Richard J. Friedman

Rivaroxaban versus Enoxaparin for Thromboprophylaxis after Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND This phase 3 trial compared the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban, an oral direct inhibitor of factor Xa, with those of enoxaparin for extended thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. METHODS In this randomized, double-blind study, we assigned 4541 patients to receive either 10 mg of oral rivaroxaban once daily, beginning after surgery, or 40 mg of enoxaparin subcutaneously once daily, beginning the evening before surgery, plus a placebo tablet or injection. The primary efficacy outcome was the composite of deep-vein thrombosis (either symptomatic or detected by bilateral venography if the patient was asymptomatic), nonfatal pulmonary embolism, or death from any cause at 36 days (range, 30 to 42). The main secondary efficacy outcome was major venous thromboembolism (proximal deep-vein thrombosis, nonfatal pulmonary embolism, or death from venous thromboembolism). The primary safety outcome was major bleeding. RESULTS A total of 3153 patients were included in the superiority analysis (after 1388 exclusions), and 4433 were included in the safety analysis (after 108 exclusions). The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 18 of 1595 patients (1.1%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 58 of 1558 patients (3.7%) in the enoxaparin group (absolute risk reduction, 2.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5 to 3.7; P<0.001). Major venous thromboembolism occurred in 4 of 1686 patients (0.2%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 33 of 1678 patients (2.0%) in the enoxaparin group (absolute risk reduction, 1.7%; 95% CI, 1.0 to 2.5; P<0.001). Major bleeding occurred in 6 of 2209 patients (0.3%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 2 of 2224 patients (0.1%) in the enoxaparin group (P=0.18). CONCLUSIONS A once-daily, 10-mg oral dose of rivaroxaban was significantly more effective for extended thromboprophylaxis than a once-daily, 40-mg subcutaneous dose of enoxaparin in patients undergoing elective total hip arthroplasty. The two drugs had similar safety profiles. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00329628.)

A standardized method for the assessment of shoulder function

The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons have adopted a standardized form for assessment of the shoulder. The form has a patient self-evaluation section and a physician assessment section. The patient self-evaluation section of the form contains visual analog scales for pain and instability and an activities of daily living questionnaire. The activities of daily living questionnaire is marked on a four-point ordinal scale that can be converted to a cumulative activities of daily living index. The patient can complete the self-evaluation portion of the questionnaire in the absence of a physician. The physician assessment section includes an area to collect demographic information and assesses range of motion, specific physical signs, strength, and stability. A shoulder score can be derived from the visual analogue scale score for pain (50%) and the cumulative activities of daily living score (50%). It is hoped that adoption of this instrument to measure shoulder function will facilitate communication between investigators, stimulate multicenter studies, and encourage validity testing of this and other available instruments to measure shoulder function and outcome.

Concise review of mechanisms of bacterial adhesion to biomaterial surfaces

This article reviews the mechanisms of bacterial adhesion to biomaterial surfaces and the factors affecting the adhesion. The process of bacterial adhesion includes an initial physicochemical interaction phase (phase one) and a late molecular and cellular interaction phase (phase two), which is a complicated process affected by many factors, including the characteristics of the bacteria themselves, the target material surface, and the environmental factors, such as the presence of serum proteins or bactericidal substances.

Oral thrombin inhibitor dabigatran etexilate vs North American enoxaparin regimen for prevention of venous thromboembolism after knee arthroplasty surgery.

Dabigatran, an oral once-daily unmonitored thrombin inhibitor, has been tested elsewhere using enoxaparin 40 mg once daily. We used the North American enoxaparin 30 mg BID regimen as the comparator. This was a double-blind, centrally randomized trial. Unilateral total knee arthroplasty patients were randomized to receive oral dabigatran etexilate 220 or 150 mg once daily, or enoxaparin 30 mg SC BID after surgery, blinded. Dosing stopped at contrast venography, 12 to 15 days after surgery. Among 1896 patients, dabigatran 220 and 110 mg showed inferior efficacy to enoxaparin (venous thromboembolism rates of 31% [P = .02 vs enoxaparin], 34% [P < .001 vs enoxaparin], and 25%, respectively). Bleeding rates were similar, and no drug-related hepatic illness was recognized. Dabigatran, effective compared to once-daily enoxaparin, showed inferior efficacy to the twice-daily North American enoxaparin regimen, probably because of the latters more intense and prolonged dosing.

Oral dabigatran versus enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis after primary total hip arthroplasty (RE-NOVATE II)

This trial compared the efficacy and safety of oral dabigatran, a direct thrombin inhibitor, versus subcutaneous enoxaparin for extended thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. A total of 2,055 patients were randomised to 28-35 days treatment with oral dabigatran, 220 mg once-daily, starting with a half-dose 1-4 hours after surgery, or subcutaneous enoxaparin 40 mg once-daily, starting the evening before surgery. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of total venous thromboembolism [VTE] (venographic or symptomatic) and death from all-causes. The main secondary composite outcome was major VTE (proximal deep-vein thrombosis or non-fatal pulmonary embolism) plus VTE-related death. The main safety outcome was major bleeding. In total, 2,013 were treated, of whom 1,577 operated patients were included in the primary efficacy analysis. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 7.7% of the dabigatran group versus 8.8% of the enoxaparin group, risk difference (RD) -1.1% (95%CI -3.8 to 1.6%); p<0.0001 for the pre-specified non-inferiority margin. Major VTE plus VTE-related death occurred in 2.2% of the dabigatran group versus 4.2% of the enoxaparin group, RD -1.9% (-3.6% to -0.2%); p=0.03. Major bleeding occurred in 1.4% of the dabigatran group and 0.9% of the enoxaparin group (p=0.40). The incidence of adverse events, including liver enzyme elevations and cardiac events, during treatment was similar between the groups. Extended prophylaxis with oral dabigatran 220 mg once-daily was as effective as subcutaneous enoxaparin 40 mg once-daily in reducing the risk of VTE after total hip arthroplasty, and superior to enoxaparin for reducing the risk of major VTE. The risk of bleeding and safety profiles were similar.

Oral dabigatran versus enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis after primary total hip arthroplasty (RE-NOVATE II*). A randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial.

This trial compared the efficacy and safety of oral dabigatran, a direct thrombin inhibitor, versus subcutaneous enoxaparin for extended thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. A total of 2,055 patients were randomised to 28-35 days treatment with oral dabigatran, 220 mg once-daily, starting with a half-dose 1-4 hours after surgery, or subcutaneous enoxaparin 40 mg once-daily, starting the evening before surgery. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of total venous thromboembolism [VTE] (venographic or symptomatic) and death from all-causes. The main secondary composite outcome was major VTE (proximal deep-vein thrombosis or non-fatal pulmonary embolism) plus VTE-related death. The main safety outcome was major bleeding. In total, 2,013 were treated, of whom 1,577 operated patients were included in the primary efficacy analysis. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 7.7% of the dabigatran group versus 8.8% of the enoxaparin group, risk difference (RD) -1.1% (95%CI -3.8 to 1.6%); p<0.0001 for the pre-specified non-inferiority margin. Major VTE plus VTE-related death occurred in 2.2% of the dabigatran group versus 4.2% of the enoxaparin group, RD -1.9% (-3.6% to -0.2%); p=0.03. Major bleeding occurred in 1.4% of the dabigatran group and 0.9% of the enoxaparin group (p=0.40). The incidence of adverse events, including liver enzyme elevations and cardiac events, during treatment was similar between the groups. Extended prophylaxis with oral dabigatran 220 mg once-daily was as effective as subcutaneous enoxaparin 40 mg once-daily in reducing the risk of VTE after total hip arthroplasty, and superior to enoxaparin for reducing the risk of major VTE. The risk of bleeding and safety profiles were similar.

A standardized method for assessment of elbow function

The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons have adopted a standardized form for assessment of the elbow. This form was developed by the Research Committee of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons and subsequently adopted by the membership. The patient self-evaluation section contains visual analog scales for pain and a series of questions relating to function of the extremity. The responses to the questions are scored on a 4-point ordinal scale. The physician assessment section has 4 parts: motion, stability, strength, and physical findings. It is hoped that adoption of this method of data collection will stimulate multicenter studies and improve communication between professionals who assess and treat patients with elbow disorders.

Insufficient duration of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after total hip or knee replacement when compared with the time course of thromboembolic events: FINDINGS FROM THE GLOBAL ORTHOPAEDIC REGISTRY

Patients who have undergone total hip or knee replacement (THR and TKR, respectively) are at high risk of venous thromboembolism. We aimed to determine the time courses of both the incidence of venous thromboembolism and effective prophylaxis. Patients with elective primary THR and TKR were enrolled in the multi-national Global Orthopaedic Registry. Data on the incidence of venous thromboembolism and prophylaxis were collected from 6639 THR and 8326 TKR patients. The cumulative incidence of venous thromboembolism within three months of surgery was 1.7% in the THR and 2.3% in the TKR patients. The mean times to venous thromboembolism were 21.5 days (sd 22.5) for THR, and 9.7 days (sd 14.1) for TKR. It occurred after the median time to discharge in 75% of the THR and 57% of the TKA patients who developed venous thromboembolism. Of those who received recommended forms of prophylaxis, approximately one-quarter (26% of THR and 27% of TKR patients) were not receiving it seven days after surgery, the minimum duration recommended at the time of the study. The risk of venous thromboembolism extends beyond the usual period of hospitalisation, while the duration of prophylaxis is often shorter than this. Practices should be re-assessed to ensure that patients receive appropriate durations of prophylaxis.

Pre-clinical in vivo evaluation of orthopaedic bioabsorbable devices

The presence of bioabsorbable materials in orthopaedics has grown significantly over the past two decades with applications in fracture fixation, bone replacement, cartilage repair, meniscal repair, fixation of ligaments, and drug delivery. Numerous biocompatible, biodegradable polymers are now available for both experimental and clinical use. Not surprisingly, there have been a wealth of studies investigating the biomechanical properties, biocompatibility, degradation characteristics, osteoconductivity, potential toxicity, and histologic effects of various materials. Promising results have been reported in the areas of fracture fixation, ligament repair, and drug delivery. In this article we review the pre-clinical in vivo testing of bioabsorbable devices with particular emphasis on implants used for these applications.

Laboratory methods for studies of bacterial adhesion

Abstract Prosthetic infection following total joint replacement can have catastrophic results both physically and psychologically for the patients, leading to complete failure of the arthroplasty, possible amputation, prolonged hospitalization, and even death. Bacterial adherence to biomaterial surfaces is an important step in the pathogenesis of prosthetic infection. The exact mechanism of prosthetic infection remains unclear. It is thought that certain bacteria, particularly coagulase-negative staphylococci, after adhering to biomaterial surfaces, secrete a layer polysaccharide, an extracellular substance (slime) and then form a biofilm (a biomass of bacteria and slime). The biofilm makes the embedded bacteria less accessible to the human defense system and significantly decreases antibiotic susceptibility. Before effective preventive or therapeutic measures can be achieved, the process, characteristics, or mechanism of bacterial adhesion to biomaterials have to be studied. In this review, the in-vitro experimental methods for bacterial adhesion will be discussed, which concentrates on (1) how to design a new in-vitro model of bacterial adhesion or biofilm formation, including the selection of bacteria, sample surface preparation, conducting bacterial adhesion or biofilm formation experiments, and the sample preparation for evaluation; and (2) methods for examining adhered bacteria and biofilm, which include microscopy for counting and morphological observation of adhered bacteria, viable bacterial counting methods, other direct or indirect bacterial counting methods, and the methods for evaluating biofilm.