Key result
Chemical prophylaxis (e.g., LMWH 0.40%, aspirin 0.43%) and general anesthesia (0.43%) were not associated with increased odds of pulmonary embolism versus mechanical prophylaxis alone (0.37%).
Why the study?
Does the type of prophylaxis or anesthesia affect the rates of pulmonary embolism in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty?
Population
17,595 patients without a history of venous thromboembolism who were managed with unilateral total hip…
Comparison
Chemical prophylaxis with or without mechanical… vs Different types of prophylaxis and anesthesia…
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
90 days
Authors
Loading...
May support mechanical prophylaxis alone in select THA patients; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
Observational (n=17,595)
Yes
Does the type of prophylaxis or anesthesia affect the rates of pulmonary embolism in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty?
In patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty, there were no clinical differences in the rates of pulmonary embolism or death among different types of chemical or mechanical prophylaxis.
Khatod et al. (2011) conducted an observational in Total hip arthroplasty (n=17,595). Chemical prophylaxis and/or general anesthesia vs. Mechanical prophylaxis alone and/or non-general anesthesia was evaluated on Pulmonary embolism. Chemical prophylaxis (e.g., LMWH 0.40%, aspirin 0.43%) and general anesthesia (0.43%) were not associated with increased odds of pulmonary embolism versus mechanical prophylaxis alone (0.37%).
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: