IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0250096.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Efficacy and safety of anticoagulants for postoperative thrombophylaxis in total hip and knee arthroplasty: A PRISMA-compliant Bayesian network meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Tailai He
  • Fei Han
  • Jiahao Wang
  • Yihe Hu
  • Jianxi Zhu

Abstract

Objective: To search, review, and analyze the efficacy and safety of various anticoagulants from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of anticoagulants for THA and TKA. Design: PRISMA-compliant Bayesian Network Meta-analysis. Data sources and study selection: The databases of The Medline, Embase, ClinicalTrial, and Cochrane Library databases were searched until March 2017 for RCTs of patients undergoing a THA or TKA. Main outcomes and measures: The primary efficacy measurement was the venous thromboembolism Odds ratio (OR). The safety measurement was the odds ratio of major or clinically relevant bleeding. OR with 95% credibility intervals (95%CrIs) were calculated. Findings were interpreted as associations when the 95%CrIs excluded the null value. Results: Thirty-five RCTs (53787 patients; mean age range, mostly 55–70 years; mean weight range, mostly 55–90 kg; and a higher mean proportion of women than men, around 60%) included the following Anticoagulants categories: fondaparinux, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, apixaban, dabigatran, low-molecular-weight heparin, ximelagatran, aspirin, warfarin. Anticoagulants were ranked for effectiveness as follows: fondaparinux (88.89% ± 10.90%), edoxaban (85.87% ± 13.34%), rivaroxaban (86.08% ± 10.23%), apixaban (68.26% ± 10.82%), dabigatran (41.63% ± 12.26%), low-molecular-weight heparin (41.03% ± 9.60%), ximelagatran (37.81% ± 15.87%), aspirin (35.62% ± 20.60%), warfarin (9.89% ± 9.07%), and placebo (4.56% ± 6.37%). Ranking based on clinically relevant bleeding events was as follows: fondaparinux (14.53% ± 15.25%), ximelagatran (18.93% ± 17.49%), rivaroxaban (23.86% ± 15.14%), dabigatran (28.30% ± 14.18%), edoxaban (38.76% ± 24.25%), low-molecular-weight heparin (53.28% ± 8.40%), apixaban (71.81% ± 10.92%), placebo (76.26% ± 14.61%), aspirin (86.32% ± 25.74%), and warfarin (87.95% ± 11.27%). No statistically significant heterogeneity was observed between trials. Conclusions and relevance: According to our results, all anticoagulant drugs showed some effectiveness for VTE prophylaxis. Our ranking indicated that fondaparinux and rivaroxaban were safer and more effective than other anticoagulant drugs for patients undergoing THA or TKA.

