Donate Help Contact The AHA Sign In Home
American Heart Association
Circulation
Search: search_blue_button Advanced Search
« Previous Article | Table of Contents | Next Article »
Circulation. 2004;110:IV-4-IV-12
doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000150639.98514.6c
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Agnelli, G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Agnelli, G.

(Circulation. 2004;110:IV-4 – IV-12.)
© 2004 American Heart Association, Inc.

Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism

Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Surgical Patients

Giancarlo Agnelli, MD

From the Stroke Unit & Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Perugia, Italy.

Correspondence to Giancarlo Agnelli, MD, Professor of Internal Medicine, Sezione di Medicina Interna e Cardiovascolare, Dipartimento di Medicina Interna Università di Perugia–Via Enrico dal Pozzo 06126 Perugia, Italy. E-mail agnellig{at}unipg.it


*    Abstract
up arrowTop
 *Abstract
down arrowIntroduction
 down arrowGeneral Surgery
 down arrowGynecologic Surgery
 down arrowUrologic Surgery
 down arrowVascular Surgery
 down arrowOrthopedic Surgery
 down arrowElective Spine Surgery
 down arrowNeurosurgery
 down arrowUnresolved Issues
 down arrowConclusion
 down arrowReferences
 
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication of surgical procedures. The risk for VTE in surgical patients is determined by the combination of individual predisposing factors and the specific type of surgery. Prophylaxis with mechanical and pharmacological methods has been shown to be effective and safe in most types of surgery and should be routinely implemented. For patients undergoing general, gynecologic, vascular, and major urologic surgery, low-dose unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) are the options of choice. For low-risk urologic surgery, early postoperative mobilization of patients is the only intervention warranted. For higher-risk patients, including those undergoing elective hip or knee replacement and surgery for hip fracture, vitamin K antagonists, LMWH, or fondaparinux are recommended. For patients undergoing neurosurgery, graduated elastic stockings are effective and safe and may be combined with LMWH to further reduce the risk of VTE. The role of prophylaxis is less defined in patients undergoing elective spine surgery, as well as laparoscopic and arthroscopic surgery. A number of issues related to prophylaxis of VTE after surgery deserve further clarification, including the role of screening for asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis, the best timing for initiation of pharmacological prophylaxis, and the optimal duration of prophylaxis in high-risk patients.


Key Words: venous thromboembolism • deep vein thrombosis • pulmonary embolism • heparin • low-molecular-weight heparin • vitamin K antagonists


*    Introduction
up arrowTop
 up arrowAbstract
 *Introduction
down arrowGeneral Surgery
 down arrowGynecologic Surgery
 down arrowUrologic Surgery
 down arrowVascular Surgery
 down arrowOrthopedic Surgery
 down arrowElective Spine Surgery
 down arrowNeurosurgery
 down arrowUnresolved Issues
 down arrowConclusion
 down arrowReferences
 
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication in patients undergoing surgery.1 Pulmonary embolism (PE) is the most common cause of preventable death in patients hospitalized for surgical procedures. The risk for VTE in surgical patients is determined by the combination of individual predisposing factors and features of the specific type of surgery (Table 1).1 More extended use of prophylaxis, early mobilization, and improved perioperative care have reduced the risk of VTE in surgical patients. However, many patients remain at high risk for VTE because of advanced age, more extensive operative procedures, and greater medical comorbidities.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 1. Degree of Thromboembolism Risk in Surgical Patients Without Prophylaxis

Postoperative deep vein thrombosis (DVT) of the lower limbs is often asymptomatic; in many patients, fatal PE is the first clinical manifestation of postoperative VTE. Therefore, it is inappropriate to rely on early diagnosis and treatment of postoperative thromboembolism. In addition, routine screening for asymptomatic DVT of the lower limbs has a low sensitivity and is quite impractical. For these reasons, routine and systematic prophylaxis in patients at risk is the strategy of choice to reduce the burden of VTE after surgery. If used appropriately, such prophylaxis is cost effective because it reduces the incidence of symptomatic thromboembolic events, which require costly diagnostic procedures and prolonged anticoagulation therapy.1

This review details the risk for VTE and the available effective methods of prophylaxis for each surgical category.


*    General Surgery
up arrowTop
 up arrowAbstract
 up arrowIntroduction
 *General Surgery
down arrowGynecologic Surgery
 down arrowUrologic Surgery
 down arrowVascular Surgery
 down arrowOrthopedic Surgery
 down arrowElective Spine Surgery
 down arrowNeurosurgery
 down arrowUnresolved Issues
 down arrowConclusion
 down arrowReferences
 
In patients undergoing general surgery without prophylaxis, the rates of DVT and fatal PE range from 15% to 30% and from 0.2% to 0.9%, respectively.1,2 The figures for DVT are derived chiefly from screening studies with radioactive fibrinogen carried out in the 1970s and 1980s. In patients undergoing general surgery, the current risk for VTE in the absence of prophylaxis is difficult to estimate. More rapid mobilization and improved perioperative care may have reduced the risk for these events; alternatively, the practice of more extensive procedures in patients with comorbidities and the use of preoperative cancer chemotherapy likely increases the risk. Indeed, in such high-risk patients, studies without prophylaxis are no longer performed. Risk factors for thrombosis in general surgery patients include cancer as the reason for surgery, duration of procedure, previous VTE, advanced age, and obesity.3

Routine use of thromboprophylaxis is recommended in surgical patients who are >40 years of age or undergoing major general procedures.1 Compared with no prophylaxis, both subcutaneous, low-dose unfractionated heparin (LDUH) and low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) have been shown to reduce the risk of VTE in these patients by at least 60%.2,4

