Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Outpatient Lower Limb Fractures and Injuries
Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Cited by 1 publication
References 18 publications
Background Thromboprophylaxis can reduce the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) during lower-limb immobilisation, but it is unclear whether or not this translates into meaningful health benefit, justifies the risk of bleeding or is cost-effective. Risk assessment models (RAMs) could select higher-risk individuals for thromboprophylaxis. Objectives To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different strategies for providing thromboprophylaxis to people with lower-limb immobilisation caused by injury and to identify priorities for future research. Data sources Ten electronic databases and research registers (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Review of Effects, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health Technology Assessment database, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Science Citation Index Expanded, ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) were searched from inception to May 2017, and this was supplemented by hand-searching reference lists and contacting experts in the field. Review methods Systematic reviews were undertaken to determine the effectiveness of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in lower-limb immobilisation and to identify any study of risk factors or RAMs for VTE in lower-limb immobilisation. Study quality was assessed using appropriate tools. A network meta-analysis was undertaken for each outcome in the effectiveness review and the results of risk-prediction studies were presented descriptively. A modified Delphi survey was undertaken to identify risk predictors supported by expert consensus. Decision-analytic modelling was used to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of different thromboprophylaxis strategies from the perspectives of the NHS and Personal Social Services. Results Data from 6857 participants across 13 trials were included in the meta-analysis. Thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin reduced the risk of any VTE [odds ratio (OR) 0.52, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.37 to 0.71], clinically detected deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) (OR 0.40, 95% CrI 0.12 to 0.99) and pulmonary embolism (PE) (OR 0.17, 95% CrI 0.01 to 0.88). Thromboprophylaxis with fondaparinux (Arixtra®, Aspen Pharma Trading Ltd, Dublin, Ireland) reduced the risk of any VTE (OR 0.13, 95% CrI 0.05 to 0.30) and clinically detected DVT (OR 0.10, 95% CrI 0.01 to 0.94), but the effect on PE was inconclusive (OR 0.47, 95% CrI 0.01 to 9.54). Estimates of the risk of major bleeding with thromboprophylaxis were inconclusive owing to the small numbers of events. Fifteen studies of risk factors were identified, but only age (ORs 1.05 to 3.48), and injury type were consistently associated with VTE. Six studies of RAMs were identified, but only two reported prognostic accuracy data for VTE, based on small numbers of patients. Expert consensus was achieved for 13 risk predictors in lower-limb immobilisation due to injury. Modelling showed that thromboprophylaxis for all is effective (0.015 QALY gain, 95% CrI 0.004 to 0.029 QALYs) with a cost-effectiveness of £13,524 per QALY, compared with thromboprophylaxis for none. If risk-based strategies are included, it is potentially more cost-effective to limit thromboprophylaxis to patients with a Leiden thrombosis risk in plaster (cast) [L-TRiP(cast)] score of ≥ 9 (£20,000 per QALY threshold) or ≥ 8 (£30,000 per QALY threshold). An optimal threshold on the L-TRiP(cast) receiver operating characteristic curve would have sensitivity of 84–89% and specificity of 46–55%. Limitations Estimates of RAM prognostic accuracy are based on weak evidence. People at risk of bleeding were excluded from trials and, by implication, from modelling. Conclusions Thromboprophylaxis for lower-limb immobilisation due to injury is clinically effective and cost-effective compared with no thromboprophylaxis. Risk-based thromboprophylaxis is potentially optimal but the prognostic accuracy of existing RAMs is uncertain. Future work Research is required to determine whether or not an appropriate RAM can accurately select higher-risk patients for thromboprophylaxis. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017058688. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Background Thromboprophylaxis can reduce the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) during lower-limb immobilisation, but it is unclear whether or not this translates into meaningful health benefit, justifies the risk of bleeding or is cost-effective. Risk assessment models (RAMs) could select higher-risk individuals for thromboprophylaxis. Objectives To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different strategies for providing thromboprophylaxis to people with lower-limb immobilisation caused by injury and to identify priorities for future research. Data sources Ten electronic databases and research registers (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Review of Effects, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health Technology Assessment database, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Science Citation Index Expanded, ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) were searched from inception to May 2017, and this was supplemented by hand-searching reference lists and contacting experts in the field. Review methods Systematic reviews were undertaken to determine the effectiveness of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in lower-limb immobilisation and to identify any study of risk factors or RAMs for VTE in lower-limb immobilisation. Study quality was assessed using appropriate tools. A network meta-analysis was undertaken for each outcome in the effectiveness review and the results of risk-prediction studies were presented descriptively. A modified Delphi survey was undertaken to identify risk predictors supported by expert consensus. Decision-analytic modelling was used to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of different thromboprophylaxis strategies from the perspectives of the NHS and Personal Social Services. Results Data from 6857 participants across 13 trials were included in the meta-analysis. Thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin reduced the risk of any VTE [odds ratio (OR) 0.52, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.37 to 0.71], clinically detected deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) (OR 0.40, 95% CrI 0.12 to 0.99) and pulmonary embolism (PE) (OR 0.17, 95% CrI 0.01 to 0.88). Thromboprophylaxis with fondaparinux (Arixtra®, Aspen Pharma Trading Ltd, Dublin, Ireland) reduced the risk of any VTE (OR 0.13, 95% CrI 0.05 to 0.30) and clinically detected DVT (OR 0.10, 95% CrI 0.01 to 0.94), but the effect on PE was inconclusive (OR 0.47, 95% CrI 0.01 to 9.54). Estimates of the risk of major bleeding with thromboprophylaxis were inconclusive owing to the small numbers of events. Fifteen studies of risk factors were identified, but only age (ORs 1.05 to 3.48), and injury type were consistently associated with VTE. Six studies of RAMs were identified, but only two reported prognostic accuracy data for VTE, based on small numbers of patients. Expert consensus was achieved for 13 risk predictors in lower-limb immobilisation due to injury. Modelling showed that thromboprophylaxis for all is effective (0.015 QALY gain, 95% CrI 0.004 to 0.029 QALYs) with a cost-effectiveness of £13,524 per QALY, compared with thromboprophylaxis for none. If risk-based strategies are included, it is potentially more cost-effective to limit thromboprophylaxis to patients with a Leiden thrombosis risk in plaster (cast) [L-TRiP(cast)] score of ≥ 9 (£20,000 per QALY threshold) or ≥ 8 (£30,000 per QALY threshold). An optimal threshold on the L-TRiP(cast) receiver operating characteristic curve would have sensitivity of 84–89% and specificity of 46–55%. Limitations Estimates of RAM prognostic accuracy are based on weak evidence. People at risk of bleeding were excluded from trials and, by implication, from modelling. Conclusions Thromboprophylaxis for lower-limb immobilisation due to injury is clinically effective and cost-effective compared with no thromboprophylaxis. Risk-based thromboprophylaxis is potentially optimal but the prognostic accuracy of existing RAMs is uncertain. Future work Research is required to determine whether or not an appropriate RAM can accurately select higher-risk patients for thromboprophylaxis. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017058688. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
Contact Info
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Product
Resources
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.
