No difference in mortality between cemented and uncemented hemiprosthesis for elderly patients with cervical hip fracture. A prospective randomized study on 334 patients over 75 years.

INTRODUCTION: Laboratory and human mechanical studies indicated that chemical substances in bone cement had toxic and prothrombotic effects. Impaction of cement added a mechanical trauma to the reaming and broaching procedure and contributed to a substantial local and systemic thrombin generation. Case reports and materials have indicated bone cement as the immediate trigger of cardiorespiratory and vascular dysfunction, occasionally fatal, and described as the bone cement implantation syndrome. In spite of this knowledge, bone cement has gained popularity and is widely used for prosthesis fixation, possibly due to a lack of clinical evidence supporting the basic science indicating bone cement as a mortality risk factor. METHOD: This is a prospective, randomized study comparing cemented and non cemented hemiprosthesis on patients suffering a dislocated cervical hip fracture. Perioperative characteristics and 1 year mortality differences between the groups were estimated. PATIENTS: Hundred and thirty-four patients over 75 years were enrolled from two hospitals in Norway. Average age was 84 years, 75 % were female and 60 % had symptomatic comorbidities. RESULTS: We find no difference in mortality between cemented and uncemented hemiprosthesis up to 1 year (HR 0.77, 95 % CI 0.51-1.18, p = 0.233). However, statistically significant reduced operation time and blood loss were found in the non-cemented group. (mean difference of 13 min, 95 % CI 4-22, p = 0.004 and 92 ml 95 % CI 3-181, p = 0.043, respectively). CONCLUSION: Installation of non-cemented hemiprostheses in elderly with hip fracture may have benefits perioperatively regarding operation time and bleeding, and do not seem to influence 1 year mortality relative to cemented implants.

A critical appraisal of bleeding events reported in venous thromboembolism prevention trials of patients undergoing hip and knee arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Anticoagulants are effective for the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) but cause bleeding. Interpretation of the risks and benefits of new anticoagulant regimens for VTE prevention is complicated by a lack of standardized definitions and reporting of bleeding. We reviewed the reporting of bleeding in randomized controlled trials of new anticoagulants compared with standard doses of enoxaparin in hip and knee arthroplasty, and examined the possible impact of differences in the definition of major bleeding on interpretation of the trial results. METHODS: Electronic searches identified 16 phase III trials published between 2001 and 2010 involving 41,265 patients comparing one of five new anticoagulants with a common comparator, enoxaparin. RESULTS: Major bleeding rates in patients treated with enoxaparin ranged from 0.1% to 3.1% in hip arthroplasty trials and from 0.2% to 1.4% in knee arthroplasty trials. In studies that excluded surgical-site bleeding from the definition, major bleeding rates were about 10-fold lower than in those which included surgical-site bleeding. Within the individual trials, the choice of bleeding definition and the methods of assessment of bleeding influenced the conclusions regarding the risk of bleeding with new anticoagulant regimens relative to enoxaparin. Eight of the 16 studies demonstrated a ≥ 40% relative risk differences in major bleeding between treatment groups but the difference was statistically significant in only two of these trials. CONCLUSION: Randomized VTE prevention trials report markedly different rates of major bleeding despite similar patient populations and doses and durations of anticoagulant prophylaxis and were underpowered to detect modest differences in patient-important bleeding events. Standardization of bleeding definitions and reporting seems desirable.

Dabigatran versus enoxaparin for prevention of venous thromboembolism after hip or knee arthroplasty: a pooled analysis of three trials.

