Majd Tarabichi, Diana Fernández-Rodríguez.
Response/Recommendation: Yes, aspirin (ASA) appears to confer a lower risk of postoperative wound problems compared to other chemoprophylactic agents, although the quality of evidence remains limited.
Strength of Recommendation: Limited.
Rationale: The prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) following orthopaedic procedures is of paramount importance1,2. While there is a broad range of chemoprophylactic agents in the surgeon’s armamentarium, emerging evidence has drawn attention to the consequences of aggressive anticoagulation regimens3. Current guidelines from the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) have not been able to recommend the single most optimal chemoprophylactic agent4,5. Postoperative wound complications including wound drainage and hematoma have been documented as a harbinger for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI)6–9. Furthermore, the use of more potent anticoagulation may not lead to a significant risk reduction compared to less potent regimens10. Thus, it is critical to balance the risk of thrombosis against the risk of bleeding complications associated with these potent regimens. In this article, we summarize the literature evaluating the relationship between different chemoprophylaxis options and wound complications following orthopaedic procedures.
Warfarin: The association between warfarin and postoperative wound problems is well documented. Several retrospective studies have demonstrated a lower rate of wound complications in patients taking ASA when compared to warfarin11–14. A retrospective cohort study of 5,516 patients comparing persistent wound drainage in patients taking ASA and warfarin found that the warfarin group had a greater than two-fold increase in the rate of persistent wound drainage compared to ASA, although there was no difference in VTE rates15. Huang et al., in a review of 30,270 patients, showed a lower incidence of PJI in their ASA cohort compared to the warfarin cohort. Warfarin was also associated with increased VTE events in this study12. Other studies have also demonstrated similar results13,14,16.
Warfarin has also been compared to no chemoprophylaxis, and this comparison has revealed an increased infection rate. Sachs et al., demonstrated the aforementioned findings while observing no difference in VTE rates in patients with no chemoprophylaxis compared to warfarin11. Warfarin use prior to total joint arthroplasty (TJA) has also been shown to be an independent risk factor for postoperative wound drainage, superficial and deep infection16.
The results of studies comparing warfarin to agents other than ASA have yielded varying results. Retrospective studies assessing the infection rates with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and warfarin have demonstrated higher rates of surgical site infection and reoperation at 3 months, as well as an increased time to a dry wound9,17. Colwell et al., and Francis et al., both performed randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing ximelagatran, a direct thrombin inhibitor, and warfarin and found a comparable rate of wound complications postoperatively following TJA18,19. In regards to bridging, Kleiner et al., found that bridging with LMWH was associated with a longer duration to a dry wound and increased cost of care following total hip arthroplasty (THA)20.
Other disadvantages inherent to warfarin include the need for continuous lab monitoring and delayed onset of action. Parvizi et al., demonstrated that the incidence of VTE following TJA was highest in the first week after surgery, and suggested that the delayed onset of action could be an explanation for these findings21.
Low-molecular-weight Heparin (LMWH): The use of LMWH has been extensively studied in the literature, often as a comparison group for other novel anticoagulants. In retrospective cohort study comparing rivaroxaban and enoxaparin in patients undergoing TJA, rivaroxaban demonstrated a near three-fold increase in wound complications (5.0% vs. 1.8%), although this did not reach significance likely due to the lack of statistical power22. Kulshrestha et al., performed an RCT in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients comparing protocols in which enoxaparin was given routinely vs. the selective use of enoxaparin in high-risk patients and ASA in low-risk patients. Routine use of enoxaparin yielded an eight-fold increase in the incidence of wound complications postoperatively23. Burnett et al compared a 10-day course of enoxaparin following TJA to their previous warfarin regimen and demonstrated a three-fold increase in reoperation rate due to wound complications24. Two meta-analyses found no difference in wound complication rate between ASA and enoxaparin following TJA, although this could be due to the limited level-1 data evaluating ASA prospectively25,26. Jones et al., compared no chemoprophylaxis, ASA, and enoxaparin in patients undergoing TJA and found significantly higher rates of wound drainage with ASA (odds ratio [OR] = 3.64) and enoxaparin (OR = 4.92) when compared to no anticoagulation. The ASA group had a lower incidence of wound drainage (29.9%) compared to the enoxaparin group (36.5%), and this was statistically significant27. Agaba et al., reported that enoxaparin had a higher rate of incision and drainage (I&D) compared to rivaroxaban in a study of 72,670 patients undergoing THA, and noted that this rate was lower than that of the ASA and warfarin groups28. More recently, another database study by Watts et al., of 85,938 TJA patients who received rivaroxaban, ASA or enoxaparin was conducted. The majority received ASA (n = 61,426), demonstrating a significant shift in practice. ASA had a lower rate of wound complications compared to enoxaparin and rivaroxaban, although the latter comparison did not reach statistical significance29.
