Muthu S, Mavrovounis G, Corluka S, Buser Z, Brodano GB, Wu Y, Meisel HJ, Wang J, Yoon ST, Demetriades AK. Does the choice of chemoprophylaxis affect the prevention of deep vein thrombosis in lumbar fusion surgery? A systematic review of the literature.
Brain Spine 2023;
3:102711. [PMID:
38021015 PMCID:
PMC10668088 DOI:
10.1016/j.bas.2023.102711]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/16/2023] [Accepted: 11/07/2023] [Indexed: 12/01/2023]
Abstract
Introduction
To date, the available guidance on venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention in elective lumbar fusion surgery is largely open to surgeon interpretation and preference without any specific suggested chemoprophylactic regimen.
Research question
This study aimed to comparatively analyze the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) with the use of commonly employed chemoprophylactic agents such as unfractionated heparin (UH) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in lumbar fusion surgery.
Material and methods
An independent systematic review of four scientific databases (PubMed, Scopus, clinicaltrials.gov, Web of Science) was performed to identify relevant articles as per the preferred reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies reporting on DVT/PE outcomes of lumbar fusion surgery in adult patients with UH or LMWH chemoprophylaxis were included for analysis. Analysis was performed using the Stata software.
Results
Twelve studies with 8495 patients were included in the analysis. A single-arm meta-analysis of the included studies found a DVT incidence of 14% (95%CI [8%-20%]) and 1% (95%CI [-6% - 8%]) with LMWH and UH respectively. Both the chemoprophylaxis agents prevented PE with a noted incidence of 0% (95%CI [0%-0.1%]) and 0% (95%CI [0%-1%]) with LMWH and UH respectively. The risk of bleeding-related complications with the usage of LMWH and UH was 0% (95% CI [0.0%-0.30%]) and 3% (95% CI [0.3%-5%]) respectively.
Discussion and conclusion
Both LMWH and UH reduces the overall incidence of DVT/PE, but there is a paucity of evidence analyzing the comparative effectiveness of the chemoprophylaxis regimens in lumbar fusion procedures. The heterogeneity in data prevents any conclusions, as there remains an evidence gap. We recommend future high-quality randomized controlled trials to investigate in this regard to help develop recommendations on thromboprophylaxis usage.
Collapse