In most prophylaxis trials, LDUH was given at the dose of 5000 U starting 2 hours before surgery followed by 5000 U 2 or 3x daily until patients were ambulatory or discharged. The clinical value of LDUH in general surgery has been confirmed by a meta-analysis of randomized trials in which this prophylactic regimen was compared with no prophylaxis or placebo.4 The frequency of DVT was significantly reduced by unfractionated heparin (UFH) (from 22% to 9%), as was clinically overt PE (from 2.0% to 1.3%), fatal PE (from 0.8% to 0.3%), and all-cause mortality (from 4.2% to 3.2%). The use of LDUH was associated with an increase in bleeding events (from 3.8% to 5.9%). Another meta-analysis showed an association between LDUH and an increased rate of wound hematomas but not of major bleeding.5 Both meta-analyses showed that UFH given 3x daily is more effective and not less safe than the same agent given twice a day; this is particularly true in patients undergoing general surgery for cancer.4,5

No single study showed a difference between LDUH and LMWH in the prevention of symptomatic VTE after general surgery. However, in several trials, LMWH was associated with significantly less venography-detected DVT than LDUH. At least 9 meta-analyses and systematic reviews have compared various LMWH regimens with UFH for the prevention of VTE in general surgery.1 Taken together, these analyses indicate that these approaches have comparable efficacy and safety for the prevention of VTE. The ease of once-daily administration and the reduced risk of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia are clinical advantages of LMWH over LDUH.6 In patients undergoing surgery for cancer, prophylactic doses >3400 anti-Xa units of LMWH provide greater protection than lower doses.7

Graduated compression stockings effectively reduce the risk for VTE in patients undergoing general surgery and constitute the prophylactic measure of choice in patients with a high risk of bleeding. A systematic review showed a 52% relative risk reduction with graduated compression stockings in comparison with no prophylaxis. Graduated compression stockings also have been shown to enhance the protection from VTE provided by LDUH by a further 75%, from 15% to 4%.8 Graduated compression stockings should be combined with pharmacological prophylaxis in high-risk patients whenever possible.


*    Gynecologic Surgery
up arrowTop
 up arrowAbstract
 up arrowIntroduction
 up arrowGeneral Surgery
 *Gynecologic Surgery
down arrowUrologic Surgery
 down arrowVascular Surgery
 down arrowOrthopedic Surgery
 down arrowElective Spine Surgery
 down arrowNeurosurgery
 down arrowUnresolved Issues
 down arrowConclusion
 down arrowReferences
 
In patients undergoing major gynecologic surgery, the rates of DVT, PE, and fatal PE are comparable to those seen after general surgical procedures.1,9 Surgery for cancer, advanced age, previous VTE, prior pelvic radiation therapy, and abdominal resection (in contrast to vaginal resection) appear to increase the thromboembolic risk after gynecologic surgery.10

In patients undergoing gynecologic surgery for benign disease without additional risk factors, LDUH given twice daily is effective in reducing DVT.1 Mechanical prophylaxis with intermittent pneumatic compression also appears to be efficacious and should be considered for patients at high risk for bleeding.11

Twice-daily LDUH offers less protection to patients having surgery for cancer than those with benign disease. LDUH given 3x daily or LMWH administered in daily doses of at least 4000 anti-Xa units appear to be more effective than twice-daily LDUH in these patients.11–14 There is no evidence that once-daily LMWH has superior efficacy than thrice-daily LDUH. Increased convenience is the major advantage of LMWH.1

The risk of VTE after laparoscopic gynecologic surgery is unclear. Therefore, the decision to provide prophylaxis should be individualized, taking into consideration the patient’s individual risk factors and comorbidities.


*    Urologic Surgery
up arrowTop
 up arrowAbstract
 up arrowIntroduction
 up arrowGeneral Surgery
 up arrowGynecologic Surgery
 *Urologic Surgery
down arrowVascular Surgery
 down arrowOrthopedic Surgery
 down arrowElective Spine Surgery
 down arrowNeurosurgery
 down arrowUnresolved Issues
 down arrowConclusion
 down arrowReferences
 
Venous thromboembolism is a common complication of major urologic surgery.1,15 Between 1% and 5% of patients undergoing such procedures experience clinically overt VTE. Pulmonary embolism remains the most common cause of postoperative death in these patients, and fatal PE has been estimated to occur in 1 of 500 patients.16,17

Advanced age, malignancy, intraoperative lithotomy position, and pelvic surgery with or without lymph node dissection are established risk factors for VTE in patients undergoing urologic surgery.1

LDUH and LMWH are efficacious in patients undergoing urologic surgery.1,18,19 In these patients, the use of intermittent pneumatic compression or graduated elastic stockings is likely to be effective as well. The combination of mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis may be more effective than either modality alone.19

Most data concerning VTE in urologic surgery has been obtained from patients undergoing prostatectomy. The risk of VTE seems to be low in patients undergoing transurethral prostatectomy.17,18 Moreover, the use of perioperative LDUH or LMWH may increase the risk for bleeding.20 Thus, early postoperative mobilization is probably the only intervention warranted in these and other low-risk urologic surgery patients. Routine prophylaxis with LDUH and LMWH is recommended for more extensive open procedures, including radical prostatectomy, cystectomy, or nephrectomy.


*    Vascular Surgery
up arrowTop
 up arrowAbstract
 up arrowIntroduction
 up arrowGeneral Surgery
 up arrowGynecologic Surgery
 up arrowUrologic Surgery
 *Vascular Surgery
down arrowOrthopedic Surgery
 down arrowElective Spine Surgery
 down arrowNeurosurgery
 down arrowUnresolved Issues
 down arrowConclusion
 down arrowReferences
 
Patients undergoing vascular surgery have a high risk for VTE. Potential risk factors in vascular surgery include advanced age, limb ischemia, long duration of surgery, and venous injury.21 The incidence of clinically overt VTE occurring during the hospital stay or requiring rehospitalization within 3 months after surgery is 2.5% to 2.9%.1 The rates of DVT after aortoiliac or aortofemoral surgery are similar to those seen in other types of abdominal and pelvic procedures.22 In the absence of prophylaxis, the rate of DVT is {approx}21% when routine contrast venography is obtained23–25 and 15% when routine postoperative ultrasonography is performed.22,26 Patients undergoing major vascular procedures who have additional thromboembolic risk factors should receive antithrombotic prophylaxis with LDUH or LMWH. Although the optimal time to start prophylaxis with antithrombotic agents in patients undergoing vascular surgery remains unclear, some practitioners prefer to administer the first dose after surgery.