BACKGROUND: Three randomized, double-blind trials compared dabigatran, an oral direct thrombin inhibitor, with enoxaparin for the primary prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients undergoing elective total hip and knee arthroplasty. OBJECTIVES AND METHODS: We conducted a pre-specified pooled analysis of these trials. 8,210 patients were randomized, of whom 8,135 were treated (evaluable for safety) with dabigatran 220 mg or 150 mg once-daily, or subcutaneous enoxaparin (40 mg once-daily or 30 mg twice-daily). Efficacy analyses were based on the modified intention-to-treat population of 6,200 patients with an evaluable outcome. The common risk difference (RD) of treatment effect between each dabigatran dose and enoxaparin was estimated using fixed-effects models, and statistical heterogeneity was estimated using the I2 statistic. RESULTS: The composite outcome of major VTE (proximal deep vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism) and VTE-related mortality occurred in 3.3% of the enoxaparin group versus 3.0% of the dabigatran 220 mg group (RD vs. enoxaparin -0.2%, 95% CI -1.3% to 0.9%, I2=37%) and 3.8% of the 150 mg group (RD vs. enoxaparin 0.5%, -0.6% to 1.6%, I2=0%). Major bleeding occurred in 1.4% of the enoxaparin group versus 1.4% of the dabigatran 220 mg group (RD vs. enoxaparin -0.2%, -0.8% to 0.5%, I2=40%) and 1.1% of the 150 mg group (RD vs. enoxaparin -0.4%, -1.0% to 0.2%, I2=0%). CONCLUSIONS: Oral dabigatran was as effective as subcutaneous enoxaparin in reducing the risk of major VTE and VTE-related mortality after hip or knee arthroplasty and has a similar bleeding profile.

AVE5026, a new hemisynthetic ultra-low-molecular-weight heparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients after total knee replacement surgery--TREK: a dose-ranging study.

BACKGROUND: AVE5026 is a new hemisynthetic ultra-low-molecular-weight heparin, with a novel anti-thrombotic profile resulting from high anti-factor (F)Xa activity and residual anti-FIIa activity. AVE5026 is in clinical development for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention, a frequent complication after total knee replacement (TKR) surgery. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the dose-response of AVE5026 for the prevention of VTE in patients undergoing TKR surgery. PATIENTS/METHODS: In this parallel-group, double-blind, double-dummy study, 690 patients were randomized, and 678 treated with once-daily doses of AVE5026 (5, 10, 20, 40, or 60 mg) or enoxaparin 40 mg in the calibrator arm. The primary efficacy end point was VTE until post-operative day 11, defined as deep vein thrombosis (DVT) detected by bilateral venography, symptomatic DVT, non-fatal pulmonary embolism (PE) and VTE-related death. The primary safety outcome was the incidence of major bleeding. RESULTS: The primary efficacy outcome was assessed in 464 patients. There was a significant dose-response across the five AVE5026 groups for VTE prevention (P<0.0001), with the incidence of VTE ranging from 5.3% to 44.1% compared with 35.8% in the enoxaparin group and for proximal DVT (P=0.0002). Also, a significant dose-response for AVE5026 was seen for major bleeding (P=0.0231) and any bleeding (P=0.0003). Six patients in the AVE5026 groups, four in the 60 mg group, experienced major bleeding; none did in the enoxaparin group. CONCLUSIONS: The safety and efficacy results of this study suggest that a AVE5026 dose of between 20 and 40 mg presents an adequate benefit-to-risk ratio.

Safety assessment of new antithrombotic agents: lessons from the EXTEND study on ximelagatran.

BACKGROUND: Ximelagatran, the first oral direct thrombin inhibitor, was shown to be an effective antithrombotic agent but was associated with potential liver toxicity after prolonged administration. OBJECTIVES AND METHODS: The aim of the EXTEND study was to assess safety and efficacy of extended administration (35 days) of ximelagatran or enoxaparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after elective hip replacement and hip fracture surgery. A follow-up period, including assessment of liver enzymes (in particular alanine aminotransferase; ALAT), until post-operative day 180 was planned, with visits at days 56 and 180. RESULTS: Randomization and administration of study drugs were stopped following a report of serious liver injury occurring 3 weeks after completion of ximelagatran treatment. At the time of study termination, 1158 patients had been randomized and 641 had completed the 35-day treatment; with 303 ximelagatran and 265 enoxaparin patients remaining in the study through to the day 56 follow-up visit. Overall, 58 patients showed an ALAT increase to >2x upper limit of normal: 31 treated with enoxaparin, 27 with ximelagatran. Three ximelagatran patients also showed symptoms potentially related to liver toxicity. Eleven ximelagatran patients showed an ALAT increase after study treatment ended. The clinical development of ximelagatran was terminated and the drug withdrawn from the market. Evaluation of the relative efficacy of the two treatments as specified in the protocol was impossible due to the premature termination of the study. CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged administration of ximelagatran was associated with an increased risk of liver toxicity. In a substantial proportion of patients, ALAT increase occurred after treatment withdrawal. The findings seen with ximelagatran should be considered when designing studies with new antithrombotic agents.

