Since the introduction of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines on thromboprophylaxis and the use of extended thromboprophylaxis with new oral agents, there have been reports of complications arising as a result of their use. We have looked at the incidence of wound complications after the introduction of dabigatran for thromboprophylaxis in our unit.

We investigated the rate of venous thromboembolism and wound leakage in 1728 patients undergoing primary joint replacement, both before and after the introduction of dabigatran, and following its subsequent withdrawal from our unit.

We found that the use of dabigatran led to a significant increase in post-operative wound leakage (20% with dabigatran, 5% with a multimodal regimen; p < 0.001), which also resulted in an increased duration of hospital stay. The rate of thromboembolism in patients receiving dabigatran was higher (1.3%) than in those receiving the multimodal thromboprophylaxis regimen, including low molecular weight heparin as an inpatient and the extended use of aspirin (0.3%, p = 0.047). We have ceased the use of dabigatran for thromboprophylaxis in these patients.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:122–6.

We performed a meta-analysis of the English literature to assess the efficacy of four common regimes for thromboembolic prophylaxis after total knee arthroplasty: aspirin, warfarin, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and pneumatic compression. We reviewed 136 articles and abstracts published between January 1980 and December 1997. Papers not using routine venography and a lung scan or angiography to detect deep-venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary emboli (PE) respectively, were excluded. Of the 136 studies, 23 with 6001 patients were selected. The incidence of DVT was 53% (1701/3214) in the aspirin group, 45% (541/1203) in the warfarin group, 29% (311/1075) in the LMWH group, and 17% (86/509) in the pneumatic compression device group. Intermittent pneumatic compression devices and LMWH were significantly better than warfarin (p < 0.0001) or aspirin (p < 0.0001) in preventing DVT. The incidence of asymptomatic PE was 11.7% in the aspirin group (222/1901), 8.2% (101/1229) in the warfarin group and 6.3% (24/378) in the pneumatic compression group. No studies with LMWH used routine lung scans. Warfarin and pneumatic compression were significantly better than aspirin in preventing asymptomatic PE (p < 0.05). The incidence of symptomatic PE was 1.3% (23/1800) in the aspirin group, 0.4% (2/559) in the warfarin group, 0.5% (2/416) in the LMWH group and 0% (0/177) in the pneumatic compression group. No statistically significant difference was noted between the above prophylatic regimes due to the very small incidence of symptomatic PE. Prophylaxis for thromboembolic disease in TKA may have to include a combination of some of the above regimes to incorporate their advantages

Aims

The aims of this study were to compare the efficacy of two agents, aspirin and warfarin, for the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) after simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty (SBTKA), and to elucidate the risk of VTE conferred by this procedure compared with unilateral TKA (UTKA).

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has thus far relied on historical data and predominantly industry-sponsored trials to provide evidence for venous thromboembolic (VTE) prophylaxis in joint replacement patients. We argue that the NICE guidelines may be reliant on assumptions that are in need of revision. Following the publication of large scale, independent observational studies showing little difference between low-molecular-weight heparins and aspirin, and recent changes to the guidance provided by other international bodies, should NICE reconsider their recommendations?

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2014;3:146–9.

We prospectively studied the outcome of a protocol of prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in 103 consecutive patients undergoing surgical stabilisation of pelvic and acetabular fractures. Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) was administered within 24 hours of injury or on achieving haemodynamic stability. Patients were screened for proximal DVT by duplex ultrasonography performed ten to 14 days after surgery.

The incidence of proximal DVT was 10% and of pulmonary embolus 5%. Proximal DVT developed in two of 64 patients (3%) who had received LMWH within 24 hours of injury, but in eight of 36 patients (22%) who received LMWH more than 24 hours after the injury (p < 0.01). We conclude that LMWH, when begun without delay, is a safe and effective method of thromboprophylaxis in high-risk patients with major pelvic or acetabular fractures.

The recommendation that patients having a total hip replacement should receive pharmacological thromboprophylaxis is based on the belief that fatal pulmonary embolism is common, and that prophylaxis will decrease the death rate. To investigate these assumptions we performed a meta-analysis of all studies on hip replacement which included information about death or fatal pulmonary embolism. A total of 130 000 patients was included. The studies were so varied in content and quality that the results of our analysis must be interpreted with some caution.

The fatal pulmonary embolism rate was 0.1% to 0.2% even in patients who received no prophylaxis. This is an order of magnitude lower than that which is generally quoted, and therefore the potential benefit of prophylaxis is small and may not justify the risks. To balance the risks and benefits we must consider the overall death rate. This was 0.3% to 0.4%, and neither heparin nor any other prophylactic agent caused a significant decrease.

Our study demonstrates that there is not enough evidence in the literature to conclude that any form of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis decreases the death rate after total hip replacement. For this reason guidelines which recommend their routine use to prevent death after hip replacement are not justified.