*    Orthopedic Surgery
up arrowTop
 up arrowAbstract
 up arrowIntroduction
 up arrowGeneral Surgery
 up arrowGynecologic Surgery
 up arrowUrologic Surgery
 up arrowVascular Surgery
 *Orthopedic Surgery
down arrowElective Spine Surgery
 down arrowNeurosurgery
 down arrowUnresolved Issues
 down arrowConclusion
 down arrowReferences
 
Patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery, which includes elective hip and knee replacement and surgery for hip fracture, are at particularly high risk for VTE (Table 2).1 Despite the use of prophylaxis, the rate of clinically overt VTE in these patients remains almost 3%.27 Venous thromboembolism is the most common cause for readmission to the hospital after hip replacement.28


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 2. VTE Prevalence After Major Orthopedic Surgery in Absence of Prophylaxis

Elective Hip Replacement
Elective hip replacement is a common surgical procedure, which is performed in 1 of 1000 people in the population each year.1 In patients undergoing elective total hip replacement in absence of any prophylaxis, the incidence of venography-detected DVT ranges from 40% to 60% and that of clinically overt VTE between 2% and 5%.1,29 Approximately 50% of the venographically-detected DVT is proximal. Fatal PE occurs in {approx}1 of 500 patients undergoing elective hip replacement.30–32

A number of anticoagulant-based regimens have been evaluated for the prophylaxis of VTE in patients undergoing total hip replacement (Table 3).1 Although meta-analyses have shown that prophylaxis with LDUH4 and aspirin33 are more effective than no prophylaxis in patients undergoing hip replacement, both these agents are less effective than the standard prophylactic regimens in use today. Three pharmacological antithrombotic regimens are currently recommended for the prophylaxis of VTE. These include LMWHs, the vitamin K antagonists, and the synthetic factor Xa inhibitor, fondaparinux. In addition, the oral direct thrombin inhibitor, ximelagatran, has been recently evaluated in this clinical setting.1


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 3. Prevention of DVT After Total Hip Replacement

A number of studies34–36 and meta-analyses7,37,38 have compared the efficacy of LMWH with that of UFH for prophylaxis of VTE after total hip replacement. Overall, LMWH is more efficacious than LDUH or adjusted-dose UFH with a relative risk reduction of {approx}50% and 25%, respectively.

Vitamin K antagonists should be administered in doses sufficient to prolong the international normalized ratio (INR) to a target of 2.5 (range 2.0 to 3.0). The initial dose of these agents should be administered either the evening before surgery or the day of surgery.

Five venography-based studies compared the efficacy and safety of LMWH and vitamin K antagonists for the prevention of VTE in patients undergoing total hip replacement.40–44 These studies showed that in comparison with vitamin K antagonists, LMWH significantly reduced the rate of DVT from 20.7% to 13.7%. The rate of proximal DVT was reduced from 4.8% to 3.4%. Pooled rates of major bleeding were 3.3% in patients receiving vitamin K antagonists and 5.3% in patients receiving LMWH. A large open study compared the incidence of clinically overt VTE in patients receiving the LMWH enoxaparin, at a dose of 30 mg twice daily started postoperatively with adjusted-dose warfarin (target INR 2.0 to 3.0).45 The rate of VTE was 0.3% in patients receiving LMWH compared with 1.1% in those receiving warfarin, a statistically significant reduction. However, major bleeding occurred in 0.6% of the enoxaparin patients compared with 0.3% of the warfarin group. In summary, LMWH is more effective than vitamin K antagonists in the prevention of VTE in patients undergoing elective hip replacement. A slight increase in surgical site bleeding and wound hematoma can be anticipated with LMWH.

Two venography-based studies have shown that fondaparinux is effective for prevention of VTE in patients undergoing total hip replacement.46,47 In a European study, fondaparinux given at the dose of 2.5 mg once daily starting 4 to 8 hours after surgery significantly reduced the incidence of DVT from 9% to 4% in comparison with enoxaparin given at a dose of 40 mg once daily starting 12 hours before surgery. The rate of proximal DVT also was significantly reduced by fondaparinux from 2% to 1%.46 In a North American trial, the same fondaparinux regimen was compared with enoxaparin 30 mg twice daily started 12 to 24 hours after surgery.47 In this study, the rate of overall VTE was reduced from 8% to 6% (P=NS) in the fondaparinux group. The rate of proximal DVT was 2% and 1% in fondaparinux and enoxaparin groups, respectively. In both studies, major bleeding occurred more often in the fondaparinux group, solely because of an increased bleeding index. This was calculated as the number of units of blood transfused summed with the change in hemoglobin values before and after the bleeding episode.

Recent trials have used the direct thrombin inhibitor, melagatran, and its oral prodrug, ximelagatran, in patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery.48,49 In the most recent of the European studies, patients undergoing elective hip or knee replacement were randomly assigned to prophylaxis with subcutaneous melagatran at the dose of 2 mg immediately before surgery and 3 mg on the evening of surgery, followed by oral ximelagatran at the dose of 24 mg twice a day versus enoxaparin at the dose of 40 mg started on the evening before surgery.48 The rate of overall and proximal DVT was significantly lower in the melagatran/ximelagatran group, although bleeding and transfusion rates were greater.

In a North American trial, oral ximelagatran 24 mg twice a day started the morning after surgery was compared with enoxaparin given at the dose of 30 mg twice a day started after surgery.49 Venous thromboembolism was observed in 4.6% of the enoxaparin patients and 7.9% of the ximelagatran group, a statistically significant difference. Major bleeding was documented in less than 1% of patients in both groups.

