Primary prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in people undergoing major amputation of the lower extremity.

People undergoing major amputation of the lower limb are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Risk factors for VTE in amputees include advanced age, sedentary lifestyle, longstanding arterial disease and an identifiable hypercoagulable condition. Evidence suggests that pharmacological prophylaxis (e.g. heparin, factor Xa inhibitors, vitamin K antagonists, direct thrombin inhibitors, antiplatelets) is effective in preventing deep vein thrombosis (DVT), but is associated with an increased risk of bleeding. Mechanical prophylaxis (e.g. antiembolism stockings, intermittent pneumatic compression and foot impulse devices), on the other hand, is non-invasive and has minimal side effects. However, mechanical prophylaxis is not always appropriate for people with contraindications such as peripheral arterial disease (PAD), arteriosclerosis or bilateral lower limb amputations. It is important to determine the most effective thromboprophylaxis for people undergoing major amputation and whether this is one treatment alone or in combination with another. This is an update of the review first published in 2013. To determine the effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis in preventing VTE in people undergoing major amputation of the lower extremity. The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 5 November 2019. We planned to undertake reference checking of identified trials to identify additional studies. We did not apply any language restrictions. We included randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials which allocated people undergoing a major unilateral or bilateral amputation (e.g. hip disarticulation, transfemoral, knee disarticulation and transtibial) of the lower extremity to different types or regimens of thromboprophylaxis (including pharmacological or mechanical prophylaxis) or placebo. Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We resolved any disagreements by discussion. Outcomes of interest were VTE (DVT and pulmonary embolism (PE)), mortality, adverse events and bleeding. We used GRADE criteria to assess the certainty of the evidence. The two included studies compared different treatments, so we could not pool the data in a meta-analysis. We did not identify any eligible new studies for this update. Two studies with a combined total of 288 participants met the inclusion criteria for this review. Unfractionated heparin compared to low molecular weight heparin One study compared unfractionated heparin with low molecular weight heparin and found no evidence of a difference between the treatments in the prevention of DVT (odds ratio (OR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 5.35; 75 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No bleeding events occurred in either group. Deaths and adverse events were not reported. This study was open-label and therefore at a high risk of performance bias. Additionally, the study did not report the method of randomisation, so the risk of selection bias was unclear. Heparin compared to placebo In the second study, there was no evidence of a benefit from heparin use in preventing PE when compared to placebo (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.01; 134 participants; low-certainty evidence). Similarly, no evidence of improvement was detected when the level of amputation was considered, with a similar incidence of PE between the two treatment groups: above knee amputation (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.97; 94 participants; low-certainty evidence); and below knee amputation (OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.09 to 26.43; 40 participants; low-certainty evidence). Ten participants died during the study; five underwent a post-mortem and three were found to have had a recent PE, all of whom had been on placebo (low-certainty evidence). Bleeding events were reported in less than 10% of participants in both treatment groups, but the study did not present specific data (low-certainty evidence). There were no reports of other adverse events. This study did not report the methods used to conceal allocation of treatment, so it was unclear whether selection bias occurred. However, this study appeared to be free from all other sources of bias. No study looked at mechanical prophylaxis. We did not identify any eligible new studies for this update. As we only included two studies in this review, each comparing different interventions, there is insufficient evidence to make any conclusions regarding the most effective thromboprophylaxis regimen in people undergoing lower limb amputation. Further large-scale studies of good quality are required.

Herlihy DR ，Thomas M ，Tran QH ，Puttaswamy V ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Primary prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in people undergoing major amputation of the lower extremity.

Robertson L ，Roche A 《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Interventions for preventing venous thromboembolism in adults undergoing knee arthroscopy.

