4.6 Review

A systematic review of rivaroxaban versus enoxaparin in the prevention of venous thromboembolism after hip or knee replacement

期刊

THROMBOSIS RESEARCH
卷 127, 期 6, 页码 525-534

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.thromres.2011.01.016

关键词

Systematic review; Venous thromboembolism; Prophylaxis; Joint replacement; Rivaroxaban; Enoxaparin

资金

  1. Sichuan University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introductions: Rivaroxaban is a novel Xa inhibitor with an encouraging anti-thrombosis effect. The aim of this study is to assess whether rivaroxaban is superior to enoxaparin in venous thromboembolism prevention after knee-or hip-joint replacement. Materials and Methods: We searched for reports of randomized controlled trials on rivaroxaban versus enoxaparin in venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after knee-or hip-joint replacement in the Cochrane library, Embase, Pubmed, the Ovid database, and Chinese databases including VIP, CNKI, and CBM. Correlated data was extracted and analyzed. Results: Eight studies involving 15246 patients were included, and all were randomized controlled studies. The methodological quality of six of the trials was generally moderate, while that of the remaining two was considered high quality. 10 mg rivaroxaban daily is more effective than 40 mg/30 mg enoxaparin daily after the joint replacement in respect of the incidence of venous thromboembolism (P<0.0001, RR=0.38; P=0.05, RR=0.77, respectively). No significant difference between 10 mg rivaroxaban daily and 40 mg/30 mg enoxaparin daily were found in major postoperative bleeding (P=0.45, RR=1.31; P=0.34, RR=1.61, respectively). With respect to other outcomes, rivaroxaban is not inferior to enoxaparin, while extended therapy with rivaroxaban (>30 d) is more effective than short-term therapy (<15 d) in relation to the incidence of venous thromboembolism (1.36% versus 10.13%). Conclusions: Rivaroxaban is superior to enoxaparin in venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after hip- or knee-joint replacement. Extended therapy - longer than 30 d - is recommended. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据