Orthopaedic thromboprophylaxis: limitations of current guidelines.

Thromboprophylaxis remains a controversial subject. A vast amount of epidemiological and trial data about venous thromboembolism has been published over the past 40 years. These data have been distilled and synthesised into guidelines designed to help the practitioner translate this extensive research into 'evidence-based' advice. Guidelines should, in theory, benefit patient care by ensuring that every patient routinely receives the best prophylaxis; without guidelines, it is argued, patients may fail to receive treatment or be exposed to protocols which are ineffective, dangerous or expensive. Guidelines, however, have not been welcomed or applied universally. In the United States, orthopaedic surgeons have published their concerns about the thromboprophylaxis guidelines prepared by the American College of Chest Physicians. In Britain, controversy persists with many surgeons unconvinced of the risk/benefit, cost/benefit or practicality of thromboprophylaxis. The extended remit of the recent National Institute of Clinical Excellence thromboprophylaxis guidelines has been challenged. The reasons for this disquiet are addressed in this paper and particular emphasis is placed on how clinically-acceptable guidelines could be developed and applied.

Major joint replacement. A model for antithrombotic drug development: from proof-of-concept to clinical use.

AIM: Development of antithrombotic compounds has traditionally been performed in patients undergoing total hip and knee replacement surgery. A high number of asymptomatic deep-vein thromboses are radiologically detectable, and bleeding and other adverse events (AE) are easy to observe. However, standardization of study procedures and endpoints in early proof-of-concept studies and late pure clinical endpoint studies has been lacking. This has made comparison between studies difficult, economic analyses speculative and potential benefits of applying the drug regimen in non-selected patients uncertain. In this paper, the International Surgical Thrombosis Forum proposes a strategy for the clinical investigation of new pharmacological agents for the prophylaxis of postoperative thrombotic events. METHODS: First, dose titration safety studies of short duration, in highly selected patients using objective venographic endpoints are recommended. Bleeding should be divided into the quantified volume of surgical bleeding and other adjudicated clinical bleeding events. The number of AE should be described for each dose step and classified according to International Coding of Diagnoses (ICD). Second, a dose confirmatory study of moderate exposure period and sufficient follow-up time is recommended. The exclusion criteria should be restricted to contraindications of the compared drugs and technical procedure. RESULTS: The efficacy, bleeding and AE should be similar to those used in dose-titration studies. In addition, the failure rate of the drug to exert its effect and the net clinical benefit should be calculated. CONCLUSION: Finally, trials with simple clinical endpoints and long follow-up should be conducted to evaluate the potential benefits of the drug-regimen in non-selected populations.

Partial factor IXa inhibition with TTP889 for prevention of venous thromboembolism: an exploratory study.

BACKGROUND: Inhibitors of factor (F) IXa show potent antithrombotic activity with a low risk of bleeding in preclinical models. We investigated the anticoagulant potential of oral TTP889, a small molecule that inhibits up to 90% of FIXa activity at therapeutic doses, using a clinical model of extended prophylaxis in hip fracture surgery (HFS). METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind study, 261 patients received oral TTP889 (300 mg once daily) or placebo starting 6-10 days after HFS, and standard thromboprophylaxis for 5-9 days. Treatment was continued for 3 weeks and all patients then underwent mandatory bilateral venography. The primary efficacy outcome was venous thromboembolism (VTE; venographic or symptomatic deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism) during treatment, and it was evaluated centrally by an independent adjudication panel. The main safety outcome was bleeding (major, clinically relevant non-major, and minor events). RESULTS: Two hundred and twelve patients with an evaluable venogram were included in the efficacy analysis. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 32.1% (35/109) of patients who had been allocated TTP889, and 28.2% (29/103) of patients on placebo (P = 0.58). There were no major bleeding events, and only two clinically relevant non-major bleeding events with TTP889. CONCLUSION: Partial FIXa inhibition with TTP889 300 mg daily was not effective for extended prevention of VTE after standard prophylaxis for up to 9 days. Coupled with the low incidence of bleeding episodes, this suggests a lack of antithrombotic potential. Further investigation of TTP889 in different clinical settings is needed. (Clinical trial registration information URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00119457).

