Venous Thromboembolism Prevention with LMWHs in Medical and Orthopedic Surgery Patients

2003 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 402-411 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven B Deitelzweig ◽  
Gordon J Vanscoy ◽  
Cynthia S Niccolai ◽  
Thomas L Rihn
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Molecular Weight ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Orthopedic Surgery ◽  
Low Molecular Weight ◽  
Medical Patients ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Consensus Guidelines ◽  
Medline Search ◽  
Vte Prophylaxis

OBJECTIVE: To discuss the role of low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) in the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in medical and orthopedic surgery patients. VTE prophylaxis trials in these practice settings establishing the current use of LMWHs marketed in the US are included. An overview is also provided of VTE incidence, risk factors, and prophylaxis consensus guidelines. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: Clinical trials, review articles, and meta-analyses for Food and Drug Administration–approved LMWHs were identified from a MEDLINE search (1980–March 2002). Search terms included dalteparin, enoxaparin, internal medicine, low-molecular-weight heparin, orthopedic surgery, risk factors, tinzaparin, and venous thromboembolism. DATA SYNTHESIS: Consensus guidelines are useful as an initial guide to appropriate VTE prophylaxis; however, a review of the primary literature is needed to identify optimal agents, regimens, or interventions. LMWHs have demonstrated sound efficacy in VTE prevention; however, the quantity and quality of literature are not always comparable for the available agents. CONCLUSIONS: Enoxaparin has demonstrated efficacy and safety in VTE prevention in medical patients, whereas information is limited or lacking for dalteparin and tinzaparin. Total hip replacement (THR) trials have been conducted with all US-marketed LMWHs and have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of each agent. Trials specifically establishing the efficacy of an LMWH in total knee replacement surgery (TKR) have been published for enoxaparin. One combination THR and TKR trial has been published for tinzaparin. These trial outcomes have positioned the LMWHs as key alternatives to adjusted-dose warfarin for VTE prophylaxis in orthopedic surgery. Inherent differences between LMWHs prevent the extrapolation of clinical outcomes from 1 trial to another.

PS-100 Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis for hospitalised medical patients (HMP) with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH)

2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. A176.1-A176
Author(s):  
FI Ferreira Tátá ◽  
MA Pires Rebelo ◽  
ML Grenho Pereira ◽  
NM Ribeiro Landeira ◽  
SM Dias Fanica ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Molecular Weight ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Low Molecular Weight Heparin ◽  
Low Molecular Weight ◽  
Medical Patients ◽  
Vte Prophylaxis

State-of-the-Art Review : Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Major Orthopedic Surgery

1996 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 153-157
Author(s):  
Paolo Prandoni ◽  
Samuel Z. Goldhaber ◽  
Andrea Piccioli ◽  
Antonio Girolami
Keyword(s):  
Molecular Weight ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Orthopedic Surgery ◽  
Hip Replacement ◽  
Low Molecular Weight Heparin ◽  
State Of The Art ◽  
Intermittent Pneumatic Compression ◽  
Low Molecular Weight ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Major Orthopedic Surgery

Venous thromboembolism continues to be a major source of morbidity and mortality in both elective and traumatic orthopedic surgery. Prevention of this complication has received much attention in the orthope dic literature in recent years. We reviewed the relative efficacy and safety of various agents in the prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism arising after major orthopedic surgery. In patients undergoing total hip replacement, low-molecular-weight heparin in fixed doses, adjusted doses of warfarin, and unfractionated heparin in adjusted doses are the most effective prophylactic agents and are highly recommended for routine use. Low-molecular- weight heparin or warfarin should be used in patients with hip fractures. Low-molecular-weight heparin, warfarin, or intermittent pneumatic compression should be used in patients undergoing major knee surgery. A number of questions still remain unanswered. In particular, further studies are needed to establish the optimal duration of prophylaxis.

Therapeutic Update on the Prevention and Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism

2004 ◽  
Vol 17 (5) ◽  
pp. 289-307 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mike McGuire ◽  
Paul P. Dobesh
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Molecular Weight ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Low Molecular Weight ◽  
Outpatient Basis ◽  
Medical Patients ◽  
Common Condition ◽  
Low Molecular Weight Heparins ◽  
The Past ◽  
Prevention And Treatment

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common condition that increases in incidence with age and risk factors. Therapies for VTE are aimed at either preventing the disease in high-risk individuals or treating patients who have developed VTE. Assessing risk and aggressively using the recommended therapies is primacy in preventing VTE in surgical and medical patients. Risk of VTE in medical patients has become more defined in recent years, and prophylaxis in this group can prevent scores of iatrogenic VTE. Treatment of VTE has evolved in the past decade from a condition that required hospitalization for 5 to 7 days to a disease state that can be conveniently and safely treated on an outpatient basis, largely due to the advent of low-molecular-weight heparins and patient self-directed treatment.

Can We Do Better? Identifying Orthopedic Surgery Patients at High Risk for Venous Thromboembolism Despite Thromboprophylaxis.

Blood ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 104 (11) ◽  
pp. 1782-1782
Author(s):  
Susan R. Kahn ◽  
Renee L. Schiff ◽  
Ian Shrier ◽  
Wahbi Hammouda ◽  
David Zukor
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Molecular Weight ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Orthopedic Surgery ◽  
Low Molecular Weight Heparin ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Low Molecular Weight ◽  
Care Hospital ◽  
Major Orthopedic Surgery

Abstract Background Routine administration of thromboprophylaxis is the standard of care for patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery due to the very high rate of postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, because prophylaxis is not 100% effective, a significant proportion of patients who receive thromboprophylaxis develop post-operative VTE (“breakthrough VTE”). Clinical and surgical characteristics that are associated with the development of VTE in orthopedic surgery patients who receive standard thromboprophylaxis have not been well characterized. Objectives To evaluate the incidence of and risk factors for breakthrough VTE in patients who underwent major orthopedic surgery at a tertiary care hospital in Montreal, Canada. Methods Charts from consecutive patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA), total knee arthroplasty (TKA) or hip fracture surgery (HFS) (hip pinning or hemiarthroplasty) from August 1, 1999 to April 30, 2000 were abstracted using standardized case report forms. Data were collected on patient characteristics (including VTE risk factors and postoperative complications), surgical characteristics (including type of surgery, operative factors, type of anesthetic) and thromboprophylaxis regimen. The results of any tests performed for clinically suspected VTE were documented, and associations between potential risk factors and objectively confirmed VTE were examined. Results Over the 9 month study period, 310 patients underwent major orthopedic surgery (34% THA, 30% TKA, and 36% HFS) and received standard thromboprophylaxis with either dalteparin or enoxaparin (mean duration of prophylaxis: 7 days). Of 83 suspected VTE, 44 (7 proximal DVTs and 37 distal DVTs; 14% of study population; median onset 6 days post-op) were confirmed with objective testing (compression ultrasonography). Multivariate analyses showed that knee surgery (odds ratio [OR] 4.8, 95% confidence interval 2.3, 10.1) and type of low molecular weight heparin (enoxaparin: protective) (OR 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.20, 0.80) independently predicted VTE. Patient characteristics such as previous VTE, malignancy, hormonal therapy or varicose veins were not associated with VTE. Conclusion Despite receiving standard thromboprophylaxis, 14% of patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery developed symptomatic breakthrough VTE. Factors that independently predicted VTE in our population were TKR surgery and type of low molecular weight heparin. Our results suggest that TKR patients may warrant more aggressive post-operative physiotherapy and ambulation and adjunctive prophylactic measures such as pneumatic compression. In addition, due to the heterogeneity of different low molecular weight heparin compounds, direct comparison of the effectiveness of enoxaparin with dalteparin for orthopedic prophylaxis in prospective, randomized trials seems warranted.

Venous thromboembolism in a general hospital. An update with low molecular weight heparin prophylaxis

VASA ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-22
Author(s):  
Schulz ◽  
Kesselring ◽  
Seeberger ◽  
Andresen
Keyword(s):  
Molecular Weight ◽  
Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Low Molecular Weight ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Vte Prophylaxis ◽  
Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Patients At Risk ◽  
Hospital Stays ◽  
Event Rates

Background: Patients admitted to hospital for surgery or acute medical illnesses have a high risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Today’s widespread use of low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) for VTE prophylaxis is supposed to have reduced VTE rates substantially. However, data concerning the overall effectiveness of LMWH prophylaxis is sparse. Patients and methods: We prospectively studied all patients with symptomatic and objectively confirmed VTE seen in our hospital over a three year period. Event rates in different wards were analysed and compared. VTE prophylaxis with Enoxaparin was given to all patients at risk during their hospital stay. Results: A total of 50 464 inpatients were treated during the study period. 461 examinations were carried out for symptoms suggestive of VTE and yielded 89 positive results in 85 patients. Seventy eight patients were found to have deep vein thrombosis, 7 had pulmonary embolism, and 4 had both deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. The overall in hospital VTE event rate was 0.17%. The rate decreased during the study period from 0.22 in year one to 0,16 in year two and 0.13 % in year three. It ranged highest in neurologic and trauma patients (0.32%) and lowest (0.08%) in gynecology-obstetrics. Conclusions: With a simple and strictly applied regimen of prophylaxis with LMWH the overall rate of symptomatic VTE was very low in our hospitalized patients. Beside LMWH prophylaxis, shortening hospital stays and substantial improvements in surgical and anasthesia techniques achieved during the last decades probably play an essential role in decreasing VTE rates.

scholarly journals Safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) vs low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in malignancy induced venous thromboembolism-a systematic review and meta analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Abdul Razzack ◽  
N Hussain ◽  
S Adeel Hassan ◽  
S Mandava ◽  
F Yasmin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Molecular Weight ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Low Molecular Weight Heparin ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Low Molecular Weight ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Dichotomous Data ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background- Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been proven to be more effective in the management of venous thromboembolism (MVTE). The efficacy and safety of LMWH or DOACs in treatment of recurrent or malignancy induced VTE is not studied in literature. Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of LMWH and  DOACs in the management of malignancy induced  VTE Methods- Electronic databases ( PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane) were searched from inception to November  28th, 2020. Dichotomous data was extracted for prevention of VTE and risk of major bleeding in patients taking either LMWH or DOACs. Unadjusted odds ratios (OR) were calculated from dichotomous data using Mantel Haenszel (M-H) random-effects with statistical significance to be considered if the confidence interval excludes 1 and p < 0.05.  Results- Three studies with 2607 patients (DOACs n = 1301 ; LMWH n = 1306) were included in analysis. All the study population had active cancer of any kind diagnosed within the past 6 months. Average follow-up period for each trial was 6 months. Patients receiving DOACs have a lower odds of recurrence of MVTE as compared to LMWH( OR 1.56; 95% CI 1.17-2.09; P = 0.003, I2 = 0). There was no significant difference in major bleeding among patients receiving LMWH or DOACs  (OR-0.71, 95%CI 0.46-1.10, P = 0.13, I2 = 22%) (Figure 1). We had no publication bias in our results (Egger’s regression p > 0.05). Conclusion- DOACs are superior to LMWH in prevention of MVTE and have similar major bleeding risk as that of LMWH. Abstract Figure. A)VTE Recurrence B)Major Bleeding events

Evaluation of rivaroxaban use in patients with gynecologic malignancies at an academic medical center: A pilot study

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 362-368 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessie R Signorelli ◽  
Arpita S Gandhi
Keyword(s):  
Molecular Weight ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Low Molecular Weight Heparin ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Gynecologic Oncology ◽  
Low Molecular Weight ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Gynecologic Malignancies ◽  
Oncology Patients ◽  
Safety And Efficacy

