Post-surgical deep vein thrombosis prevention: evaluation of the risk/benefit ratio of fractionated and unfractionated heparin

Low-molecular weight vs. unfractionated heparin for prevention of venous thromboembolism in general surgery: a meta-analysis

To assess the association between low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin (UFH) in the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) among participants undergoing general surgery. LMWH and UFH are the standard of practice in the prevention of VTE in surgery. However, in the context of general surgery, studies comparing the effectiveness of these treatments are limited. A systematic search was conducted to find studies which examined the comparative effectiveness between LMWH and UFH in the prophylaxis of VTE in the context of general surgery. The number of events of VTE in groups receiving LMWH or UFH was the primary outcome of interest, and was used to calculate odds-ratios. Amongst 33,068 participants pooled from twelve studies, the rate of VTE was 1.3% in those treated with LMWH, and 3.1% in those treated with UFH. Although there was a wide difference in rates due to clinical heterogeneity, there was no statistically significant difference between treatment effects [OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.58-1.03; p value = 0.0783; I²= 62.3%; 12 studies]. In terms of the sensitivity analysis, sources overly contributing to heterogeneity were removed. The random-effects model continued to show insignificance between LMWH and UFH in the prevention of VTE in participants undergoing general surgery [OR 0.86; 95% CI 0.69-1.08; p value = 0.2005; I²= 0%; 9 studies]. Results show an equal effectiveness in the prevention of VTE between participants undergoing general surgery in those allocated to receive LMWH to those allocated to receive UFH.

American Society of Hematology 2019 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: prevention of venous thromboembolism in surgical hospitalized patients

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common source of perioperative morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) intend to support decision making about preventing VTE in patients undergoing surgery.

METHODS

ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline-development process, including performing systematic reviews. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on 30 recommendations, including for major surgery in general (n = 8), orthopedic surgery (n = 7), major general surgery (n = 3), major neurosurgical procedures (n = 2), urological surgery (n = 4), cardiac surgery and major vascular surgery (n = 2), major trauma (n = 2), and major gynecological surgery (n = 2).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients undergoing major surgery in general, the panel made conditional recommendations for mechanical prophylaxis over no prophylaxis, for pneumatic compression prophylaxis over graduated compression stockings, and against inferior vena cava filters. In patients undergoing total hip or total knee arthroplasty, conditional recommendations included using either aspirin or anticoagulants, as well as for a direct oral anticoagulant over low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). For major general surgery, the panel suggested pharmacological prophylaxis over no prophylaxis, using LMWH or unfractionated heparin. For major neurosurgery, transurethral resection of the prostate, or radical prostatectomy, the panel suggested against pharmacological prophylaxis. For major trauma surgery or major gynecological surgery, the panel suggested pharmacological prophylaxis over no prophylaxis.

Risk of and Prophylaxis for Venous Thromboembolism in Hospital Patients

Objective:

To review the published clinical data on prophylaxis for thromboembolism in order to develop general guidelines to encourage the establishment of local protocols for management.

Data sources:

Published papers on thromboembolism over the period 1991–1997 were identified by Medline search and/or from the authors' personal literature collections and reviewed.

Study selection:

A total of 981 studies were identified. Only those papers reporting randomized studies with clearly defined diagnostic methods and clear end-points were included in this review.

Data extraction:

The available evidence for each specialty was summarized and reviewed by the authors responsible for each specialty, prior to presentation and discussion of their findings within the group. Where a consensus opinion was achieved in a speciality, general guidelines for thromboprophylaxis were summarized. Where a consensus could not be agreed, recommendations for further work were made.

Data synthesis:

There is evidence to support the preferred use of low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) over unfractionated heparin (UFH) in orthopaedic surgery, major trauma and general surgery. However, the ideal duration of thromboprophylaxis has yet to be defined. The use of once daily subcutaneous administration of LMWH offers major practical advantages and may have significant cost saving implications. Further work is required to investigate the use of thromboprophylaxis in minimal access surgery, trauma, elective lower limb surgery, hip fracture and pregnancy; to compare the efficacy of LMWH and mechanical prophylaxis; and to investigate extended prophylaxis after discharge.

Conclusions:

There is overwhelming evidence that thromboembolic prophylaxis reduces the incidence of postoperative deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Recommendations concerning the management of these patients when stratified into low, moderate and high risk are made with the suggestion that hospitals develop their own guidelines for the treatment of these patients.

Update on the clinical use of the low-molecular-weight heparin, parnaparin

Parnaparin is a low-molecular-weight heparin that has widely shown its efficacy and safety in prevention of venous thromboembolism, in the treatment of chronic venous disorders, and in the treatment of venous and arterial (stable and unstable angina, acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction) thrombosis. Parnaparin at the respective dosages of 3200, 4250, 6400, or 12800 IUaXa for a period ranging from 3 to 5 days to 6 months, is usually administered subcutaneously by means of once-daily regimen and is better tolerated than unfractionated heparin at the injection site. In the variety of commercially available low-molecular-weight heparins, parnaparin represents a useful therapeutic option, even though little evidence is available comparing the superiority or the equivalent efficacy and safety of parnaparin to that of the unfractionated heparin or placebo. This review summarizes the available literature on the use of parnaparin in different settings of cardiovascular diseases, including papers published during the past year and ongoing studies.