Oral dabigatran etexilate vs. subcutaneous enoxaparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after total knee replacement: the RE-MODEL randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Oral anticoagulants, such as dabigatran etexilate, an oral, direct thrombin inhibitor, that do not require monitoring or dose adjustment offer potential for prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism (VTE) after total knee replacement surgery. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind study, 2076 patients undergoing total knee replacement received dabigatran etexilate, 150 mg or 220 mg once-daily, starting with a half-dose 1-4 hours after surgery, or subcutaneous enoxaparin 40 mg once-daily, starting the evening before surgery, for 6-10 days. Patients were followed-up for 3 months. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of total VTE (venographic or symptomatic) and mortality during treatment, and the primary safety outcome was the incidence of bleeding events. RESULTS: The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 37.7% (193 of 512) of the enoxaparin group versus 36.4% (183 of 503) of the dabigatran etexilate 220 mg group (absolute difference, -1.3%; 95% CI, -7.3 to 4.6) and 40.5% (213 of 526) of the 150 mg group (2.8%; 95% CI, -3.1 to 8.7). Both doses were noninferior to enoxaparin based on the pre-specified noninferiority criterion. The incidence of major bleeding did not differ significantly between the three groups (1.3% versus 1.5% and 1.3% respectively). No significant differences in the incidences of liver enzyme elevation and acute coronary events were observed during treatment or follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Dabigatran etexilate (220 mg or 150 mg) was at least as effective and with a similar safety profile as enoxaparin for prevention of VTE after total knee-replacement surgery.

Association between asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis detected by venography and symptomatic venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing elective hip or knee surgery.

BACKGROUND: Venography is commonly used to compare the efficacy of different thromboprophylaxis strategies for preventing deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in patients undergoing total hip replacement (THR) or total knee replacement (TKR). METHODS: We explored the relation between asymptomatic DVT and symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients undergoing THR or TKR treated with standard doses of enoxaparin (30 mg b.i.d. or 40 mg o.d.) by comparing the incidence of asymptomatic DVT in venographic studies with the incidence of symptomatic VTE in studies where venography was not performed. RESULTS: In 10 venographic studies involving 5796 patients, the incidence of asymptomatic DVT after THR was 13.2% [95% CI, 12.2-14.2%] and after TKR was 38.1% (95% CI, 35.5-40.8%). In two studies involving 3500 patients who did not undergo venography, the 90-day incidence of symptomatic VTE after THR was 2.7% (95% CI, 2.1-3.4%) and after TKR was 1.8% (95% CI, 0.9-2.7%). For every symptomatic VTE in THR studies where venography was not performed there were five asymptomatic DVTs in the venographic studies; for TKR, the ratio was 1:21. The incidence of asymptomatic DVT and the symptomatic VTE/asymptomatic DVT ratio was influenced by the venogram reading committee (Gothenburg vs. Hamilton: total DVT after THR, 19.5% vs. 8.7%, P < 0.0001; for TKR, 42.7% vs. 27.2%, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Comparisons across trials show a consistent relation between asymptomatic venographic DVT in patients undergoing elective THR or TKR surgery and symptomatic VTE in patients not undergoing venography. Differences exist in the strength of the relation depending on the type of surgery and the venogram reading committee.

Frequency and timing of clinical venous thromboembolism after major joint surgery.

Over a 13-year period we studied all patients who underwent major hip and knee surgery and were diagnosed with objectively confirmed symptomatic venous thromboembolism, either deep venous thrombosis or non-fatal pulmonary embolism, within six months after surgery. Low-molecular-weight heparin had been given while the patients were in hospital. There were 5607 patients. The cumulative incidence of symptomatic venous thromboembolism was 2.7% (150 of 5607), of which 1.1% had developed pulmonary embolism, 1.5% had deep venous thrombosis and 0.6% had both. Patients presented with deep venous thrombosis at a median of 24 days and pulmonary embolism at 17 days after surgery for hip fracture. After total hip replacement, deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism occurred at a median of 21 and 34 days respectively. After total knee replacement, the median time to the presentation of deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism was 20 and 12 days respectively. The cumulative risk of venous thromboembolism lasted for up to three months after hip surgery and for one month after total knee replacement. Venous thromboembolism was diagnosed after discharge from hospital in 70% of patients who developed this complication. Despite hospital-based thromboprophylaxis, most cases of clinical venous thromboembolism occur after discharge and at different times according to the operation performed.

