNH values, and expressed this as LHH = (1/NNT)/(1/NNH) = NNH/NNT. Based on reporting of efficacy and safety outcomes, most studies favoured enoxaparin over fondaparinux, and rivaroxaban over enoxaparin. However, when using the LHH metric, most trials favoured enoxaparin over both fondaparinux and rivaroxaban when they included surgical-site bleeding that did not require reoperation in the definition of major bleeding. The exclusion of bleeding at surgical site which did not require reoperation shifted the benefit-to-harm ratio in favour of the newer agents. Variations in the definitions of major bleeding may change the benefit-to-harm ratio and subsequently affect its interpretation. Clinical trials should attempt to improve the consistency of major bleeding reporting.


2004 ◽  
Vol 92 (07) ◽  
pp. 3-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy Norris ◽  
Turpie Alexander

SummaryMany hospitalised medical patients are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Consensus statements recommend that such patients be assessed for risk of VTE on admission to hospital and receive thromboprophylaxis where appropriate. However, VTE prophylaxis is not widely used in medical patients. One explanation is that assessing medical patients’ risk of VTE is complicated. The risk depends not only on the current illness but also on multiple intrinsic factors, and a variety of strategies for identifying patients who should receive thromboprophylaxis have been suggested. Thromboprophylaxis with unfractionated heparin (UFH) has proved to be effective in reducing the incidence of deep-vein thrombosis and overall mortality in medical patients. Clinical trial evidence, including a meta-analysis, suggests that thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is at least as effective as with UFH, and also has the advantage of fewer bleeding complications. In particular, two large, randomised clinical trials – Prophylaxis in Medical Patients with Enoxaparin (MEDENOX) and Prospective Evaluation of Dalteparin Efficacy for Prevention of VTE in Immobilized Patients Trial (PREVENT) – showed that thromboprophylaxis with the LMWHs enoxaparin (40 mg s.c. once daily) or dalteparin (5,000 IU once daily) is more effective than placebo and well tolerated in medical patients. In addition, the Thromboembolism-Prevention in Cardiopulmonary Diseases with Enoxaparin (THE-PRINCE) trial showed that enoxaparin treatment was as effective as UFH. These studies provide solid evidence for the widespread use of thromboprophylaxis in medical patients.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document