Knee arthroscopy (KA) is a routine orthopedic procedure recommended to repair cruciate ligaments and meniscus injuries and in eligible patients, to assist the diagnosis of persistent knee pain. KA is associated with a small risk of thromboembolic events. This systematic review aims to assess if pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions may reduce this risk. This review is the second update of the review first published in 2007. To assess the efficacy and safety of interventions, whether mechanical, pharmacological, or in combination, for thromboprophylaxis in adult patients undergoing KA. For this update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registries, on 14 August 2019. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs), whether blinded or not, of all types of interventions used to prevent deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in males and females aged 18 years and older undergoing KA. There were no restrictions on language or publication status. Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed trial quality with the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and extracted data. A third author addressed discrepancies. We contacted study authors for additional information when required. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. This update adds four new studies, bringing the total of included studies to eight and involving 3818 adult participants with no history of thromboembolic disease undergoing KA. Studies compared daily subcutaneous (sc) low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) versus control (five studies); oral rivaroxaban 10 mg versus placebo (one study); daily sc LMWH versus graduated compression stockings (GCS) (one study); and aspirin versus control (one study). The incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE) in all trials combined was low, with seven cases in 3818 participants.There were no deaths in any of the intervention or control groups. LMWH versus control When compared with control, LMWH probably results in little to no difference in the incidence of PE in patients undergoing KA (risk ratio (RR) 1.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 6.65; 1820 participants; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). LMWH showed no reduction of the incidence of symptomatic DVT (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.18 to 2.03; 1848 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). LMWH may reduce the risk of asymptomatic DVT but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.61; 369 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of an increased risk of all adverse events combined (RR 1.85, 95% CI 0.95 to 3.59; 1978 participants; 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). No evidence of a clear effect on major bleeding (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.72; 1451 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), or minor bleeding was observed (RR 1.79, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.84; 1978 participants; 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Rivaroxaban versus placebo One study with 234 participants compared oral rivaroxaban 10 mg versus placebo. No evidence of a clear impact on the risk of PE (no events in either group), symptomatic DVT (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.29; moderate-certainty evidence); or asymptomatic DVT (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.01; very low-certainty evidence) was detected. Only bleeding adverse events were reported. No major bleeds occurred in either group and there was no evidence of differences in minor bleeding between the groups (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.18 to 2.19; moderate-certainty evidence). Aspirin versus control One study compared aspirin with control. No PE, DVT or asymptomatic events were detected in either group. Adverse events including pain and swelling were reported but it was not clear what groups these were in. No bleeds were reported. LMWH versus GCS One study with 1317 participants compared the use of LMWH versus GCS. There was no clear difference in the risk of PE (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.14 to 7.05; low-certainty evidence). LMWH use did reduce the risk of DVT compared to people using GCS (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.75; low-certainty evidence). No clear difference in effects was seen between the groups for asymptomatic DVT (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.09; very low-certainty evidence); major bleeding (RR 3.01, 95% CI 0.61 to 14.88; moderate-certainty evidence) or minor bleeding (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.08; moderate-certainty evidence). Levels of thromboembolic events were higher in the GCS group than in any other group. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for imprecision resulting from overall small event numbers; risk of bias due to concerns about lack of blinding, and indirectness as we were uncertain about the direct clinical relevance of asymptomatic DVT detection. There is a small risk that healthy adult patients undergoing KA will develop venous thromboembolism (PE or DVT). There is moderate- to low-certainty evidence of no benefit from the use of LMWH, aspirin or rivaroxaban in reducing this small risk of PE or symptomatic DVT. There is very low-certainty evidence that LMWH use may reduce the risk of asymptomatic DVT when compared to no treatment but it is uncertain how this directly relates to incidence of DVT or PE in healthy patients. No evidence of differences in adverse events (including major and minor bleeding) was seen, but data relating to this were limited due to low numbers of events in the studies reporting within the comparisons.