Suggested Citation

  • Tailai He & Fei Han & Jiahao Wang & Yihe Hu & Jianxi Zhu, 2021. "Efficacy and safety of anticoagulants for postoperative thrombophylaxis in total hip and knee arthroplasty: A PRISMA-compliant Bayesian network meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-14, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0250096
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250096
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0250096
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0250096&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0250096?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lu, Guobing & Ades, A.E., 2006. "Assessing Evidence Inconsistency in Mixed Treatment Comparisons," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 101, pages 447-459, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. H. P. Piepho & E. R. Williams & L. V. Madden, 2012. "The Use of Two-Way Linear Mixed Models in Multitreatment Meta-Analysis," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 68(4), pages 1269-1277, December.
    2. A. Goubar & A. E. Ades & D. De Angelis & C. A. McGarrigle & C. H. Mercer & P. A. Tookey & K. Fenton & O. N. Gill, 2008. "Estimates of human immunodeficiency virus prevalence and proportion diagnosed based on Bayesian multiparameter synthesis of surveillance data," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 171(3), pages 541-580, June.
    3. David M. Phillippo & Sofia Dias & A. E. Ades & Mark Belger & Alan Brnabic & Alexander Schacht & Daniel Saure & Zbigniew Kadziola & Nicky J. Welton, 2020. "Multilevel network meta‐regression for population‐adjusted treatment comparisons," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 183(3), pages 1189-1210, June.
    4. Howard Thom & Frank Ender & Saisudha Samavedam & Caridad Perez Vivez & Subhajit Gupta & Mukesh Dhariwal & Jan de Haan & Derek O’Boyle, 2019. "Effect of AcrySof versus other intraocular lens properties on the risk of Nd:YAG capsulotomy after cataract surgery: A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-15, August.
    5. S. Dias & N. J. Welton & V. C. C. Marinho & G. Salanti & J. P. T. Higgins & A. E. Ades, 2010. "Estimation and adjustment of bias in randomized evidence by using mixed treatment comparison meta‐analysis," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 173(3), pages 613-629, July.
    6. Dan Jackson & Sylwia Bujkiewicz & Martin Law & Richard D. Riley & Ian R. White, 2018. "A matrix†based method of moments for fitting multivariate network meta†analysis models with multiple outcomes and random inconsistency effects," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 74(2), pages 548-556, June.
    7. Hwanhee Hong & Bradley P. Carlin & Tatyana A. Shamliyan & Jean F. Wyman & Rema Ramakrishnan & François Sainfort & Robert L. Kane, 2013. "Comparing Bayesian and Frequentist Approaches for Multiple Outcome Mixed Treatment Comparisons," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(5), pages 702-714, July.
    8. Giammarco Alderotti & Daniele Vignoli & Michela Baccini & Anna Matysiak, 2019. "Employment Uncertainty and Fertility: A Network Meta-Analysis of European Research Findings," Econometrics Working Papers Archive 2019_06, Universita' degli Studi di Firenze, Dipartimento di Statistica, Informatica, Applicazioni "G. Parenti".
    9. Pepijn Vemer & Maiwenn J Al & Mark Oppe & Maureen P M H Rutten-van Mölken, 2017. "Mix and match. A simulation study on the impact of mixed-treatment comparison methods on health-economic outcomes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-20, February.
    10. Peixia Cheng & Liheng Tan & Peishan Ning & Li Li & Yuyan Gao & Yue Wu & David C. Schwebel & Haitao Chu & Huaiqiong Yin & Guoqing Hu, 2018. "Comparative Effectiveness of Published Interventions for Elderly Fall Prevention: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-14, March.
    11. Anna Chaimani & Julian P T Higgins & Dimitris Mavridis & Panagiota Spyridonos & Georgia Salanti, 2013. "Graphical Tools for Network Meta-Analysis in STATA," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-12, October.
    12. Jing Zhang & Yiping Yuan & Haitao Chu, 2016. "The Impact of Excluding Trials from Network Meta-Analyses – An Empirical Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-17, December.
    13. Gretchen Bjornstad & Shreya Sonthalia & Benjamin Rouse & Leanne Freeman & Natasha Hessami & Jo Hickman Dunne & Nick Axford, 2024. "A comparison of the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural interventions based on delivery features for elevated symptoms of depression in adolescents: A systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), March.
    14. J.Jaime Caro & K. Ishak, 2010. "No Head-to-Head Trial? Simulate the Missing Arms," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(10), pages 957-967, October.
    15. Gretchen J. Bjornstad & Shreya Sonthalia & Benjamin Rouse & Luke Timmons & Laura Whybra & Nick Axford, 2020. "PROTOCOL: A comparison of the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural interventions based on delivery features for elevated symptoms of depression in adolescents," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), March.
    16. van Valkenhoef, Gert & de Brock, E.O. & Hillege, Hans & Zhao, Jing, 2012. "Addis," Research Report 12007-Other, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    17. Loukia M. Spineli, 2022. "A Revised Framework to Evaluate the Consistency Assumption Globally in a Network of Interventions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(5), pages 637-648, July.
    18. Lin, Lifeng & Zhang, Jing & Hodges, James S. & Chu, Haitao, 2017. "Performing Arm-Based Network Meta-Analysis in R with the pcnetmeta Package," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 80(i05).
    19. David Lunn & Jessica Barrett & Michael Sweeting & Simon Thompson, 2013. "Fully Bayesian hierarchical modelling in two stages, with application to meta-analysis," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 62(4), pages 551-572, August.
    20. repec:dgr:rugsom:12007-0ther is not listed on IDEAS
    21. David M. Phillippo & Sofia Dias & A. E. Ades & Vanessa Didelez & Nicky J. Welton, 2018. "Sensitivity of treatment recommendations to bias in network meta‐analysis," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 181(3), pages 843-867, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0250096. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.