Nonpharmacologic methods of prophylaxis, including graduated compression stockings and intermittent pneumatic compression, reduce the incidence of DVT by 20% to 70%. However, these methods seem to be less effective for prevention of proximal DVT than anticoagulant-based prophylaxis strategies in hip replacement patients.1

Elective Total Knee Replacement
Without prophylaxis, the rate of venography-detected DVT in patients undergoing total knee replacement is {approx}60%.1 In these patients, {approx}25% of venography-detected DVT is proximal.1

Aspirin and LDUH, which are associated with small reductions in the risk for thrombosis, are not recommended in patients undergoing total knee replacement. As with elective hip replacement, pharmacological regimens currently recommended include vitamin K antagonists, LMWHs, and fondaparinux (Table 4).1 In addition, ximelagatran, is also effective and safe in these patients. In venography-based studies, vitamin K antagonists reduce the risk for total and proximal DVT by 31% and 40%, respectively, compared with no prophylaxis.1


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 4. Prevention of DVT After Total Knee Replacement Surgery

Six randomized venography-based trials have directly compared LMWH with vitamin K antagonists in the prevention of VTE in patients undergoing total knee replacement.40–42,53–55 After pooling, the observed rates of DVT were 48.2% in patients receiving vitamin K antagonists and 33.3% in patients receiving LMWH. The proximal DVT rates in the vitamin K antagonists and LMWH groups were 10.4% and 7.1%, respectively. Two meta-analyses confirmed the higher efficacy of LMWH compared with vitamin K antagonists without an increase in bleeding events.56,57 In summary, LMWH is more effective than vitamin K antagonists in preventing VTE in patients undergoing total knee replacement. LMWH may be associated with a small increase in wound hematomas, especially if started early after surgery.

Subcutaneous fondaparinux, at the dosage of 2.5 mg once daily started {approx}6 hours after surgery, was compared with enoxaparin at the dosage of 30 mg twice daily started 12 to 24 hours after surgery.58 Fondaparinux significantly reduced the rate of overall DVT from 27.8% to 12.5% and that of proximal DVT from 5.4% to 2.4%. Major bleeding occurred more often in the fondaparinux group, solely because of an increased bleeding index.

Oral ximelagatran at a dosage of 24 mg or 36 mg twice a day started the evening after surgery was compared with warfarin.59 Ximelagatran at a dose of 36 mg significantly reduced the rate of overall DVT from 27.6% to 20.3%. The rate of DVT with 24 mg ximelagatran was similar to that seen in warfarin patients. The rates of proximal DVT, 2.7% with 36-mg ximelagatran and 4.1% with warfarin, were not significantly different. The rates of major and minor bleeding were low and did not differ significantly among the 3 groups.

Intermittent pneumatic compression devices provide effective prophylaxis in patients undergoing total knee replacement.60–62 The utility of intermittent pneumatic compression is limited by poor compliance, patient intolerance, and the inability to continue prophylaxis after hospital discharge. Graduated compression stockings provide modest protection in these patients.

Surgery for Hip Fracture
Patients undergoing surgery for hip fracture have a very high risk of VTE. In the absence of any prophylaxis, the rates of venography-assessed total and proximal DVT after hip fracture are {approx}50% and 27%, respectively.1 In the 3 months after surgery, the rate of fatal PE ranges from 1.4% to 7.5%. In comparison to elective hip and knee arthroplasty, fewer thromboprophylaxis trials have been conducted in patients undergoing surgery for hip fracture (Table 5).1


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 5. Prevention of DVT After Hip Fracture Surgery

In the Pulmonary Embolism Prevention Trial, 160 mg of enteric-coated aspirin administered before surgery and continued for 35 days was associated with a significant absolute risk reduction of 0.4% for DVT and fatal PE in comparison with placebo.63 Aspirin did not reduce fatal and nonfatal arterial events such as myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause mortality.

As with replacement surgery, the current pharmacological recommendations for prophylaxis of VTE are vitamin K antagonists, LMWHs, and fondaparinux.1

The pooled results from the studies on vitamin K antagonists showed a reduction in relative risk of overall and proximal DVT of 61% and 66%, respectively, compared with no prophylaxis.64–66 Similarly, the pooled results from the studies on prophylaxis with LMWH showed a risk reduction of between 60% and 80% for both overall and proximal DVT.67–70 Unfortunately, no study has directly compared LMWH and vitamin K antagonists in the prevention of VTE after hip fracture.

Recently, fondaparinux has been compared with enoxaparin for the prevention of VTE in patients undergoing surgery for hip fracture.71 The incidence of venography-detected DVT was significantly reduced by fondaparinux from 19.1% to 8.3%. The rate of proximal DVT also was significantly reduced by fondaparinux, from 4.3% to 0.9%, while the incidence of major bleeding was 2.2% in both groups.

There is evidence that delaying surgery after hip fracture increases the risk of VTE. Therefore, if surgery is delayed more than 24 hours, prophylaxis with LMWH should be given during the preoperative period.72

Mechanical prophylaxis with intermittent pneumatic compression appears to be effective in the prevention of VTE in patients undergoing surgery for hip fracture. Data on the benefit from graduated compression stockings are less convincing.


*    Elective Spine Surgery
up arrowTop
 up arrowAbstract
 up arrowIntroduction
 up arrowGeneral Surgery
 up arrowGynecologic Surgery
 up arrowUrologic Surgery
 up arrowVascular Surgery
 up arrowOrthopedic Surgery
 *Elective Spine Surgery
down arrowNeurosurgery
 down arrowUnresolved Issues
 down arrowConclusion
 down arrowReferences
 
Limited data are available on the incidence of VTE in patients undergoing elective spine surgery. In these patients, rates of clinically overt DVT (3.7%) and of PE (2.2%) have been reported.73 The incidence of venography-detected DVT has been reported to be 18%.74 Advanced age, cervical versus lumbar surgery, anterior surgical approach, surgery for malignancy, prolonged procedure, and reduced preoperative and postoperative mobility are risk factors for VTE in these patients.1

In absence of additional risk factors, early and persistent mobilization is recommended in patients undergoing elective spinal surgery. In patients with additional risk factors, intermittent pneumatic compression may be useful.1

The role of pharmacological prophylaxis is less defined in this population; postoperative LDUH and LMWH are the regimens of choice.1 Patients with multiple risk factors benefit from the combination of pharmacological and mechanical prophylaxis.