Perrotta C ，Chahla J ，Badariotti G ，Ramos J ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Primary prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) often complicates the clinical course of cancer. The risk is further increased by chemotherapy, but the trade-off between safety and efficacy of primary thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients treated with chemotherapy is uncertain. This is the third update of a review first published in February 2012. To assess the efficacy and safety of primary thromboprophylaxis for VTE in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy compared with placebo or no thromboprophylaxis, or an active control intervention. For this update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 3 August 2020. We also searched the reference lists of identified studies and contacted content experts and trialists for relevant references. Randomised controlled trials comparing any oral or parenteral anticoagulant or mechanical intervention to no thromboprophylaxis or placebo, or comparing two different anticoagulants. We extracted data on risk of bias, participant characteristics, interventions, and outcomes including symptomatic VTE and major bleeding as the primary effectiveness and safety outcomes, respectively. We applied GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We identified six additional randomised controlled trials (3326 participants) for this update, bringing the included study total to 32 (15,678 participants), all evaluating pharmacological interventions and performed mainly in people with locally advanced or metastatic cancer. The certainty of the evidence ranged from high to very low across the different outcomes and comparisons. The main limiting factors were imprecision and risk of bias. Thromboprophylaxis with direct oral anticoagulants (direct factor Xa inhibitors apixaban and rivaroxaban) may decrease the incidence of symptomatic VTE (risk ratio (RR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 1.06; 3 studies, 1526 participants; low-certainty evidence); and probably increases the risk of major bleeding compared with placebo (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.82 to 3.68; 3 studies, 1494 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). When compared with no thromboprophylaxis, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.83; 11 studies, 3931 participants; high-certainty evidence); and probably increased the risk of major bleeding events (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.35; 15 studies, 7282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In participants with multiple myeloma, LMWH resulted in lower symptomatic VTE compared with the vitamin K antagonist warfarin (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.83; 1 study, 439 participants; high-certainty evidence), while LMWH probably lowers symptomatic VTE more than aspirin (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.17; 2 studies, 781 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Major bleeding was observed in none of the participants with multiple myeloma treated with LMWH or warfarin and in less than 1% of those treated with aspirin. Only one study evaluated unfractionated heparin against no thromboprophylaxis, but did not report on VTE or major bleeding. When compared with placebo or no thromboprophylaxis, warfarin may importantly reduce symptomatic VTE (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.20; 1 study, 311 participants; low-certainty evidence) and may result in a large increase in major bleeding (RR 3.82, 95% CI 0.97 to 15.04; 4 studies, 994 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study evaluated antithrombin versus no antithrombin in children. This study did not report on symptomatic VTE but did report any VTE (symptomatic and incidental VTE). The effect of antithrombin on any VTE and major bleeding is uncertain (any VTE: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.73; major bleeding: RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.03 to 18.57; 1 study, 85 participants; very low-certainty evidence). In ambulatory cancer patients, primary thromboprophylaxis with direct factor Xa inhibitors may reduce the incidence of symptomatic VTE (low-certainty evidence) and probably increases the risk of major bleeding (moderate-certainty evidence) when compared with placebo. LMWH decreases the incidence of symptomatic VTE (high-certainty evidence), but increases the risk of major bleeding (moderate-certainty evidence) when compared with placebo or no thromboprophylaxis. Evidence for the use of thromboprophylaxis with anticoagulants other than direct factor Xa inhibitors and LMWH is limited. More studies are warranted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of primary prophylaxis in specific types of chemotherapeutic agents and types of cancer, such as gastrointestinal or genitourinary cancer.

Rutjes AW ，Porreca E ，Candeloro M ，Valeriani E ，Di Nisio M ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Combined intermittent pneumatic leg compression and pharmacological prophylaxis for prevention of venous thromboembolism.

