Key result
Subcutaneous melagatran followed by oral ximelagatran reduced total VTE incidence compared to enoxaparin in orthopaedic surgery patients.
Why the study?
Does subcutaneous melagatran followed by oral ximelagatran reduce venous thromboembolism compared to low-molecular-weight heparin in patients undergoing total hip or knee replacement?
Does subcutaneous melagatran followed by oral ximelagatran reduce venous thromboembolism compared to low-molecular-weight heparin in patients undergoing total hip or knee replacement?
Melagatran/ximelagatran is an effective alternative to LMWHs for VTE prophylaxis in orthopaedic surgery, though careful dosing and timing are required to manage bleeding risks.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support ximelagatran as LMWH alternative post-orthopedic surgery; leaves open safety and dosing questions from Level 5 evidence.
Ximelagatran represents the first new oral anticoagulant since the introduction of warfarin almost 60 years ago, and has been evaluated for the treatment and prevention of a range of venous and arterial thromboembolic disorders. The MElagatran THRomboprophylaxis in Orthopaedic surgery (METHRO) and EXpanded PRophylaxis Evaluation Surgery Study (EXPRESS) studies have investigated the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous (s.c.) melagatran followed by oral ximelagatran in preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients undergoing total hip replacement or total knee replacement. In METHRO II, immediate pre-operative-initiated s.c. melagatran followed by post-operative ximelagatran dose-dependently reduced VTE, with the highest dose (melagatran 3 mg/ximelagatran 24 mg twice daily) associated with a significantly reduced incidence of VTE compared with the low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) dalteparin (15.1 vs. 28.2%; p < 0.0001). In METHRO III, the efficacy of s.c. melagatran 3 mg/ximelagatran 24 mg twice daily initiated post-operatively (4-12 h after surgery) was comparable to that of the LMWH enoxaparin initiated 12 h before surgery (total VTE incidence, 31.0 and 27.3%, respectively). Rates of severe bleeding were also comparable between treatments (melagatran/ximelagatran = 1.4%; enoxaparin = 1.7%). Treatment with melagatran/ximelagatran was significantly more effective when initiated earlier (4-8 h) rather than later (8-12 h) after surgery (total VTE incidence, 27.5 vs. 35.4%; p = 0.0034). Based on the results of METHRO II and III, the EXPRESS study evaluated the efficacy and bleeding profile of s.c. melagatran 2 mg immediately before surgery, followed by s.c. melagatran 3 mg on the evening of the day of surgery and then ximelagatran 24 mg twice daily. This regimen was significantly more effective than enoxaparin (total VTE incidence, 20.3 vs. 26.6%; p < 0.0004). Excessive bleeding (as judged by the investigator) was more frequent with melagatran/ximelagatran, but rates of fatal bleeding, critical-site bleeding and bleeding requiring re-operation did not differ between the groups. Taken together, the METHRO and EXPRESS studies demonstrate that melagatran/ximelagatran has comparable or superior efficacy to LMWHs in the prevention of VTE in orthopaedic surgery patients, and that the timing and dose of melagatran is important in optimizing the balance of efficacy and bleeding risk.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bengt I. Eriksson (2005) conducted a review in Venous thromboembolism in orthopaedic surgery. Melagatran followed by ximelagatran vs. Low-molecular-weight heparin (dalteparin or enoxaparin) was evaluated on Total VTE incidence (p=< 0.0004). Subcutaneous melagatran followed by oral ximelagatran reduced total VTE incidence compared to enoxaparin in orthopaedic surgery patients.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: