Pharmacological interventions for preventing venous thromboembolism in people undergoing bariatric surgery.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), which comprises deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is the leading cause of preventable death in hospitalised people and the third most common cause of mortality in surgical patients. People undergoing bariatric surgery have the additional risk factor of being overweight. Although VTE prophylaxis in surgical patients is well established, the best way to prevent VTE in those undergoing bariatric surgery is less clear. To evaluate the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions (alone or in combination) on venous thromboembolism and other health outcomes in people undergoing bariatric surgery compared to the same pharmacological intervention administered at a different dose or frequency, the same pharmacological intervention or started at a different time point, another pharmacological intervention, no intervention or placebo. We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 1 November 2021. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in males and females of any age undergoing bariatric surgery comparing pharmacological interventions for VTE (alone or in combination) with the same pharmacological intervention administered at a different dose or frequency, the same pharmacological intervention started at a different time point, a different pharmacological intervention, no treatment or placebo. We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. VTE and 2. major bleeding. Our secondary outcomes were 1. all-cause mortality, 2. VTE-related mortality, 3. PE, 4. DVT, 5. adverse effects and 6. quality of life. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. We included seven RCTs with 1045 participants. Data for meta-analysis were available from all participants. Four RCTs (597 participants) compared higher-dose heparin to standard-dose heparin: one of these studies (139 participants) used unfractionated heparin (UFH) and the other three (458 participants) used low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). One study compared heparin versus pentasaccharide (198 participants), and one study compared starting heparin before versus after bariatric surgery (100 participants). One study (150 participants) compared combined mechanical and pharmacological (enoxaparin) prophylaxis versus mechanical prophylaxis alone. The duration of the interventions ranged from seven to 15 days, and follow-up ranged from 10 to 180 days. Higher-dose heparin versus standard-dose heparin Compared to standard-dose heparin, higher-dose heparin may result in little or no difference in the risk of VTE (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.99; 4 studies, 597 participants) or major bleeding (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.96; I2 = 8%; 4 studies, 597 participants; low-certainty) in people undergoing bariatric surgery. The evidence on all-cause mortality, VTE-related mortality, PE, DVT and adverse events (thrombocytopenia) is uncertain (effect not estimable or very low-certainty evidence). Heparin versus pentasaccharide Heparin compared to a pentasaccharide after bariatric surgery may result in little or no difference in the risk of VTE (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.19 to 3.61; 1 study, 175 participants) or DVT (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.19 to 3.61; 1 study, 175 participants). The evidence on major bleeding, PE and mortality is uncertain (effect not estimable or very low-certainty evidence). Heparin started before versus after the surgical procedure Starting prophylaxis with heparin 12 hours before surgery versus after surgery may result in little or no difference in the risk of VTE (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.01; 1 study, 100 participants) or DVT (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.01; 1 study, 100 participants). The evidence on major bleeding, all-cause mortality and VTE-related mortality is uncertain (effect not estimable or very low-certainty evidence). We were unable to assess the effect of this intervention on PE or adverse effects, as the study did not measure these outcomes. Combined mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis versus mechanical prophylaxis alone Combining mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis (started 12 hours before surgery) may reduce VTE events in people undergoing bariatric surgery compared to mechanical prophylaxis alone (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.89; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 9; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty). We were unable to assess the effect of this intervention on major bleeding or morality (effect not estimable), or on PE or adverse events (not measured). No studies measured quality of life. Higher-dose heparin may make little or no difference to venous thromboembolism or major bleeding in people undergoing bariatric surgery when compared to standard-dose heparin. Heparin may make little or no difference to venous thromboembolism in people undergoing bariatric surgery when compared to pentasaccharide. There are inadequate data to draw conclusions about the effects of heparin compared to pentasaccharide on major bleeding. Starting prophylaxis with heparin 12 hours before bariatric surgery may make little or no difference to venous thromboembolism in people undergoing bariatric surgery when compared to starting heparin after bariatric surgery. There are inadequate data to draw conclusions about the effects of heparin started before versus after surgery on major bleeding. Combining mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis (started 12 hours before surgery) may reduce VTE events in people undergoing bariatric surgery when compared to mechanical prophylaxis alone. No data are available relating to major bleeding. The certainty of the evidence is limited by small sample sizes, few or no events, and risk of bias concerns. Future trials must be sufficiently large to enable analysis of relevant clinical outcomes, and should standardise the time of treatment and follow-up. They should also address the effect of direct oral anticoagulants and antiplatelets, preferably grouping them according to the type of intervention.

Amaral FC ，Baptista-Silva JC ，Nakano LC ，Flumignan RL ... -  《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 suitable cases, to assist the diagnosis of persistent knee pain. There is a small risk of thromboembolic events associated with KA. This systematic review aims to assess if pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions may reduce this risk. This is an update of an earlier Cochrane Review. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of interventions - whether mechanical, pharmacological, or a combination of both - for thromboprophylaxis in adults undergoing KA. We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 1 June 2021. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs), blinded or unblinded, of all types of interventions used to prevent deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in men and women aged 18 years and older undergoing KA. We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were pulmonary embolism (PE), symptomatic DVT, asymptomatic DVT, and all-cause mortality. Our secondary outcomes were adverse effects, major bleeding, and minor bleeding. We used GRADE criteria to assess the certainty of the evidence. We did not identify any new studies for this update. This review includes eight studies involving 3818 adults with no history of thromboembolic disease. Five studies compared daily subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) versus no prophylaxis; one study compared oral rivaroxaban 10 mg versus placebo; one study compared daily subcutaneous LMWH versus graduated compression stockings; and one study compared aspirin versus no prophylaxis. The incidence of PE in all studies combined was low, with seven cases in 3818 participants. There were no deaths in any of the intervention or control groups. Low-molecular-weight heparin versus no prophylaxis When compared with no prophylaxis, LMWH probably results in little to no difference in the incidence of PE in people undergoing KA (risk ratio [RR] 1.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49 to 6.65; 3 studies, 1820 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). LMWH may make little or no difference to the incidence of symptomatic DVT (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.18 to 2.03; 4 studies, 1848 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether LMWH reduces the risk of asymptomatic DVT (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.61; 2 studies, 369 participants; very low-certainty evidence). LMWH probably makes little or no difference to the risk of all adverse effects combined (RR 1.85, 95% CI 0.95 to 3.59; 5 studies, 1978 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.72; 1451 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), or minor bleeding (RR 1.79, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.84; 5 studies, 1978 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Rivaroxaban versus placebo One study with 234 participants compared oral rivaroxaban 10 mg versus placebo. There were no cases of PE reported. Rivaroxaban probably led to little or no difference in symptomatic DVT (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.29; moderate-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether rivaroxaban reduces the risk of asymptomatic DVT because the certainty of the evidence is very low (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.01). The study only reported bleeding adverse effects. No major bleeds occurred in either group, and rivaroxaban probably made little or no difference to minor bleeding (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.18 to 2.19; moderate-certainty evidence). Aspirin versus no prophylaxis One study compared aspirin with no prophylaxis. There were no PE, DVT or asymptomatic events detected in either group. The study authors reported adverse effects including pain and swelling, but without clarifying which groups these occurred in. There were no bleeds reported. Low-molecular-weight heparin versus compression stockings One study with 1317 participants compared LMWH versus compression stockings. LMWH may lead to little or no difference in the risk of PE compared to compression stockings (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.14 to 7.05; low-certainty evidence), but it may reduce the risk of symptomatic DVT (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.75; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether LMWH has any effect on asymptomatic DVT (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.09; very low-certainty evidence). The results suggest LMWH probably leads to little or no difference in 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). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for imprecision due to overall small event numbers, for risk of bias due to concerns about lack of blinding, and for indirectness due to uncertainty about the direct clinical relevance of asymptomatic DVT detection. There is a small risk that healthy adults undergoing KA will develop venous thromboembolism (PE or DVT). We found moderate- to low-certainty evidence of little or no benefit from LMWH, or rivaroxaban in reducing this small risk of PE or symptomatic DVT. The studies provided very low-certainty evidence that LMWH may reduce the risk of asymptomatic DVT compared to no prophylaxis, but it is uncertain how this directly relates to incidence of DVT or PE in healthy people undergoing KA. There is probably little or no difference in adverse effects (including major and minor bleeding), but data relating to these outcomes were limited by low numbers of events in the studies reporting these outcomes.