It is generally assumed by practitioners and guideline authors that combined modalities (methods of treatment) are more effective than single modalities in preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE), defined as deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE), or both. This is the second update of the review first published in 2008. The aim of this review was to assess the efficacy of combined intermittent pneumatic leg compression (IPC) and pharmacological prophylaxis compared to single modalities in preventing VTE. The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and AMED databases, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 18 January 2021. We searched the reference lists of relevant articles for additional studies.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) of combined IPC and pharmacological interventions used to prevent VTE compared to either intervention individually. We independently selected studies, applied Cochrane's risk of bias tool, and extracted data. We resolved disagreements by discussion. We performed fixed-effect model meta-analyses with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a random-effects model when there was heterogeneity. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. The outcomes of interest were PE, DVT, bleeding and major bleeding. We included a total of 34 studies involving 14,931 participants, mainly undergoing surgery or admitted with trauma. Twenty-five studies were RCTs (12,672 participants) and nine were CCTs (2259 participants). Overall, the risk of bias was mostly unclear or high. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence and this was downgraded due to the risk of bias, imprecision or indirectness. The addition of pharmacological prophylaxis to IPC compared with IPC alone reduced the incidence of symptomatic PE from 1.34% (34/2530) in the IPC group to 0.65% (19/2932) in the combined group (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.91; 19 studies, 5462 participants, low-certainty evidence). The incidence of DVT was 3.81% in the IPC group and 2.03% in the combined group showing a reduced incidence of DVT in favour of the combined group (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.72; 18 studies, 5394 participants, low-certainty evidence). The addition of pharmacological prophylaxis to IPC, however, increased the risk of any bleeding compared to IPC alone: 0.95% (22/2304) in the IPC group and 5.88% (137/2330) in the combined group (OR 6.02, 95% CI 3.88 to 9.35; 13 studies, 4634 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Major bleeding followed a similar pattern: 0.34% (7/2054) in the IPC group compared to 2.21% (46/2079) in the combined group (OR 5.77, 95% CI 2.81 to 11.83; 12 studies, 4133 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Tests for subgroup differences between orthopaedic and non-orthopaedic surgery participants were not possible for PE incidence as no PE events were reported in the orthopaedic subgroup. No difference was detected between orthopaedic and non-orthopaedic surgery participants for DVT incidence (test for subgroup difference P = 0.19).  The use of combined IPC and pharmacological prophylaxis modalities compared with pharmacological prophylaxis alone reduced the incidence of PE from 1.84% (61/3318) in the pharmacological prophylaxis group to 0.91% (31/3419) in the combined group (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.71; 15 studies, 6737 participants, low-certainty evidence). The incidence of DVT was 9.28% (288/3105) in the pharmacological prophylaxis group and 5.48% (167/3046) in the combined group (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.70; 17 studies; 6151 participants, high-certainty evidence). Increased bleeding side effects were not observed for IPC when it was added to anticoagulation (any bleeding: OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.35, 6 studies, 1314 participants, very low-certainty evidence; major bleeding: OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.18, 5 studies, 908 participants, very low-certainty evidence). No difference was detected between the orthopaedic and non-orthopaedic surgery participants for PE incidence (test for subgroup difference P = 0.82) or for DVT incidence (test for subgroup difference P = 0.69). Evidence suggests that combining IPC with pharmacological prophylaxis, compared to IPC alone reduces the incidence of both PE and DVT (low-certainty evidence). Combining IPC with pharmacological prophylaxis, compared to pharmacological prophylaxis alone, reduces the incidence of both PE (low-certainty evidence) and DVT (high-certainty evidence). We downgraded due to risk of bias in study methodology and imprecision. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that the addition of pharmacological prophylaxis to IPC increased the risk of bleeding compared to IPC alone, a side effect not observed when IPC is added to pharmacological prophylaxis (very low-certainty evidence), as expected for a physical method of thromboprophylaxis. The certainty of the evidence for bleeding was downgraded to very low due to risk of bias in study methodology, imprecision and indirectness. The results of this update agree with current guideline recommendations, which support the use of combined modalities in hospitalised people (limited to those with trauma or undergoing surgery) at risk of developing VTE. More studies on the role of combined modalities in VTE prevention are needed to provide evidence for specific patient groups and to increase our certainty in the evidence.

Kakkos S ，Kirkilesis G ，Caprini JA ，Geroulakos G ，Nicolaides A ，Stansby G ，Reddy DJ ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》