Factor Xa Inhibitors: Factor Xa inhibitors are a predominant class of novel oral anticoagulants (NOAC). These drugs were introduced to avoid laboratory monitoring and the need for bridging as seen with warfarin. Current data regarding their risk of wound complications and infection remains mixed. In studies previously mentioned, Sindali et al., found a three-fold increase in wound complications with rivaroxaban, while Agaba et al., reported a higher rate of I&D with enoxaparin22,28. Brimmo et al., compared 159 patients given rivaroxaban following TJA to 480 patients given alternative chemoprophylaxis (322 enoxaparin, 161 ASA)30. The Rivaroxaban group had a PJI incidence of 2.5% compared to 0.2% in the alternative group, which was statistically significant. In a meta-analysis of 24,385 patients, Russell et al., found a decreased risk of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) in patients on apixaban and rivaroxaban, but no difference in reoperation for postoperative wound infection when compared to enoxaparin31.
Direct Thrombin Inhibitors: Direct thrombin inhibitors have also had inconsistent results in the literature. In a meta-analysis comparing dabigatran with LMWH and Factor Xa inhibitors, the authors found no difference with regard to wound complication rates32. Gill et al., performed a prospective study comparing dabigatran and dalteparin, noting that the reoperation rate for wound complications in the dabigatran group was 7% compared to 1% in the dalteparin group33. The increased rate of wound drainage with dabigatran has also been shown in studies comparing this agent with ASA, enoxaparin, and Factor Xa inhibitors34–36. In comparison to warfarin, ximelagatran showed no difference in the rate of wound complications, as discussed previously18,19.
Aspirin (ASA): ASA may reduce the incidence of wound complications and PJI when compared to warfarin, Factor Xa inhibitors, LMWH, and direct thrombin inhibitors, as mentioned in the above sections12,23,29,30,34. ASA has also demonstrated efficacy in patients at high-risk of VTE10. Notwithstanding, there is still limited prospective data evaluating the safety and efficacy of ASA, and high-level trials are currently ongoing37.
Conclusion: Currently, lower-level evidence suggests that ASA may be of similar efficacy to other pharmacologic agents while reducing the risk of wound complications. This data is limited by the lack of level-1 studies investigating the safety and efficacy of ASA. Future prospective studies will need to include ASA as an investigational arm while evaluating wound complications as a primary endpoint, as most RCT have only focused on the efficacy of these agents in preventing VTE events.
References:
1. Ruppert A, Steinle T, Lees M. Economic burden of venous thromboembolism: a systematic review. J Med Econ. 2011;14(1):65-74. doi:10.3111/13696998.2010.546465
2. Pedersen AB, Mehnert F, Sorensen HT, Emmeluth C, Overgaard S, Johnsen SP. The risk of venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, major bleeding and death in patients undergoing total hip and knee replacement: a 15-year retrospective cohort study of routine clinical practice. Bone Jt J. 2014;96-B(4):479-485. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.96B4.33209
3. Hughes LD, Lum J, Mahfoud Z, Malik RA, Anand A, Charalambous CP. Comparison of Surgical Site Infection Risk Between Warfarin, LMWH, and Aspirin for Venous Thromboprophylaxis in TKA or THA: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JBJS Rev. 2020;8(12):e20.00021. doi:10.2106/JBJS.RVW.20.00021
4. Falck-Ytter Y, Francis CW, Johanson NA, et al. Prevention of VTE in orthopedic surgery patients: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest. 2012;141(2 Suppl):e278S-e325S. doi:10.1378/chest.11-2404
5. Mont MA, Jacobs JJ. AAOS clinical practice guideline: preventing venous thromboembolic disease in patients undergoing elective hip and knee arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2011;19(12):777-778. doi:10.5435/00124635-201112000-00008
6. Saleh K, Olson M, Resig S, et al. Predictors of wound infection in hip and knee joint replacement: results from a 20 year surveillance program. J Orthop Res. 2002;20(3):506-515. doi:10.1016/S0736-0266(01)00153-X
7. Galat DD, McGovern SC, Larson DR, Harrington JR, Hanssen AD, Clarke HD. Surgical Treatment of Early Wound Complications Following Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty. JBJS. 2009;91(1):48-54. doi:10.2106/JBJS.G.01371
8. Jaberi FM, Parvizi J, Haytmanek TC, Joshi A, Purtill J. Procrastination of Wound Drainage and Malnutrition Affect the Outcome of Joint Arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466(6):1368-1371. doi:10.1007/s11999-008-0214-7
9. Patel VP, Walsh M, Sehgal B, Preston C, DeWal H, Di Cesare PE. Factors Associated with Prolonged Wound Drainage After Primary Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty. JBJS. 2007;89(1):33-38. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.00163
10. Tan TL, Foltz C, Huang R, et al. Potent Anticoagulation Does Not Reduce Venous Thromboembolism in High-Risk Patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019;101(7):589-599. doi:10.2106/JBJS.18.00335