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

Prophylactic anticoagulants for non-hospitalised people with COVID-19.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted healthcare systems worldwide. Multiple reports on thromboembolic complications related to COVID-19 have been published, and researchers have described that people with COVID-19 are at high risk for developing venous thromboembolism (VTE). Anticoagulants have been used as pharmacological interventions to prevent arterial and venous thrombosis, and their use in the outpatient setting could potentially reduce the prevalence of vascular thrombosis and associated mortality in people with COVID-19. However, even lower doses used for a prophylactic purpose may result in adverse events such as bleeding. It is important to consider the evidence for anticoagulant use in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19. To evaluate the benefits and harms of prophylactic anticoagulants versus active comparators, placebo or no intervention, or non-pharmacological interventions in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19. We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 18 April 2022. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prophylactic anticoagulants with placebo or no treatment, another active comparator, or non-pharmacological interventions in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19. We included studies that compared anticoagulants with a different dose of the same anticoagulant. We excluded studies with a duration of under two weeks. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, VTE (deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE)), and major bleeding. Our secondary outcomes were DVT, PE, need for hospitalisation, minor bleeding, adverse events, and quality of life. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. We included five RCTs with up to 90 days of follow-up (short term). Data were available for meta-analysis from 1777 participants. Anticoagulant compared to placebo or no treatment Five studies compared anticoagulants with placebo or no treatment and provided data for three of our outcomes of interest (all-cause mortality, major bleeding, and adverse events). The evidence suggests that prophylactic anticoagulants may lead to little or no difference in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 3.61; 5 studies; 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably reduce VTE from 3% in the placebo group to 1% in the anticoagulant group (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.85; 4 studies; 1259 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 50; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in major bleeding (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.78; 5 studies; 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticoagulants probably result in little or no difference in DVT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.46; 3 studies; 1009 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but probably reduce the risk of PE from 2.7% in the placebo group to 0.7% in the anticoagulant group (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.79; 3 studies; 1009 participants; NNTB 50; moderate-certainty evidence). Anticoagulants probably lead to little or no difference in reducing hospitalisation (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.75; 4 studies; 1459 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may lead to little or no difference in adverse events (minor bleeding, RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.90 to 6.72; 5 studies, 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticoagulant compared to a different dose of the same anticoagulant One study compared anticoagulant (higher-dose apixaban) with a different (standard) dose of the same anticoagulant and reported five relevant outcomes. No cases of all-cause mortality, VTE, or major bleeding occurred in either group during the 45-day follow-up (moderate-certainty evidence). Higher-dose apixaban compared to standard-dose apixaban may lead to little or no difference in reducing the need for hospitalisation (RR 1.89, 95% CI 0.17 to 20.58; 1 study; 278 participants; low-certainty evidence) or in the number of adverse events (minor bleeding, RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.54; 1 study; 278 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticoagulant compared to antiplatelet agent One study compared anticoagulant (apixaban) with antiplatelet agent (aspirin) and reported five relevant outcomes. No cases of all-cause mortality or major bleeding occurred during the 45-day follow-up (moderate-certainty evidence). Apixaban may lead to little or no difference in VTE (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.65; 1 study; 279 participants; low-certainty evidence), need for hospitalisation (RR 3.20, 95% CI 0.13 to 77.85; 1 study; 279 participants; low-certainty evidence), or adverse events (minor bleeding, RR 2.13, 95% CI 0.40 to 11.46; 1 study; 279 participants; low-certainty evidence). No included studies reported on quality of life or investigated anticoagulants compared to a different anticoagulant, or anticoagulants compared to non-pharmacological interventions. We found low- to moderate-certainty evidence from five RCTs that prophylactic anticoagulants result in little or no difference in major bleeding, DVT, need for hospitalisation, or adverse events when compared with placebo or no treatment in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19. Low-certainty evidence indicates that prophylactic anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in all-cause mortality when compared with placebo or no treatment, but moderate-certainty evidence indicates that prophylactic anticoagulants probably reduce the incidence of VTE and PE. Low-certainty evidence suggests that comparing different doses of the same prophylactic anticoagulant may result in little or no difference in need for hospitalisation or adverse events. Prophylactic anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in risk of VTE, hospitalisation, or adverse events when compared with antiplatelet agents (low-certainty evidence). Given that there were only short-term data from one study, these results should be interpreted with caution. Additional trials of sufficient duration are needed to clearly determine any effect on clinical outcomes.

Santos BC ，Flumignan RL ，Civile VT ，Atallah ÁN ，Nakano LC ... -  《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 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》