Abstract

Low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) have theoretical advantages over standard heparin as postoperative thromboprophylactic agents. We conducted a meta-analysis of studies reported between 1984 and April, 1991, in which LMWHs were compared with standard heparin for postoperative prophylaxis. We included only randomised studies (reported in English, French, or German) in which investigators compared currently recommended doses of the agents and used adequate screening techniques for deep vein thrombosis. For all surgical studies the relative risk (LMWH versus standard heparin) for deep vein thrombosis was 0.74 (95% Cl 0.65-0.86), for pulmonary embolism 0.43 (95% Cl 0.26-0.72), and for major bleeding 0.98 (95% Cl 0.69-1.40). Comparable relative risks were observed for the general and orthopaedic surgery studies separately. When the analysis for the general surgery studies was limited to those of strong methodology, assessed by eight criteria defined in advance, the benefit/risk ratio was less favourable--relative risk for deep vein thrombosis 0.91 (95% Cl 0.68-1.23), for major bleeding 1.32 (95% Cl 0.69-2.56). There is at present no convincing evidence that in general surgery patients LMWHs, compared with standard heparin, generate a clinically important improvement in the benefit to risk ratio. However, LMWHs may be preferable for orthopaedic surgery patients, in view of the larger absolute risk reduction for venous thrombosis.