*    Neurosurgery
up arrowTop
 up arrowAbstract
 up arrowIntroduction
 up arrowGeneral Surgery
 up arrowGynecologic Surgery
 up arrowUrologic Surgery
 up arrowVascular Surgery
 up arrowOrthopedic Surgery
 up arrowElective Spine Surgery
 *Neurosurgery
down arrowUnresolved Issues
 down arrowConclusion
 down arrowReferences
 
The rate of clinically overt VTE is {approx}23% within 12 to 15 months after surgery for primary glioma.1 Risk factors that increase the risk for VTE in these patients include intracranial surgery in comparison to spinal surgery, surgery for malignancy, duration of surgery, lower limb paralysis, and increased age.75

Patients undergoing major neurosurgical procedures require routine prophylaxis for VTE.76 The options for prophylaxis of VTE include perioperative use of intermittent pneumatic compression with or without graduated compression stockings, perioperative LDUH, or postoperative LMWH plus graduated compression stockings.1

Physical methods of prophylaxis are commonly used in neurosurgery because of concerns about intracranial or spinal bleeding. Comparable rates of DVT have been found in patients receiving graduated compression stockings alone or in combination with intermittent pneumatic compression.77 Both regimens were more effective than no prophylaxis.

In patients undergoing craniotomy, compared with no prophylaxis, LDUH was associated with a reduction of 82% in DVT, as diagnosed by fibrinogen scanning. The combination of LDUH and mechanical prophylaxis seems to be more effective than either method alone.1

Two double-blind, randomized, venography-based studies compared graduated compression stockings alone or a combination of graduated elastic stockings and LMWH started postoperatively in neurosurgical patients.78,79 In the first trial, the rates of overall DVT and proximal DVT were 26% and 12% in patients given graduated compression stockings alone and 19% and 7%, respectively, in those given the stockings plus LMWH.78 In the second study, the rates of overall and proximal DVT were 33% and 13% in the group wearing graduated compression stockings compared with 17% and 5%, respectively, in patients receiving the combined prophylaxis.79 Therefore, prophylaxis with the combination of LMWH and graduated compression stockings is more efficacious than prophylaxis with the stockings alone. Pooled results from randomized trials in neurosurgery patients found that the rates of intracranial bleeding were 2.1% in the patients receiving postoperative LMWH and 1.1% in those who had mechanical or no prophylaxis.80 Pending further safety data, preoperative or early postoperative LMWH should be used in craniotomy patients with caution.

Neurosurgical patients may require multimodality prophylaxis for VTE. One study found that there were no signs of DVT in 150 consecutive patients who received enoxaparin 40 mg once a day or UFH 5000 U twice a day, both in combination with graduated compression stockings, intermittent pneumatic compression, and predischarge surveillance with venous ultrasonography of the legs. Overall, the rate of ultrasonography-detected DVT was similar in the enoxaparin and UFH patients, averaging 9.3%.81


*    Unresolved Issues
up arrowTop
 up arrowAbstract
 up arrowIntroduction
 up arrowGeneral Surgery
 up arrowGynecologic Surgery
 up arrowUrologic Surgery
 up arrowVascular Surgery
 up arrowOrthopedic Surgery
 up arrowElective Spine Surgery
 up arrowNeurosurgery
 *Unresolved Issues
down arrowConclusion
 down arrowReferences
 
A number of issues related to the prevention of VTE in surgical patients need to be further defined.

Patients on long-term oral anticoagulation undergoing surgery require the interruption of treatment and the administration of UFH or LMWH. The optimal procedure for prophylaxis in these patients remains unclear. Temporary self-administration of LMWH at home is the less expensive approach for surgery requiring an interruption of treatment with vitamin K antagonists.82

The benefit of prophylaxis for VTE after laparoscopic and arthroscopic surgery is unclear. In the majority of patients, routine prophylaxis other than early mobilization is not required. Pharmacological prophylaxis with LDUH or LMWH should be used in patients with additional risk factors for VTE or in those undergoing prolonged or complicated surgical procedures. The optimal duration of pharmacological prophylaxis after laparoscopic and arthroscopic surgery also is unclear.

The clinical value of routine screening for VTE after high-risk surgery, chiefly orthopedic procedures, has been a matter of debate for many years. The diagnostic value of these noninvasive procedures is limited by their low sensitivity for asymptomatic DVT. There is no evidence that routine screening for VTE before discharge could help decide whether extended prophylaxis is needed after hospital discharge.

The optimal start of pharmacological prophylaxis for VTE in surgical patients is another unresolved issue. In patients having spinal surgery or an epidural catheter placed for neuraxial anesthesia or analgesia, prophylaxis with antithrombotic agents should be initiated postoperatively. In general, perioperative prophylaxis (that administered between 2 hours before and 4 hours after surgery) is more effective than the other regimens; however, it is associated with an increased risk of bleeding. Thus, perioperative prophylaxis should be given to patients at high risk for DVT and low risk of bleeding.

The results of several studies support extended prophylaxis after discharge in high-risk surgical patients.1 Prophylaxis should be extended for 4 weeks in patients undergoing elective hip replacement and surgery for cancer. The optimal duration of antithrombotic prophylaxis for VTE in other types of surgery needs to be evaluated in prospective studies.


*    Conclusion
up arrowTop
 up arrowAbstract
 up arrowIntroduction
 up arrowGeneral Surgery
 up arrowGynecologic Surgery
 up arrowUrologic Surgery
 up arrowVascular Surgery
 up arrowOrthopedic Surgery
 up arrowElective Spine Surgery
 up arrowNeurosurgery
 up arrowUnresolved Issues
 *Conclusion
down arrowReferences
 
In the majority of patients undergoing surgery, the risk for VTE has been adequately evaluated and the benefit of thromboprophylaxis established. When pharmacological prophylaxis is used properly, the risk of bleeding complications is low. Prophylaxis with mechanical methods is preferred in patients at high risk of bleeding complications. Prophylaxis against VTE is cost effective for many surgical patients and should be implemented in all clinical settings where its effectiveness and safety has been established.


*    References
up arrowTop
 up arrowAbstract
 up arrowIntroduction
 up arrowGeneral Surgery
 up arrowGynecologic Surgery
 up arrowUrologic Surgery
 up arrowVascular Surgery
 up arrowOrthopedic Surgery
 up arrowElective Spine Surgery
 up arrowNeurosurgery
 up arrowUnresolved Issues
 up arrowConclusion
 *References
 

  1. Geerts WH, Heit JA, Clagett GP, et al. Prevention of venous thromboembolism. Chest. 2001; 119 (suppl 1): 132S–175S.[Free Full Text]
  2. Mismetti P, Laporte S, Darmon JY, et al. Meta-analysis of low molecular weight heparin in the prevention of venous thromboembolism in general surgery. Br J Surg. 2001; 88: 913–930.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  3. Flordal PA, Bergqvist D, Ljungstrom KG, et al, for the Fragmin Multicentre Study Group. Clinical relevance of the fibrinogen uptake test in patients undergoing elective general abdominal surgery–relation to major thromboembolism and mortality. Thromb Res. 1995; 80: 491–497.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  4. Collins R, Scrimgeour A, Yusuf S, et al. Reduction in fatal pulmonary embolism and venous thrombosis by perioperative administration of subcutaneous heparin. Overview of results of randomized trials in general, orthopedic, and urologic surgery. N Engl J Med. 1988; 318: 1162–1173.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  5. Clagett GP, Reisch JS. Prevention of venous thromboembolism in general surgical patients. Results of meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 1988; 208: 227–240.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  6. Warkentin TE, Levine MN, Hirsh J, et al. Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia in patients treated with low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin. N Engl J Med. 1995; 332: 1330–1335.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Koch A, Ziegler S, Breitschwerdt H, et al. Low molecular weight heparin and unfractionated heparin in thrombosis prophylaxis: meta-analysis based on original patient data. Thromb Res. 2001; 102: 295–309.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  8. Amarigiri SV, Lees TA. Elastic compression stockings for prevention of deep vein thrombosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000; 3: CD001484.
  9. Greer IA. Epidemiology, risk factors and prophylaxis of venous thrombo-embolism in obstetrics and gynaecology. Baillieres Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 1997; 11: 403–430.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  10. Clarke-Pearson DL, Dodge RK, Synan I, et al. Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis: patients at high risk to fail intermittent pneumatic compression. Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 101: 157–163.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Clarke-Pearson DL, Synan IS, Dodge R, et al. A randomized trial of low-dose heparin and intermittent pneumatic calf compression for the prevention of deep venous thrombosis after gynecologic oncology surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993; 168: 1146–1154.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  12. Clarke-Pearson DL, DeLong E, Synan IS, et al. A controlled trial of two low-dose heparin regimens for the prevention of postoperative deep vein thrombosis. Obstet Gynecol. 1990; 75: 684–689.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. ENOXACAN Study Group. Efficacy and safety of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin for prevention of deep vein thrombosis in elective cancer surgery: a double-blind randomized multicentre trial with venographic assessment. Br J Surg. 1997; 84: 1099–1103.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  14. Maxwell GL, Synan I, Dodge R, et al. Pneumatic compression versus low molecular weight heparin in gynecologic oncology surgery: a randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 98: 989–995.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Shekarriz B, Upadhyay J, Wood DP. Intraoperative, perioperative and long-term complications of radical prostatectomy. Urol Clin North Am. 2001; 28: 639–653.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  16. Heinzer H, Hammerer P, Graefen M, et al. Thromboembolic complication rate after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Impact of routine ultrasonography for the detection of pelvic lymphoceles and hematomas. Eur Urol. 1998; 33: 86–90.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  17. Donat R, Mancey-Jones B. Incidence of thromboembolism after transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP)—a study on TED stocking prophylaxis and literature review. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2002; 36: 119–123.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  18. Haas S, Flosbach CW. Antithromboembolic efficacy and safety of enoxaparin in general surgery. German multicentre trial. Eur J Surg. 1994; (suppl 571): 37–43.
  19. Koch MO, Smith JA. Low molecular weight heparin and radical prostatectomy: a prospective analysis of safety and side effects. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 1997; 1: 101–104.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  20. Bigg SW, Catalona WJ. Prophylactic mini-dose heparin in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy. A prospective trial. Urology. 1992; 39: 309–313.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  21. Anderson FA Jr., Spencer FA. Risk factors for venous thromboembolism. Circulation. 2003; 107: I9–I16.
  22. Hollyoak M, Woodruff P, Muller M, et al. Deep venous thrombosis in postoperative vascular surgical patients: a frequent finding without prophylaxis. J Vasc Surg. 2001; 34: 656–660.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  23. Hamer JD. Investigation of oedema of the lower limb following successful femoro-popliteal by-pass surgery: the role of phlebography in demonstrating venous thrombosis. Br J Surg. 1972; 59: 979–982.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  24. Porter JM, Lindell TD, Lakin PC. Leg edema following femoropopliteal autogenous vein bypass. Arch Surg. 1972; 105: 883–888.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  25. Olin JW, Graor RA, O’Hara P, et al. The incidence of deep venous thrombosis in patients undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm resection. J Vasc Surg. 1993; 18: 1037–1041.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  26. Killewich LA, Aswad MA, Sandager GP, et al. A randomized, prospective trial of deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis in aortic surgery. Arch Surg. 1997; 132: 499–504.[Abstract]