Oral, direct Factor Xa inhibition with BAY 59-7939 for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after total hip replacement.

BACKGROUND: Joint replacement surgery is an appropriate model for dose-ranging studies investigating new anticoagulants. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of a novel, oral, direct factor Xa (FXa) inhibitor--BAY 59-7939--relative to enoxaparin in patients undergoing elective total hip replacement. METHODS: In this double-blind, double-dummy, dose-ranging study, patients were randomized to oral BAY 59-7939 (2.5, 5, 10, 20, or 30 mg b.i.d.), starting 6-8 h after surgery, or s.c. enoxaparin 40 mg once daily, starting on the evening before surgery. Treatment was continued until mandatory bilateral venography was performed 5-9 days after surgery. RESULTS: Of 706 patients treated, 548 were eligible for the primary efficacy analysis. The primary efficacy endpoint was the incidence of any deep vein thrombosis, non-fatal pulmonary embolism, and all-cause mortality; rates were 15%, 14%, 12%, 18%, and 7% for BAY 59-7939 2.5, 5, 10, 20, and 30 mg b.i.d., respectively, compared with 17% for enoxaparin. The primary efficacy analysis did not demonstrate any significant trend in dose-response relationship for BAY 59-7939. The primary safety endpoint was major, postoperative bleeding; there was a significant increase in the frequency of events with increasing doses of BAY 59-7939 (P = 0.045), but no significant differences between individual BAY 59-7939 doses and enoxaparin. CONCLUSIONS: When efficacy and safety were considered together, the oral, direct FXa inhibitor BAY 59-7939, at 2.5-10 mg b.i.d., compared favorably with enoxaparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing elective total hip replacement.

A new oral direct thrombin inhibitor, dabigatran etexilate, compared with enoxaparin for prevention of thromboembolic events following total hip or knee replacement: the BISTRO II randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Dabigatran etexilate is an oral direct thrombin inhibitor undergoing evaluation for the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) following orthopedic surgery. METHODS: In a multicenter, parallel-group, double-blind study, 1973 patients undergoing total hip or knee replacement were randomized to 6-10 days of oral dabigatran etexilate (50, 150 mg twice daily, 300 mg once daily, 225 mg twice daily), starting 1-4 h after surgery, or subcutaneous enoxaparin (40 mg once daily) starting 12 h prior to surgery. The primary efficacy outcome was the incidence of VTE (detected by bilateral venography or symptomatic events) during treatment. RESULTS: Of the 1949 treated patients, 1464 (75%) patients were evaluable for the efficacy analysis. VTE occurred in 28.5%, 17.4%, 16.6%, 13.1% and 24% of patients assigned to dabigatran etexilate 50, 150 mg twice daily, 300 mg once daily, 225 mg twice daily and enoxaparin, respectively. A significant dose-dependent decrease in VTE occurred with increasing doses of dabigatran etexilate (P < 0.0001). Compared with enoxaparin, VTE was significantly lower in patients receiving 150 mg twice daily [odds ratio (OR) 0.65, P = 0.04], 300 mg once daily (OR 0.61, P = 0.02) and 225 mg twice daily (OR 0.47, P = 0.0007). Compared with enoxaparin, major bleeding was significantly lower with 50 mg twice daily (0.3% vs. 2.0%, P = 0.047) but elevated with higher doses, nearly reaching statistical significance with the 300 mg once-daily dose (4.7%, P = 0.051). CONCLUSIONS: Oral administration of dabigatran etexilate, commenced early in the postoperative period, was effective and safe across a range of doses. Further optimization of the efficacy/safety balance will be addressed in future studies.

Dose escalating safety study of a new oral direct thrombin inhibitor, dabigatran etexilate, in patients undergoing total hip replacement: BISTRO I.