Meta-analysis of low molecular weight heparin in the prevention of venous thromboembolism in general surgery

BACKGROUND

Low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) have become routine thromboprophylaxis in general surgery. However, their actual clinical effect, its magnitude relative to that of unfractionated heparin (UFH), and the optimal dose are still debated.

METHODS

A meta-analysis was performed of all available randomized trials in general surgery comparing LMWH with placebo or no treatment, or with UFH.

RESULTS

Comparison versus placebo or no treatment confirmed that the significant reduction in asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT) obtained with LMWH (n = 513; relative risk (RR) 0.28 (95 per cent confidence interval 0.14-0.54)) was associated with a significant reduction in clinical pulmonary embolism (n = 5456; RR 0.25 (0.08-0.79)) and clinical venous thromboembolism (VTE) (n = 4890; RR 0.29 (0.11-0.73)), and a trend towards a reduction in overall mortality rate. Comparison versus UFH showed a trend in favour of LMWH, with a significant reduction in clinical VTE (P = 0.049), a trend also found for cancer surgery. LMWH at doses below 3400 anti-Xa units seemed to be as effective as, and safer than, UFH, while higher doses yielded slightly superior efficacy but increased haemorrhagic risk, including that of major haemorrhage.

CONCLUSION

Asymptomatic DVT may be regarded as a reliable surrogate endpoint for clinical outcome in studies investigating thromboprophylaxis in general surgery. LMWH seems to be as effective and safe as UFH. Determination of the optimal dose regimen of LMWH for this indication requires further investigation.

Heparins and mechanical methods for thromboprophylaxis in colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Colorectal surgery implies higher risk of postoperative thromboembolic complications as deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) than general surgery. The best prophylaxis in general surgery is heparin and graded compression stockings. No systematic review on combination prophylaxis or on thrombosis prophylaxis in colorectal surgery has been published.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the incidence of postoperative thromboembolism after colorectal surgery using prophylactic methods focussing on heparins and mechanical methods alone and in combinations.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE back to 1970. Abstract books from major congresses were handsearched as were reference lists from previously performed reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCT or CCT comparing prophylactic interventions and/or placebo. Outcomes were ascending venography, 125 I-fibrinogen uptake test, ultrasound methods, pulmonary scintigraphy. Studies, using thermographic methods, other isotopic methods, plethysmographic methods, and purely clinical methods as the only diagnostic measure were excluded. 558 studies were identified - 477 were excluded. Only 3 of the identified studies focused exclusively on colorectal surgery. Studies of general surgery contain considerable numbers of colorectal patients. The authors of 66 studies in general and/or abdominal surgery were contacted for retrieving the results from the colorectal patients. Answers were received from very few. 19 studies entered this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All studies and all data extraction were performed independently by at least two of the authors. Outcome was deep venous thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism. Analysis of bleeding complications were unfeasible. 12 meaningful outcomes were analysed by means of the fixed effects model with Peto Odds Ratios.

MAIN RESULTS

Heparins versus no treatment: Any kind of heparincompared to no treatment or placebo (comparison 07.03, 11 studies). Heparin is better in preventing DVT and/or PE with a Peto Odds ratio at 0.32 (95% Confidence Interval 0.20-0.53) Unfractionated heparin versus low molecular weight heparin (comparison 08.03, 4 studies). The two treatments were found equally effective in preventing DVT and/or PE with a Peto Odds ratio 1.01 (95% Confidence Interval 0.67-1.52). Mechanical methods (comparison 10.3, 2 studies). The combination of graded compression stockings and LDH is better than LDH alone in preventing DVT and/or PE with a Peto Odds ratio at 4.17 (95% Confidence Interval 1.37-12.70).

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The optimal prophylaxis in colorectal surgery is the combination of graduated compression stockings and low-dose unfractionated heparin. The unfractionated heparin can be replaced with low molecular weight heparin.

Randomized, controlled trial of low molecular weight heparin vs. no deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis for major colon and rectal surgery in Asian patients

PURPOSE

Routine deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis is controversial in Asian patients, because deep venous thrombosis incidence was considered negligible. Because of recent reports of significantly higher incidences, a randomized, controlled trial was conducted to assess the effectiveness and complications of enoxaparin prophylaxis (low molecular weight heparins) in major colorectal surgery.

METHODS

Three hundred twenty consecutive patients were randomly assigned to control or low molecular weight heparins groups. Patients in the low molecular weight heparins group were given perioperative enoxaparin starting 12 hours before surgery. The surgeon (blinded) assessed for difficulties related to possible enoxaparin administration. Independent blinded observers performed daily clinical assessments and Doppler studies (at the 3rd and 5th postoperative day). Deep venous thrombosis was confirmed by duplex ultrasound, and pulmonary embolism was confirmed by lung scans or postmortem examinations.

RESULTS

Deep venous thrombosis developed in 5 of 169 (3 percent) controls and 0 of 134 low molecular weight heparins patients (P = 0.045). Three of the deep venous thrombosis patients had pulmonary embolism, which was fatal in one patient. The surgeons were unable to perceive any increased surgical difficulties in the low molecular weight heparins group. The bleeding-related complications were significantly higher in the low molecular weight heparins patients (controls, n = 3 (1.8 percent); low molecular weight heparins, n = 9 (6.7 percent)). However, apart from one subdural hematoma and two abdominal hemorrhages needing re-exploration, which also occurred in one of the controls, these complications were minor bruises at the wounds, drains, or injection sites.

CONCLUSION

Deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis is needed in Asian patients undergoing major colorectal surgery.