4.3 Article

Rivaroxaban versus enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis after total hip or knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
Volume 66, Issue 11, Pages 1099-1108

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00228-010-0889-z

Keywords

Embolism; Thrombosis; Prophylaxis; Anticoagulants; Meta-analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Rivaroxaban is a newly developed oral medicine that direct inhibits factor Xa for the prevention and treatment of thromboembolic disorders. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban versus enoxaparin, a medicine routinely used for thromboprophylaxis after total hip or knee arthroplasty. We performed a meta-analysis of relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified in PubMed, Cochrane library, and Embase. The primary efficacy outcome for our meta-analysis was total venous thromboembolism (VTE) and all-cause mortality. The primary safety outcome was bleeding events, which were categorized as major, clinically relevant non-major, or minor events. Eight RCTs, involving 15,586 patients, were included in our meta-analysis. Compared to enoxaparin, thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban was associated with significantly fewer VTE and all-cause mortality [9,244 patients, risk ratio (RR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39-0.80] cases and a similar incidence of bleeding cases (major bleeding events: 13,384 patients, RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.93-2.93; clinically relevant non-major bleeding events: 13,384 patients, RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.98-1.50; total bleeding events, 13,384 patients, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.97-1.24). The total hip or knee arthroplasty subgroup analysis revealed consistent efficacy and safety findings. Rivaroxaban was more effective than the recommended dose of enoxaparin and had a similar safety profile for thromboprophylaxis after hip and knee arthroplasty.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available