BACKGROUND: Dabigatran etexilate (BIBR 1048) is an oral direct thrombin inhibitor undergoing evaluation for the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) following total hip replacement. Following oral administration, dabigatran etexilate is rapidly converted to its active form dabigatran (BIBR 953 ZW). OBJECTIVES: To determine the safe therapeutic range of dabigatran etexilate following total hip replacement. METHODS: In a multicenter, open-label, dose-escalating study, 314 patients received oral doses of dabigatran etexilate (12.5, 25, 50, 100, 150, 200 and 300 mg twice daily or 150 and 300 mg once daily) administered 4-8 h after surgery, for 6-10 days. Dose escalation was based on clinical and pharmacokinetic data. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding. The primary efficacy outcome included venographic deep vein thrombosis (DVT), symptomatic DVT and pulmonary embolism, during the treatment period. RESULTS: No major bleeding event was observed in any group, but two patients at the highest dose (300 mg twice daily) suffered bleeding from multiple sites associated with reduced renal clearance and prolonged pharmacodynamic (PD) parameters. A dose-response was demonstrated for minor bleeding events. Of the 289 treated patients, 225 patients had evaluable venograms. The overall incidence of DVT was 12.4% (28/225 patients). There was no consistent relationship between the dose and incidence of DVT, the highest incidence in any group being 20.8% (5/24 patients). The lowest dose (12.5 mg twice daily) showed a high rate of proximal DVT [12.5% (3/24)] and no increase in PD parameters. Peak and trough plasma concentrations, area under the dabigatran plasma concentration-time curve and PD parameters also increased in proportion with the dose. Higher dabigatran plasma concentrations were associated with lower DVT rates. Approximately 20% of the patients had low plasma concentrations after the first dose suggesting further optimization of the preliminary tablet formulation is required. CONCLUSIONS: Dabigatran etexilate demonstrates an acceptable safety profile, with a therapeutic window above 12.5 mg and below 300 mg twice daily. The low number of VTE events within each treatment group indicates a satisfactory antithrombotic potential, although the study was not powered for an efficacy analysis. Additional studies are ongoing to optimize oral absorption and the efficacy/safety balance.

The direct thrombin inhibitor melagatran followed by oral ximelagatran compared with enoxaparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after total hip or knee replacement: the EXPRESS study.

BACKGROUND: Ximelagatran and its subcutaneous (s.c.) form melagatran are novel direct thrombin inhibitors for the prevention and treatment of thromboembolic disease. METHODS: In a double-blind study, 2835 consecutive patients undergoing total hip or knee replacement were randomized to either melagatran/ximelagatran or enoxaparin. Melagatran 2 mg was started immediately before surgery; 3 mg was then administered postoperatively, followed by 24 mg of oral ximelagatran b.i.d. beginning the next day. Enoxaparin 40 mg, administered subcutaneously o.d., was started 12 h before surgery. Both treatments were continued for 8-11 days. The main efficacy outcome measures were major venous thromboembolism (VTE); [proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT), non-fatal and/or fatal pulmonary embolism (PE), death where PE could not be ruled out], and total VTE (proximal and distal DVT; PE; death from all causes). DVT was detected by mandatory bilateral ascending venography at the end of the treatment period or earlier if clinically suspected. The main safety outcome was bleeding. RESULTS: The rates of major and total VTE were significantly lower in the melagatran/ximelagatran group compared with the enoxaparin group (2.3% vs. 6.3%, P = 0.0000018; and 20.3% vs. 26.6%, P < 0.0004, respectively). Fatal bleeding, critical site bleeding and bleeding requiring reoperation did not differ between the two groups. 'Excessive bleeding as judged by the investigator' was more frequent with melagatran/ximelagatran than with enoxaparin. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing total hip or knee replacement, preoperatively initiated s.c. melagatran followed by oral ximelagatran was significantly more effective in preventing VTE than preoperatively initiated s.c. enoxaparin.

Investment in prolonged thromboprophylaxis with dalteparin improves clinical outcomes after hip replacement.