Background Patients with gynecologic malignancies are at an increased risk for venous thromboembolism. National guidelines recommend treatment of an acute venous thromboembolism with low molecular weight heparin for 5–10 days followed by long-term secondary prophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin for at least six months. Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants are not currently recommended to be used in cancer patients for the management of venous thromboembolism because robust data on their efficacy and safety have yet to become available in cancer patients. The objectives of this study were to determine the proportion of gynecologic oncology patients with venous thromboembolism using rivaroxaban compared to warfarin or low molecular weight heparin as well as compare the safety and efficacy of these anticoagulants. Methods This study was a retrospective pilot analysis of adult patients with gynecologic malignancies who received either rivaroxaban, warfarin or low molecular weight heparin for treatment of venous thromboembolism at Augusta University Medical Center from 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2015. Statistical comparisons between the enoxaparin and rivaroxaban group were made using T-tests and Chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests, where appropriate. Results Out of the 49 patients, 37% (18) patients were on rivaroxaban, 53% (26) on enoxaparin, and 10% (5) on warfarin. Only one patient (4%) in the enoxaparin group experienced a recurrent deep vein thrombosis while there were no cases of recurrent venous thromboembolism in the rivaroxaban and warfarin group. The incidence of major bleeding was 17% ( n = 2), 20% ( n = 1), and 8% ( n = 2) in patients receiving rivaroxaban, enoxaparin, and warfarin, respectively. The rate of switching to a different anticoagulant than originally prescribed was 42% ( n = 14) in the enoxaparin arm, and 5.5% ( n = 1) in the rivaroxaban arm. Conclusion A high proportion of our gynecologic oncology patients received rivaroxaban for the management of venous thromboembolism. The sample size of this pilot analysis was too small to draw any conclusions regarding efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban compared with enoxaparin and warfarin. High rate of rivaroxaban use in gynecologic oncology patients at our institution highlights the need for larger, well-designed randomized controlled trials to confirm the safety and efficacy of its use in this population.

The International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE): Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Practices in Acutely Ill Medical Patients.

Blood ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 104 (11) ◽  
pp. 1762-1762 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor F. Tapson ◽  
Herve Decousus ◽  
Jean-Fran[ccedi]ois Bergmann ◽  
Beng H. Chong ◽  
James B. Froehlich ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Major Surgery ◽  
Medical Illness ◽  
Medical Patients ◽  
Median Length ◽  
Thromboembolism Prophylaxis ◽  
Vte Prophylaxis ◽  
Elastic Stockings

Abstract Background Despite consensus group recommendations indicating that medical patients should receive appropriate venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis, prophylaxis practices remain poorly characterized. This analysis of IMPROVE, a prospective study of acutely ill medical patients, describes in-hospital prophylaxis practices prior to the publication of updated VTE prevention guidelines by the American College of Chest Physicians. Methods Patient recruitment began in July 2002. Patients ≥18 years old, and hospitalized for ≥3 days with an acute medical illness are enrolled consecutively. Exclusion criteria are: therapeutic antithrombotics/thrombolytics at admission; major surgery or trauma during 3 months prior to admission; and VTE treatment begun within 24 hours of admission. Results Data were from 4315 patients (32% from USA) enrolled up to 30 June 2004 in 37 hospitals in 11 countries (76% with 3-month follow-up data). Patients are 50% female, median (IQR) age 69 (50–80) years, median length of hospital stay 8 (5–14) days, median weight 68 (58–80) kg, and 40% were immobile for ≥3 days (median length of immobility 7 [4–14] days, including immobility immediately prior to admission). In-hospital VTE prophylaxis was received by 41% of patients (Table 1). Of patients with no risk factors (44%), one risk factor (40%), or ≥2 risk factors (16%), 25%, 49%, and 67% received prophylaxis, respectively. 12% of IMPROVE patients would have been eligible for inclusion in the MEDENOX study. Of these, only 52% received prophylaxis in hospital. Prophylaxis was provided to 6% of patients during the 3-month follow-up period, and continued in 11% of patients after discharge. Conclusions Only 41% of IMPROVE patients received VTE prophylaxis, with considerable variation in types and regimens of prophylaxis used. While MEDENOX showed the benefits of VTE prophylaxis (enoxaparin 40 mg) in acutely ill medical patients, only half of MEDENOX-eligible patients received prophylaxis. Table 1. Use of in-hospital VTE prophylaxis (N=4315) VTE prophylaxis Patients receiving VTE prophylaxis, % ROW, rest of world; *Excluding elastic stockings and aspirin ≥1 type of VTE prophylaxis* 41 LMWH - USA (Q12h, Qd) 7 (5, 1) LMWH- ROW (Q12h, Qd) 31 (29, 2) UFH - USA (Q12h, Q8h) 28 (15, 11) UFH - ROW (Q12h, Q8h) 6 (5, 0) Intermittent pneumatic compression (USA, ROW) 6 (19, 0) Aspirin (USA, ROW) 4 (7, 3) Elastic stockings (USA, ROW) 6 (3, 8)

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document