Search PubMedSearch

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Thromboprophylaxis”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Extended Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis After One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass: A Three-Arm Randomized Trial of Enoxaparin Duration and Rivaroxaban.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a serious but preventable complication after bariatric surgery, most of them after hospital discharge. The optimal regimen and duration of post-discharge prophylaxis, particularly the role of direct oral anticoagulants, remain uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To estimate 30-day VTE and bleeding event rates in high-risk patients undergoing one-anastomosis gastric bypass who received 15-day enoxaparin, 30-day enoxaparin, or 30-day rivaroxaban prophylaxis, and to perform exploratory comparisons among the regimens. METHODS: In this randomized, open-label, three-arm clinical trial, high-risk adults undergoing laparoscopic OAGB were randomized before discharge (1:1:1) to enoxaparin 40 mg subcutaneously twice daily for 15 days, enoxaparin 40 mg twice daily for 30 days, or rivaroxaban 10 mg orally once daily for 30 days, after standardized in-hospital enoxaparin and early ambulation. Participants underwent clinical assessment and duplex ultrasonography of the lower-limb and porto-mesenteric veins on postoperative days 15 and 30. The primary outcome was objectively confirmed VTE within 30 days. Bleeding was classified as International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) major bleeding or clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB). Because the expected event rate was low and no non-inferiority or equivalence margin was prespecified, comparisons were interpreted as exploratory. RESULTS: A total of 288 patients were randomized to 15-day enoxaparin (n = 97), 30-day enoxaparin (n = 97), or 30-day rivaroxaban (n = 94). One symptomatic lower-limb deep vein thrombosis occurred in the 15-day enoxaparin group (1.0%; 95% CI, 0.03%-5.6%); no VTE events occurred in the 30-day enoxaparin group (0%; 95% CI, 0%-3.7%) or the rivaroxaban group (0%; 95% CI, 0%-3.8%). Total bleeding occurred in 4/97 patients (4.1%) in each enoxaparin group and 8/94 patients (8.5%) in the rivaroxaban group. The absolute difference in total bleeding between rivaroxaban and 30-day enoxaparin was 4.4% points (95% CI, - 2.9 to 12.2), indicating substantial imprecision. No porto-mesenteric venous thrombosis was detected. CONCLUSION: Only one VTE event occurred, precluding reliable conclusions regarding comparative efficacy or prophylaxis duration. Bleeding estimates were also imprecise and do not establish comparative safety or equivalence between rivaroxaban and enoxaparin. The trial adds descriptive event-rate data from a standardized OAGB pathway, but larger multicenter studies with prespecified comparative hypotheses and assessment of adherence, oral tolerance, and drug exposure are required. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee and registered at ClinicalTrials.gov.

Humans

Prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) vs. non-PCC strategies for warfarin reversal in left ventricular assist device recipients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) prolong survival in end-stage heart failure, and warfarin thromboprophylaxis is recommended to prevent device thrombosis and thromboembolic complications. When bleeding occurs or emergency surgery is required, rapid anticoagulation reversal is critical. Prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) provides rapid reversal; however, its risk-benefit profile in LVAD recipients remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing PCC with non-PCC strategies for warfarin reversal in LVAD recipients. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus were searched through June 2025 for studies of PCC versus non-PCC strategies for warfarin reversal in LVAD recipients. Two reviewers independently extracted data. Random-effects models were used to pool arm-level estimates and to pool head-to-head comparisons using mean differences or risk ratios (RRs). RESULTS: Eighteen studies involving 779 patients were included. Arm-level pooled estimates for PCC versus non-PCC comparators were 24.0% versus 15.8% for mortality, 16.5% versus 12.1% for thrombotic events, and 3.1 versus 5.7 for FFP units. Arm-level time to INR correction was longer with PCC overall (16.5 versus 13.6 h), driven by one elective cohort, but faster within the ICH subgroup (6.0 versus 13.7 h). In head-to-head comparisons, PCC achieved faster INR correction than non-PCC comparators (mean difference - 7.6 h; p = 0.001) and required fewer FFP units (-2.6 units; p = 0.019), with no significant difference in all-cause mortality (RR 1.14; p = 0.490) or thrombotic events (RR 1.43; p = 0.176). CONCLUSIONS: In head-to-head studies, PCC was associated with faster INR correction and lower FFP requirements than non-PCC strategies, whereas mortality and thrombotic events did not differ significantly. Given the observational evidence, wide confidence intervals, and heterogeneity, equivalent safety cannot be established, and prospective studies are needed to define the relative safety and effectiveness of the two approaches. IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: PCC-based strategies may be considered for urgent warfarin reversal in LVAD recipients, particularly when rapid INR reduction or avoidance of large-volume plasma transfusion is clinically important. Treatment decisions should account for the indication, bleeding severity, and underlying thrombotic risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42024573925.

Humans