Clinical guidelines recommend the use of extended out-of-hospital thromboprophylaxis in patients who have had major arthroplasty. However, the cost-effectiveness of prolonging pharmacological thromboprophylaxis into the out-of-hospital phase following hip replacement surgery remains the subject of considerable debate. This debate centers on the clinical relevance of the 'surrogate' venographic endpoints that have been used in most clinical trials and used to generate some of the cost analyses of thromboprophylaxis. The objective of this study was to estimate, from the payer perspective, the direct medical costs of prolonging the duration of thromboprophylaxis with dalteparin from 1 week to 28-35 days in patients undergoing hip replacement, and to compare these to the costs associated with using 'standard' in-hospital thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or warfarin. To derive 'best' estimates for rates of clinically and economically relevant thromboembolism associated with hip replacement surgery (i.e. those that would in reality incur management costs), we used data on the prevalence of both symptomatic and asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). These estimates were used in conjunction with diagnostic-related groups (DRG) reimbursement rates and a dalteparin cost model, which assumed home-based self-administration for prolonged thromboprophylaxis, to calculate overall direct medical costs of prolonged vs. in-hospital thromboprophylaxis. The management costs of the strategies evaluated were, to the nearest 1000 Euros: 465 000 Euros for in-hospital prophylaxis with LMWH; 339 000 Euros for in-hospital prophylaxis with warfarin; and 368 000 Euros for prolonged prophylaxis with dalteparin. For every 1000 patients treated, prolonging thromboprophylaxis with dalteparin from 1 to 4-5 weeks will avoid 30 clinical DVTs and 18 PEs at a saving of 2000 Euros per clinical event. Compared with in-hospital warfarin, prolonged thromboprophylaxis with dalteparin will avoid 28 DVTs and four PEs at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 900 Euros per clinical event avoided. We consider that investment in prolonged thromboprophylaxis with dalteparin is justified for the improvement in clinical outcomes produced.

Sustained prothrombotic profile after hip replacement surgery: the influence of prolonged prophylaxis with dalteparin.

In a randomized trial on the effect of dalteparin for 5 weeks after HRS we evaluated hemostatic variables in plasma sampled before and 1, 6 and 35 days postoperatively. In 218 patients we found that prothrombin fragment 1 + 2 (F1 + 2), thrombin-antithrombin complexes (TAT), d-dimer and fibrinogen were significantly higher on day 35 as compared with baseline values in the placebo group (P < 0.001 for all). The same pattern was found in the dalteparin group, but with significantly lower values for F1 + 2, TAT and d-dimer. In patients in the placebo group with venographically proven deep vein thrombosis (DVT) on day 35 (33%), significantly higher values were found for F1 + 2, TAT and d-dimer than in patients without DVT. Patients in the highest quartile of d-dimer (>2850 ng mL-1) had an odds ratio for the presence of DVT of 24.0 when compared with patients in the lowest quartile (<1625 ng mL-1). It is concluded that a substantial hypercoagulability is sustained until day 35 after HRS, significantly reduced with prolonged administration of dalteparin.

Extended out-of-hospital low-molecular-weight heparin prophylaxis against deep venous thrombosis in patients after elective hip arthroplasty: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Evidence-based medicine guidelines based on venographic end points recommend in-hospital prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in patients having elective hip surgery. Emerging data suggest that out-of-hospital use may offer additional protection; however, uncertainty remains about the risk-benefit ratio. To provide clinicians with a practical pathway for translating clinical research into practice, we systematically reviewed trials comparing extended out-of-hospital LMWH prophylaxis versus placebo. DATA SOURCES: Studies were identified by 1) searching PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library Database for reports published from January 1976 to May 2001; 2) reviewing references from retrieved articles; 3) scanning abstracts from conference proceedings; and 4) contacting pharmaceutical companies and investigators of the original reports. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, controlled trials comparing extended out-of-hospital prophylaxis with LMWH versus placebo in patients having elective hip arthroplasty. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers extracted data independently. Reviewers evaluated study quality by using a validated four-item instrument. DATA SYNTHESIS: Six of seven original articles met the defined inclusion criteria. The included studies were double-blind trials that used proper randomization procedures. Compared with placebo, extended out-of-hospital prophylaxis decreased the frequency of all episodes of deep venous thrombosis (placebo rate, 150 of 666 patients [22.5%]; relative risk, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.32 to 0.54; P < 0.001]), proximal venous thrombosis (placebo rate, 76 of 678 patients [11.2%]; relative risk, 0.31 [CI, 0.20 to 0.47; P < 0.001]), and symptomatic venous thromboembolism (placebo rate, 36 of 862 patients [4.2%]; relative risk, 0.36 [CI, 0.20 to 0.67; P = 0.001]). Major bleeding was rare, occurring in only one patient in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Extended LMWH prophylaxis showed consistent effectiveness and safety in the trials (regardless of study variations in clinical practice and length of hospital stay) for venographic deep venous thrombosis and symptomatic venous thromboembolism. The aggregate findings support the need for extended out-of-hospital prophylaxis in patients undergoing hip arthroplasty surgery.