Key result
Dabigatran etaxilate was comparable to enoxaparin sodium for thrombosis prevention after total knee replacement, with thrombosis rates of 1.35% vs 2.4%.
Why the study?
Does dabigatran etaxilate prevent vena cava inferior system thrombosis compared to enoxaparin sodium in patients after total knee replacement?
Cohort (n=201)
Does dabigatran etaxilate prevent vena cava inferior system thrombosis compared to enoxaparin sodium in patients after total knee replacement?
Absolute Event Rate: 1.35% vs 2.4%
Dabigatran etaxilate offers a convenient oral alternative to enoxaparin with comparable efficacy and safety for thrombosis prevention after total knee replacement.
May support dabigatran as convenient alternative after TKR; leaves open randomized confirmation for vena cava thrombosis prevention.
Comparative analysis of dabigatran etaxilate and enoxaparin sodium use for prevention of vena cava inferior system thrombosis in patients after total knee replacement in early postoperative period was performed. In 74 patients (1 st group) dabigatran etaxilate and in 127 (2 nd group) enoxaparin sodium was used as a preventive measure. The rate of thrombosis made up 1.35% and 2.4% in the first and second groups, respectively. No significant difference in the volume of perioperative blood loss between the groups was noted. No other hemorrhagic complications were observed. It was shown that in more convenient peroral administration the dabigatran etaxilate efficacy and safety was comparable to enoxaparin sodium.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Murylev et al. (2012) conducted a cohort in Total knee replacement (n=201). Dabigatran etaxilate vs. Enoxaparin sodium was evaluated on Vena cava inferior system thrombosis. Dabigatran etaxilate was comparable to enoxaparin sodium for thrombosis prevention after total knee replacement, with thrombosis rates of 1.35% vs 2.4%.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: