Preoperative vs Postoperative Initiation of Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin Prophylaxis Against Venous Thromboembolism in Patients Undergoing Elective Hip Replacement | Orthopedics | JAMA Internal Medicine | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 35.170.64.36. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Sevitt  SGallagher  NG Prevention of venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in injured patients: a trial of anticoagulant prophylaxis with phenindiene in middle-aged and elderly patients with fractured heads of femur.  Lancet. 1959;2981- 989Google ScholarCrossref
2.
Harris  WHSateman  EWAthanaseolis  CZWatlman  ACDeSanctis  PW Aspirin prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism after total hip replacement.  N Engl J Med. 1977;2971246- 1249Google ScholarCrossref
3.
Evarts  CMFeil  EJ Prevention of thromboembolic disease after elective surgery of the hip.  J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1971;531271- 1280Google Scholar
4.
Johnson  RGreen  JKChamley  J Pulmonary embolism and its prophylaxis following the Chamley total hip replacement.  Clin Orthop. 1997;127123- 132Google Scholar
5.
Harris  WHSledec  CL Total hip and total knee replacement.  N Engl J Med. 1990;323225- 231Google ScholarCrossref
6.
Clagett  GPAnderson  FAHeit  JLevine  MWheeler  HB Prevention of venous thromboembolism.  Chest. 1995;108(suppl)321S- 334SGoogle Scholar
7.
Nicolaides  ANBergqvist  DHull  RD  et al.  Prevention of venous thromboembolism: International Consensus Statement.  Int Angiol. 1997;163- 38Google Scholar
8.
Cook  DJGuyatt  GHLaupacis  ASackett  DLGoldberg  RJ Clinical recommendations using levels of evidence for antithrombotic agents.  Chest. 1995;108(suppl)227S- 230SGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Turpie  AGGLevine  MNHirsh  J  et al.  A randomized controlled trial of a low-molecular-weight heparin (enoxaparin) to prevent deep-vein thrombosis in patients undergoing elective hip surgery.  N Engl J Med. 1986;315925- 929Google ScholarCrossref
10.
Planes  AVochelle  NMazar  F  et al.  Prevention of postoperative venous thrombosis: a randomized trial comparing unfractionated heparin with low molecular weight heparin in patients undergoing total hip replacement.  Thromb Haemost. 1988;60407- 410Google Scholar
11.
Leyvraz  PFBachman  FHoek  J  et al.  Prevention of deep vein thrombosis after hip replacement randomized comparison between unfractionated heparin & low molecular weight heparin.  BMJ. 1991;303543- 548Google ScholarCrossref
12.
Torholm  CBroeng  LJorgensen  PS  et al.  Thromboprophylaxis by low-molecular-weight heparin in elective hip surgery: a placebo controlled study.  J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991;73434- 438Google Scholar
13.
Lassen  MRBorris  LCChristiansen  HM  et al.  Prevention of thromboembolism in 190 hip arthroplasties.  Acta Orthop Scand. 1991;6233- 38Google ScholarCrossref
14.
Danish Enoxaparin Study Group, Low-molecular-weight heparin (enoxaparin) vs dextran 70: the prevention of postoperative deep vein thrombosis after total hip replacement.  Arch Intern Med. 1991;1511621- 1624Google ScholarCrossref
15.
Levine  MNHirsh  JGent  M Prevention of deep vein thrombosis after elective hip surgery: a randomized trial comparing low molecular weight heparin with standard unfractionated heparin.  Ann Intern Med. 1991;114545- 551Google ScholarCrossref
16.
Eriksson  BIKalebo  PAnthymyr  BAWadenrik  HTengborn  LRisberg  B Prevention of deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism after total hip replacement: comparison of low-molecular-weight heparin and unfractionated heparin.  J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991;73484- 493Google Scholar
17.
Planes  AVochelle  NFagola  M  et al.  Prevention of deep vein thrombosis after total hip replacement: the effect of low-molecular-weight heparin with spinal and general anaesthesia.  J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991;73418- 422Google Scholar
18.
German Hip Arthroplasty Trial (GHAT) Group, Prevention of deep vein thrombosis with low molecular-weight heparin in patients undergoing total hip replacement: a randomized trial.  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1992;111110- 120Google ScholarCrossref
19.
Hull  RDRaskob  GEPineo  GF  et al.  A comparison of subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin with warfarin sodium for prophylaxis against deep-vein thrombosis after hip or knee implantation.  N Engl J Med. 1993;3291370- 1376Google ScholarCrossref
20.
Planes  AChastang  CLVochelle  N  et al.  Comparison of antithrombotic efficacy and haemorrhagic side effects of reviparin-sodium versus enoxaparin in patients undergoing total hip replacement surgery.  Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis. 1993;4(suppl 1)S33- S38Google Scholar
21.
Spiro  TEJohnson  CJChristie  MJ  et al.  Efficacy and safety of enoxaparin to prevent deep venous thrombosis after hip replacement surgery.  Ann Intern Med. 1994;12181- 89Google ScholarCrossref
22.
Colwell  CWSpiro  TETrowbridge  AA  et al.  Use of enoxaparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin, and unfractionated heparin for the prevention of deep venous thrombosis after elective hip replacement: a clinical trial comparing efficacy and safety.  J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994;763- 14Google Scholar
23.
Hamalyuk  KLensing  Avan der Meer  J  et al.  Subcutaneous low-molecular weight heparin or oral anticoagulants for the prevention of deep-vein thrombosis in elective hip and knee replacement?  Thromb Haemost. 1995;741428- 1431Google Scholar
24.
Eriksson  BWille-Jorgensen  PKalebo  P  et al.  A comparison of recombinant hirudin with a low-molecular-weight heparin to prevent thromboembolic complications after total hip replacement.  N Engl J Med. 1997;3371329- 1335Google ScholarCrossref
25.
Samama  CMClergue  FBarre  J  et al.  Low molecular weight heparin associated with spinal anaesthesia and gradual compression stockings in total hip replacement surgery.  Br J Anaesth. 1997;78660- 665Google ScholarCrossref
26.
Leizorovicz  AHaugh  MCChapuis  FRSamama  MMBoissel  JP Low molecular weight heparin in prevention of perioperative thrombosis.  BMJ. 1992;305913- 920Google ScholarCrossref
27.
Nurmohamed  MRosendaal  FBuller  H  et al.  The efficacy and safety of low molecular weight heparin versus standard heparin in general and orthopedic surgery.  Lancet. 1992;340152- 156Google ScholarCrossref
28.
Sharnoff  JGDeBlasio  G Prevention of fatal postoperative thromboembolism by heparin prophylaxis.  Lancet. 1970;21006- 1007Google ScholarCrossref
29.
Gallus  ASHirsh  JTuttle  RJ  et al.  Small subcutaneous doses of heparin in prevention of venous thrombosis.  N Engl J Med. 1973;288545- 551Google ScholarCrossref
30.
Kearon  CHirsh  J Starting prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism postoperatively.  Arch Intern Med. 1995;155366- 372Google ScholarCrossref
31.
Sacks  HBerrier  JReitman  DAncora-Beck  VChalmers  T Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.  N Engl J Med. 1987;316450- 455Google ScholarCrossref
32.
Greenland  S A critical look at some popular meta-analytic methods.  Am J Epidemiol. 1994;140290- 296Google Scholar
33.
Olkin  I Invited commentary: a critical look at some popular meta-analytic methods.  Am J Epidemiol. 1994;140297- 299Google Scholar
34.
Khan  KSDaya  SJadad  A The importance of quality of primary studies in producing unbiased systematic reviews.  Arch Intern Med. 1996;156661- 666Google ScholarCrossref
35.
Naylor  CD Meta-analysis and the meta-epidemiology of clinical research.  BMJ. 1997;315617- 619Google ScholarCrossref
36.
Egger  MSmith  GDSchneider  MMinder  C Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test.  BMJ. 1997;315629- 634Google ScholarCrossref
37.
Lau  JIoannidis  JPASchmid  C Quantitative synthesis in systematic reviews.  Ann Intern Med. 1997;127820- 826Google ScholarCrossref
38.
Hull  RDDelmore  TGenton  E  et al.  Warfarin sodium versus low-dose heparin in the long-term treatment of venous thrombosis.  N Engl J Med. 1979;301855- 858Google ScholarCrossref
39.
Graafsma  YPPrins  MHLensing  WA  et al.  Bleeding classification in clinical trials: observer variability and clinical relevance.  Thromb Haemost. 1997;781189- 1192Google Scholar
Original Investigation
January 25, 1999

Preoperative vs Postoperative Initiation of Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin Prophylaxis Against Venous Thromboembolism in Patients Undergoing Elective Hip Replacement

Author Affiliations

From the Thrombosis Research Unit, Foothills Hospital, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta (Drs Hull, Brant, Pineo, and Valentine); the Cardiac Wellness Unit, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Mich (Dr Stein); and the Departments of Medicine and Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City (Dr Raskob).

Arch Intern Med. 1999;159(2):137-141. doi:10.1001/archinte.159.2.137
Abstract

Background  Although preoperative and postoperative initiation of prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) are effective, the relative effectiveness and safety of these approaches is unknown. In the absence of a published definitive level 1 trial addressing this question, a meta-analysis is appropriate.

Objective  To report a meta-analysis comparing preoperative with postoperative initiation of prophylaxis of DVT in patients undergoing elective hip replacement.

Methods  Relevant trials were identified, and potential biases in the meta-analysis were minimized by analyzing all rigorously performed randomized trials that met all of the following criteria for conduct of the trial: (1) double-blind design, (2) objective documentation of the frequencies of DVT by ascending contrast venography, (3) venography performed before or at the time of discharge from the hospital, (4) initiation of the same LMWH preoperatively or postoperatively in dosages shown to be effective, (5) compliance with the criteria for a level 1 trial, and (6) objective documentation of major and minor bleeding according to strict criteria.

Results  Treatment with LMWH initiated preoperatively was associated with a DVT frequency of 10.0% compared with a frequency of 15.3% when the LMWH was initiated postoperatively (P=.02, Fisher exact test). Major bleeding was less frequent in patients receiving preoperatively initiated LMWH than in patients receiving postoperatively initiated LMWH (0.9%, vs 3.5%; P=.01, Fisher exact test).

Conclusions  Our findings support the need for a randomized comparison of preoperative and postoperative initiation of pharmacological prophylaxis of DVT. Such a trial would resolve the divergent practices for DVT prophylaxis between Europe and the North American countries, the United States and Canada, and would affect the treatment for thousands of patients on both continents.

×