Home > DARE Reviews > Prolonged versus standard-duration...
  • We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information

PubMed Health. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet]. York (UK): Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK); 1995-.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews.

Prolonged versus standard-duration venous thromboprophylaxis in major orthopedic surgery: a systematic review

Review published: 2012.

Bibliographic details: Sobieraj DM, Lee S, Coleman CI, Tongbram V, Chen W, Colby J, Kluger J, Makanji S, Ashaye AO, White CM.  Prolonged versus standard-duration venous thromboprophylaxis in major orthopedic surgery: a systematic review. Annals of Internal Medicine 2012; 156(10): 720-727. [PubMed: 22412039]

Quality assessment

The authors concluded that prolonged compared to standard duration thromboprophylaxis decreased the risk of venous thromboembolism, pulmonary embolism and deep venous thrombosis and increased the risk of minor bleeding in patients who underwent total hip replacement. This was a well-conducted review, but the limited quantity and quality of evidence reduces the reliability of the findings. Full critical summary

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of thromboprophylaxis after major orthopedic surgery is unclear.

PURPOSE: To compare the benefits and harms of prolonged versus standard-duration thromboprophylaxis after major orthopedic surgery in adults.

DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Scopus from 1980 to July 2011 and MEDLINE from 1980 through November 2011, without language restrictions.

STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials reporting thromboembolic or bleeding outcomes that compared prolonged (≥21 days) with standard-duration (7 to 10 days) thromboprophylaxis.

DATA ABSTRACTION: Two independent reviewers abstracted data and rated study quality and strength of evidence.

DATA SYNTHESIS: Eight randomized, controlled trials (3 good-quality and 5 fair-quality) met the inclusion criteria. High-strength evidence showed that compared with standard-duration therapy, prolonged prophylaxis resulted in fewer cases of pulmonary embolism (PE) (5 trials; odds ratio [OR], 0.14 [95% CI, 0.04 to 0.47]; absolute risk reduction [ARR], 0.8%), asymptomatic deep venous thrombosis (DVT) (4 trials; relative risk [RR], 0.48 [CI, 0.31 to 0.75]; ARR, 5.8%), symptomatic DVT (4 trials; OR, 0.36 [CI, 0.16 to 0.81]; ARR, 1.5%), and proximal DVT (6 trials; RR, 0.29 [CI, 0.16 to 0.52]; ARR, 7.1%). Moderate-strength evidence showed fewer symptomatic objectively confirmed episodes of venous thromboembolism (4 trials; RR, 0.38 [CI, 0.19 to 0.77]; ARR, 5.7%), nonfatal PE (4 trials; OR, 0.13 [CI, 0.03 to 0.54]; ARR, 0.7%), and DVT (7 trials; RR, 0.37 [CI, 0.21 to 0.64]; ARR, 12.1%) with prolonged prophylaxis. High-strength evidence showed more minor bleeding events with prolonged prophylaxis (OR, 2.44 [CI, 1.41 to 4.20]; absolute risk increase, 6.3%), and insufficient evidence from 1 trial on hip fracture surgery suggested more surgical-site bleeding events (OR, 7.55 [CI, 1.51 to 37.64]) with prolonged prophylaxis.

LIMITATIONS: Data relevant to knee replacement or hip fracture surgery were scant and insufficient. Most trials had few events; the strength of evidence ratings that were used may not adequately capture uncertainty in such situations.

CONCLUSION: Prolonged prophylaxis decreases the risk for venous thromboembolism, PE, and DVT while increasing the risk for minor bleeding in patients undergoing total hip replacement.

CRD has determined that this article meets the DARE scientific quality criteria for a systematic review.

Copyright © 2013 University of York.

PubMed Health Blog...

read all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...