  27. White RH, Romano PS, Zhou H. A population-based comparison of the 3-month incidence of thromboembolism after major elective/urgent surgeries. Thromb Haemost. 2001; 86: 2255.(Abstract)
  28. Seagroatt V, Tan HS, Goldacre M, et al. Elective total hip replacement: incidence, emergency readmission rate, and postoperative mortality. BMJ. 1991; 303: 1431–1435.
  29. Salvati EA, Pellegrini VD Jr., Sharrock NE, et al. Recent advances in venous thromboembolic prophylaxis during and after total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg. 2000; 82A: 252–270.
  30. Warwick D, Williams MH, Bannister GC. Death and thromboembolic disease after total hip replacement. A series of 1162 cases with no routine chemical prophylaxis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995; 77: 6–10.
  31. Fender D, Harper WM, Thompson JR, et al. Mortality and fatal pulmonary embolism after primary total hip replacement. Results from a regional hip register. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997; 79B: 896–899.
  32. Wroblewski BM, Siney PD, Fleming PA. Fatal pulmonary embolism after total hip arthroplasty: diurnal variations. Orthopedics. 1998; 21: 1269–1271.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  33. Antiplatelet Trialists’ Collaboration. Collaborative overview of randomised trials of antiplatelet therapy III: reduction in venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism by antiplatelet prophylaxis among surgical and medical patients. BMJ. 1994; 308: 235–246.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Planes A, Vochelle N, Mazas F, et al. Prevention of postoperative venous thrombosis: a randomized trial comparing unfractionated heparin with low molecular weight heparin in patients undergoing total hip replacement. Thromb Haemost. 1988; 60: 407–410.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  35. German Hip Arthroplasty Trial (GHAT) Group. Prevention of deep vein thrombosis with low molecular weight heparin in patients undergoing total hip replacement. A randomized trial. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1992; 111: 110–120.
  36. Colwell CW Jr., Spiro TE, Trowbridge AA, et al, for the Enoxaparin Clinical Trial Group. Use of enoxaparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin, and unfractionated heparin for the prevention of deep venous thrombosis after elective hip replacement. A clinical trial comparing efficacy and safety. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994; 76: 3–14.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  37. Nurmohamed MT, Rosendaal FR, Buller HR, et al. Low-molecular-weight heparin versus standard heparin in general and orthopaedic surgery: a meta-analysis. Lancet. 1992; 340: 152–156.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  38. Freedman KB, Brookenthal KR, Fitzgerald RH Jr., et al. A meta-analysis of thromboembolic prophylaxis following elective total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000; 82-A: 929–938.
  39. Deleted in proof.
  40. Hull R, Raskob G, Pineo G et al. A comparison of subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin with warfarin sodium for prophylaxis against deep-vein thrombosis after hip or knee implantation. N Engl J Med. 1993; 329: 1370–1376.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  41. RD Heparin Arthroplasty Group. RD heparin compared with warfarin for prevention of venous thromboembolic disease following total hip or knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994; 76: 1174–1185.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  42. Hamulyak K, Lensing AW, van der Meer J, et al, for the Fraxiparine Oral Anticoagulant Study Group. Subcutaneous low-molecular weight heparin or oral anticoagulants for the prevention of deep-vein thrombosis in elective hip and knee replacement? Thromb Haemost. 1995; 74: 1428–1431.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  43. Francis CW, Pellegrini VD Jr., Totterman S, et al. Prevention of deep-vein thrombosis after total hip arthroplasty. Comparison of warfarin and dalteparin. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997; 79: 1365–1372.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  44. Hull RD, Pineo GF, Francis C, et al, for the North American Fragmin Trial Investigators. Low-molecular weight heparin prophylaxis using dalteparin in close proximity to surgery vs warfarin in hip arthroplasty patients: a double-blind, randomized comparison. Arch Intern Med. 2000; 160: 2199–2207.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  45. Colwell CW, Collis DK, Paulson R, et al. Comparison of enoxaparin and warfarin for the prevention of venous thromboembolic disease after total hip arthroplasty. Evaluation during hospitalization and three months after discharge. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999; 81: 932–940.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  46. Lassen MR, Bauer KA, Ericksson BI, et al. Postoperative fondaparinux versus preoperative enoxaparin for prevention of venous thromboembolism in elective hip-replacement surgery: a randomised double-blind comparison. Lancet. 2002; 359: 1715–1720.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  47. Turpie AG, Bauer KA, Eriksson BI, et al. Postoperative fondaparinux versus postoperative enoxaparin for prevention of venous thromboembolism after elective hip-replacement surgery: a randomised double-blind trial. Lancet. 2002; 359: 1721–1726.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  48. Eriksson BI, Agnelli G, Cohen AT, et al. The direct thrombin inhibitor melagatran followed by oral ximelagatran compared with enoxaparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after total hip or knee replacement: the EXPRESS study. J Thromb Haemost. 2003; 1: 2490–2496.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  49. Colwell CW Jr., Berkowitz SD, Davidson BL, et al. Comparison of ximelagatran, an oral direct thrombin inhibitor, with enoxaparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism following total hip replacement. A randomized, double-blind study. J Thromb Haemost. 2003; 1: 2119–2130.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  50. Deleted in proof.
  51. Deleted in proof.
  52. Deleted in proof.
