Dataset Information

Postoperative low molecular weight heparin bridging treatment for patients at high risk of arterial thromboembolism (PERIOP2): double blind randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine the efficacy and safety of dalteparin postoperative bridging treatment versus placebo for patients with atrial fibrillation or mechanical heart valves when warfarin is temporarily interrupted for a planned procedure.

Design

Prospective, double blind, randomised controlled trial.

Setting

10 thrombosis research sites in Canada and India between February 2007 and March 2016.

Participants

1471 patients aged 18 years or older with atrial fibrillation or mechanical heart valves who required temporary interruption of warfarin for a procedure.

Intervention

Random assignment to dalteparin (n=821; one patient withdrew consent immediately after randomisation) or placebo (n=650) after the procedure.

Main outcome measures

Major thromboembolism (stroke, transient ischaemic attack, proximal deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, peripheral embolism, or vascular death) and major bleeding according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria within 90 days of the procedure.

Results

The rate of major thromboembolism within 90 days was 1.2% (eight events in 650 patients) for placebo and 1.0% (eight events in 820 patients) for dalteparin (P=0.64, risk difference -0.3%, 95% confidence interval -1.3 to 0.8). The rate of major bleeding was 2.0% (13 events in 650 patients) for placebo and 1.3% (11 events in 820 patients) for dalteparin (P=0.32, risk difference -0.7, 95% confidence interval -2.0 to 0.7). The results were consistent for the atrial fibrillation and mechanical heart valves groups.

Conclusions

In patients with atrial fibrillation or mechanical heart valves who had warfarin interrupted for a procedure, no significant benefit was found for postoperative dalteparin bridging to prevent major thromboembolism.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00432796.

SUBMITTER: Kovacs MJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8188228 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundVenous thromboembolism (VTE) remained common complication following surgical resection of esophageal cancer. In this prospective randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial (NCT01267305), we aim to compare the safety and efficacy between low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) once-daily (QD) and twice-daily (BID) for the prophylaxis of VTE following esophagectomy.MethodsDuring August 2012 to July 2013, patients underwent esophagectomy were randomly assigned to nadroparin calcium QD (4,100 AxaIU qd + placebo qd, group QD), or nadroparin calcium BID (4,100 AxaIU q12h, group BID) in the prophylaxis of VTE. All patients received thrombelastography (TEG) before and 0/24/48/72 hours after operation. Daily vascular ultrasound of lower extremities was followed during the first 7 postoperative days to confirm the suspected deep venous thrombosis (DVT). Cumulatively postoperative chest drainage at 72 hours after the surgery was collected to identify the difference in volume and red blood cell (RBC) counts between the two groups. Any bleeding events and thromboembolic events were also documented.ResultsA total of 117 patients were enrolled in this study, and 111 eligible patients were randomly assigned (group QD: 55 patients; group BID: 56 patients). Patients' clinical features were close between the two groups. TEG analysis [R time, K time, alpha angel and maximum amplitude (MA)] before and instantly after operation showed nearly identical results. However, compared with group QD, all TEG measurements of 24/48/72 hours postoperatively showed significantly prolonged R time and K time, and decreased alpha angel in group BID. In ultrasound follow-ups, a total of four cases of DVT (four cases in group QD and no case in group BID) were found in this cohort (7.27% versus 0%, P=0.046), and one case of pulmonary embolism (PE) (in group QD) was observed. The incidence of VTE was lower in group BID (9.09% versus 0%, P=0.032). At 72 hours after surgery, the cumulative volume of chest drainage were close between these two groups (1,001.39±424.58 versus 1,133.61±513.93 mL, P=0.406). RBC counts in chest drainage were also identical between two groups [(2.56±1.98)×10(5) versus (2.71±4.67)×10(5), P=0.61]. No patient died due to VTE or bleeding events.ConclusionsFor the prophylaxis of VTE, BID LMWH provided more potent efficacy and equal safety when compared to QD LMWH in patients undergoing selective esophagectomy. Further study based on larger population is required to confirm these findings.

Project description:BackgroundImmobilization of the lower limb is a risk factor for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) are anticoagulants, which might be used in adult patients with lower-limb immobilization to prevent deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and its complications. This is an update of the review first published in 2008.ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness of low molecular weight heparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients with lower-limb immobilization in an ambulatory setting.Search methodsFor this update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Specialised Register, CENTRAL, and three trials registers (April 2017).Selection criteriaRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that described thromboprophylaxis by means of LMWH compared with no prophylaxis or placebo in adult patients with lower-limb immobilization. Immobilization was by means of a plaster cast or brace.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. The review authors contacted the trial authors for additional information if required. Statistical analysis was carried out using Review Manager 5.Main resultsWe included eight RCTs that fulfilled our criteria, with a total of 3680 participants. The quality of evidence, according GRADE, varied by outcome and ranged from low to moderate. We found an incidence of DVT ranging from 4.3% to 40% in patients who had a leg injury that had been immobilized in a plaster cast or a brace for at least one week, and who received no prophylaxis, or placebo. This number was significantly lower in patients who received daily subcutaneous injections of LMWH during immobilization, with event rates ranging from 0% to 37% (odds ratio (OR) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.61; with minimal evidence of heterogeneity: I² = 26%, P = 0.23; seven studies; 1676 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Comparable results were seen in the following groups of participants: patients with below-knee casts, conservatively treated patients (non-operated patients), operated patients, patients with fractures, patients with soft-tissue injuries, and patients with distal or proximal thrombosis. No clear differences were found between the LMWH and control groups for pulmonary embolism (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.47; with no evidence of heterogeneity: I² = 0%, P = 0.56; five studies, 2517 participants; low-quality evidence). The studies also showed less symptomatic VTE in the LMWH groups compared with the control groups (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.76; with minimal evidence of heterogeneity: I² = 16%, P = 0.31; six studies; 2924 participants; low-quality evidence). One death was reported in the included studies, but no deaths due to pulmonary embolism were reported. Complications of major adverse events were rare, with minor bleeding the main adverse events reported.Authors' conclusionsModerate-quality evidence showed that the use of LMWH in outpatients reduced DVT when immobilization of the lower limb was required, when compared with no prophylaxis or placebo. The quality of the evidence was reduced to moderate because of risk of selection and attrition bias in the included studies. Low-quality evidence showed no clear differences in PE between the LMWH and control groups, but less symptomatic VTE in the LMWH groups. The quality of the evidence was downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision.