Direct factor Xa inhibitors versus low molecular weight heparins or vitamin K antagonists for prevention of venous thromboembolism in elective primary hip or knee replacement or hip fracture repair.

BACKGROUND

People undergoing major orthopaedic surgery are at increased risk of postoperative thromboembolic events. Low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) are recommended for thromboprophylaxis in this population. New oral anticoagulants, including direct factor Xa inhibitors, are recommended as alternatives. They may have more advantages than disadvantages compared to LMWHs and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs, another type of anticoagulant).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of prophylactic anticoagulation with direct factor Xa inhibitors compared with low molecular weight heparins and vitamin K antagonists in people undergoing major orthopaedic surgery for elective total hip or knee replacement or hip fracture surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases, and two trial registers to 11 November 2023. We conducted reference checks to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of direct factor Xa inhibitors to LMWHs or VKAs in people undergoing major orthopaedic surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, major venous thromboembolism (VTE), symptomatic VTE, major bleeding, and serious hepatic and non-hepatic adverse events. We evaluated the risk of bias in the included studies using Cochrane's risk of bias 1 tool. We calculated estimates of treatment effects using risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and used GRADE criteria to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 53 RCTs (44,371 participants). Participants' average age was 64 years (range: 18 to 93 years). Only one RCT compared a VKA with direct factor Xa inhibitors. All 53 RCTs compared direct factor Xa inhibitors with LMWHs. Twenty-three studies included participants undergoing total hip replacement; 21 studies, total knee replacement; and three studies included people having hip fracture surgery. The studies' average duration was approximately 42 days (range: two to 720 days). Compared to LMWHs, direct factor Xa inhibitors may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.31; I = 0%; 28 studies, 29,698 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Direct factor Xa inhibitors may make little to no difference to major venous thromboembolic events compared to LMWHs, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.71; absolute risk difference: 12 fewer major VTE events per 1000 participants, 95% CI 16 fewer to 7 fewer; I = 48%; 28 studies, 24,574 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to LMWHs, direct factor Xa inhibitors may reduce symptomatic VTE (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.83; I = 0%; 33 studies, 31,670 participants; low-certainty evidence). The absolute benefit of substituting factor Xa inhibitors for LMWHs may be between two and five fewer symptomatic VTE episodes per 1000 patients. In the meta-analysis with all studies pooled, direct factor Xa inhibitors appeared to make little or no difference to major bleeding compared to LMWHs, but the evidence was very uncertain (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30; I = 15%; 36 studies, 39,778 participants; very low certainty-evidence). • In a subgroup analysis limited to studies comparing rivaroxaban to LMWHs, people given rivaroxaban may have had more major bleeding events (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.98; I = 0%; 17 studies, 17,630 participants; low-certainty evidence). The absolute risk of substituting rivaroxaban for LMWH may be between one and seven more major bleeding events per 1000 patients. • In a subgroup analysis limited to studies comparing direct factor Xa inhibitors other than rivaroxaban to LMWHs, people given these other direct factor Xa inhibitors may have had fewer major bleeding events, but the evidence was very uncertain (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.02; absolute risk difference: 3 fewer major bleeding events per 1000 participants, 95% CI 5 fewer to 0 fewer; I = 0%; 19 studies, 22,148 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Direct factor Xa inhibitors may make little to no difference in serious hepatic adverse events compared to LMWHs, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 3.01, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.93; 2 studies, 3169 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Only two studies reported this outcome, with one death in the intervention group due to hepatitis reported in one study, and no events reported in the other study. People given direct factor Xa inhibitors may have a lower risk of serious non-hepatic adverse events than those given LMWHs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.97; I = 18%; 15 studies, 26,246 participants; low-certainty evidence). The absolute benefit of substituting factor Xa inhibitors for LMWH may be between three and 14 fewer serious non-hepatic adverse events per 1000 patients. Only one study compared a direct factor Xa inhibitor with a VKA. It reported outcome data with imprecise results due to the small number of events. It showed no difference in the effects of the study drugs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Oral direct factor Xa inhibitors may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality, but the evidence is very uncertain. Oral direct factor Xa inhibitors may slightly reduce symptomatic VTE events when compared with LMWH. They may make little or no difference to major VTE events, but the evidence is very uncertain. In the evaluation of major bleeding, the evidence suggests rivaroxaban results in a slight increase in major bleeding events compared to LMWHs. The remaining oral direct factor Xa inhibitors may have little to no effect on major bleeding, but the evidence is very uncertain. Oral direct factor Xa inhibitors may reduce serious non-hepatic adverse events slightly compared to LMWHs. They may have little to no effect on serious hepatic adverse events, but the evidence is very uncertain. Due to the high rates of missing participants and selective outcome reporting, the effect estimates may be biased.