  53. Leclerc JR, Geerts WH, Desjardins L, et al. Prevention of venous thromboembolism after knee arthroplasty. A randomized, double blind trial comparing enoxaparin with warfarin. Ann Intern Med. 1996; 124: 619–626.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  54. Heit JA, Berkowitz SD, Bona R, et al. Efficacy and safety of low molecular weight heparin (ardeparin sodium) compared to warfarin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after total knee replacement surgery: a double-blind, dose-ranging study. Ardeparin Anthroplasty Study Group. Thromb Haemost. 1997; 77: 32–38.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  55. Fitzgerald RH Jr., Spiro TE, Trowbridge AA, et al. Prevention of venous thromboembolic disease following primary total knee arthroplasty. A randomized, multicenter, open-label, parallel-group comparison of enoxaparin and warfarin. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001; 83-A: 900–906.
  56. Howard AW, Aaron SD. Low molecular weight heparin decreases proximal and distal deep venous thrombosis following total knee arthroplasty. A meta-analysis of randomized trials. Thromb Haemost. 1998; 79: 902–906.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  57. Brookenthal KR, Freedman KB, Lotke PA, et al. A meta-analysis of thromboembolic prophylaxis in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2001; 16: 293–300.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  58. Bauer KA, Eriksson BI, Lassen MR, et al. Fondaparinux compared with enoxaparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after elective major knee surgery. N Engl J Med. 2001; 345: 1305–1310.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  59. Francis CW, Berkowitz SD, Comp PC, et al. Comparison of ximelagatran with warfarin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in total knee replacement. N Engl J Med. 2003; 349: 1703–1712.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  60. Hull R, Delmore TJ, Hirsh J, et al. Effectiveness of intermittent pulsatile elastic stockings for the prevention of calf and thigh vein thrombosis in patients undergoing elective knee surgery. Thromb Res. 1979; 16: 37–45.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  61. Haas SB, Insall JN, Scuderi GR, et al. Pneumatic sequential-compression boots compared with aspirin prophylaxis of deep-vein thrombosis after total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990; 72: 27–31.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  62. Kaempffe FA, Lifeso RM, Meinking C. Intermittent pneumatic compression versus coumadin. Prevention of deep vein thrombosis in lower-extremity total joint arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. 1991; 269: 89–97.
  63. Pulmonary Embolism Prevention (PEP) Trial Collaborative Group. Prevention of pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis with low dose aspirin: Pulmonary Embolism Prevention (PEP) trial. Lancet. 2000; 355: 1295–1302.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  64. Borgstroem S, Greitz T, van der Linden W, et al. Anticoagulant prophylaxis of venous thrombosis in patients with fractured neck of the femur: a controlled clinical trial using venous phlebography. Acta Chir Scand. 1965; 129: 500–508.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  65. Hamilton HW, Crawford JS, Gardiner JH, et al. Venous thrombosis in patients with fracture of the upper end of the femur. A phlebographic study of the effect of prophylactic anticoagulation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1970; 52: 268–289.
  66. Powers PJ, Gent M, Jay RM, et al. A randomized trial of less intense postoperative warfarin or aspirin therapy in the prevention of venous thromboembolism after surgery for fractured hip. Arch Intern Med. 1989; 149: 771–774.[Abstract]
  67. Monreal M, Lafoz E, Navarro A, et al. A prospective double-blind trial of a low molecular weight heparin once daily compared with conventional low-dose heparin three times daily to prevent pulmonary embolism and venous thrombosis in patients with hip fracture. J Trauma. 1989; 29: 873–875.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  68. Barsotti J, Gruel Y, Rosset P, et al. Comparative double-blind study of two dosage regimens of low molecular weight heparin in elderly patients with a fracture of the neck of the femur. J Orthop Trauma. 1990; 4: 371–375.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  69. Jorgensen PS, Strandberg C, Wille-Jorgensen P, et al. Early preoperative thromboprophylaxis with Klexane in hip fracture surgery: a placebo-controlled study. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 1998; 4: 140–142.
  70. TIFDED Study Group. Thromboprophylaxis in hip fracture surgery: a pilot study comparing danaparoid, enoxaparin and dalteparin. Haemostasis. 1999; 29: 310–317.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  71. Eriksson BI, Bauer KA, Lassen MR, et al. Fondaparinux compared with enoxaparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after hip fracture surgery. N Engl J Med. 2001; 345: 1298–1304.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  72. Zahn HR, Skinner JA, Porteous MJ. The preoperative prevalence of deep vein thrombosis in patients with femoral neck fractures and delayed operation. Injury. 1999; 30: 605–607.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  73. Turner JA, Ersek M, Herron L, et al. Patient outcomes after lumbar spinal fusions. JAMA. 1992; 268: 907–911.[Abstract]
  74. Oda T, Fuji T, Kato Y, et al. Deep venous thrombosis after posterior spinal surgery. Spine. 2000; 25: 2962–2967.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  75. Marras LC, Geerts WH, Perry JR. The risk of venous thromboembolism is increased throughout the course of malignant glioma: an evidence-based review. Cancer. 2000; 89: 640–646.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  76. Hamilton MG, Hull RD, Pineo GF. Venous thromboembolism in neurosurgery and neurology patients: a review. Neurosurgery. 1994; 34: 280–296.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  77. Turpie AG, Hirsh J, Gent M, et al. Prevention of deep vein thrombosis in potential neurosurgical patients. A randomized trial comparing graduated compression stockings alone or graduated compression stockings plus intermittent pneumatic compression with control. Arch Intern Med. 1989; 149: 679–681.[Abstract]
  78. Nurmohamed MT, van Riel AM, Henkens CM, et al. Low molecular weight heparin and compression stockings in the prevention of venous thromboembolism in neurosurgery. Thromb Haemost. 1996; 75: 233–238.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  79. Agnelli G, Piovella F, Buoncristiani P, et al. Enoxaparin plus compression stockings compared with compression stockings alone in the prevention of venous thromboembolism after elective neurosurgery. N Engl J Med. 1998; 339: 80–85.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  80. Iorio A, Agnelli G. Low-molecular-weight and unfractionated heparin for prevention of venous thromboembolism in neurosurgery: a meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med. 2000; 160: 2327–2332.