11. Sachs RA, Smith JH, Kuney M, Paxton L. Does anticoagulation do more harm than good?: A comparison of patients treated without prophylaxis and patients treated with low-dose warfarin after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18(4):389-395. doi:10.1016/s0883-5403(03)00071-8
12. Huang RC, Parvizi J, Hozack WJ, Chen AF, Austin MS. Aspirin Is as Effective as and Safer Than Warfarin for Patients at Higher Risk of Venous Thromboembolism Undergoing Total Joint Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2016;31(9 Suppl):83-86. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2016.02.074
13. Huang R, Buckley PS, Scott B, Parvizi J, Purtill JJ. Administration of Aspirin as a Prophylaxis Agent Against Venous Thromboembolism Results in Lower Incidence of Periprosthetic Joint Infection. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(9 Suppl):39-41. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2015.07.001
14. McDougall CJ, Gray HS, Simpson PM, Whitehouse SL, Crawford RW, Donnelly WJ. Complications related to therapeutic anticoagulation in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(1):187-192. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2012.06.001
15. Singh V, Shahi A, Saleh U, Tarabichi S, Oliashirazi A. Persistent Wound Drainage among Total Joint Arthroplasty Patients Receiving Aspirin vs Coumadin. J Arthroplasty. 2020;35(12):3743-3746. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2020.07.004
16. Simpson PMS, Brew CJ, Whitehouse SL, Crawford RW, Donnelly BJ. Complications of perioperative warfarin therapy in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(2):320-324. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2012.11.003
17. Wang Z, Anderson FA, Ward M, Bhattacharyya T. Surgical site infections and other postoperative complications following prophylactic anticoagulation in total joint arthroplasty. PloS One. 2014;9(4):e91755. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0091755
18. Francis CW, Berkowitz SD, Comp PC, et al. Comparison of Ximelagatran with Warfarin for the Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism after Total Knee Replacement. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(18):1703-1712. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa035162
19. Colwell CW, Berkowitz SD, Lieberman JR, et al. Oral direct thrombin inhibitor ximelagatran compared with warfarin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(10):2169-2177. doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.02184
20. Kleiner MT, Ahmed AA, Huser A, Mooar P, Torg J. Enoxaparin and Warfarin for Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Total Hip Arthroplasty: To Bridge or Not to Bridge? Am J Orthop Belle Mead NJ. 2015;44(7):E231-234.
21. Parvizi J, Huang R, Raphael IJ, Maltenfort MG, Arnold WV, Rothman RH. Timing of Symptomatic Pulmonary Embolism with Warfarin Following Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(6):1050-1053. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2015.01.004
22. Sindali K, Rose B, Soueid H, Jeer P, Saran D, Shrivastava R. Elective hip and knee arthroplasty and the effect of rivaroxaban and enoxaparin thromboprophylaxis on wound healing. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol Orthop Traumatol. 2013;23(4):481-486. doi:10.1007/s00590-012-0987-y
23. Kulshrestha V, Kumar S. DVT prophylaxis after TKA: routine anticoagulation vs risk screening approach – a randomized study. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(10):1868-1873. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2013.05.025
24. Burnett RSJ, Clohisy JC, Wright RW, et al. Failure of the American College of Chest Physicians-1A protocol for lovenox in clinical outcomes for thromboembolic prophylaxis. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22(3):317-324. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2007.01.007
25. Farey JE, An VVG, Sidhu V, Karunaratne S, Harris IA. Aspirin versus enoxaparin for the initial prevention of venous thromboembolism following elective arthroplasty of the hip or knee: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res OTSR. 2021;107(1):102606. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2020.04.002
26. Nadi S, Vreugdenburg TD, Atukorale Y, Ma N, Maddern G, Rovers M. Safety and effectiveness of aspirin and enoxaparin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after total hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. ANZ J Surg. 2019;89(10):1204-1210. doi:10.1111/ans.15122
27. Jones CW, Spasojevic S, Goh G, Joseph Z, Wood DJ, Yates PJ. Wound Discharge After Pharmacological Thromboprophylaxis in Lower Limb Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(1):224-229. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2017.07.046
28. Agaba P, Kildow BJ, Dhotar H, Seyler TM, Bolognesi M. Comparison of postoperative complications after total hip arthroplasty among patients receiving aspirin, enoxaparin, warfarin, and factor Xa inhibitors. J Orthop. 2017;14(4):537-543. doi:10.1016/j.jor.2017.08.002
29. Watts PJ, Kopstein M, Harkness W, et al. A retrospective analysis of bleeding risk with rivaroxaban, enoxaparin, and aspirin following total joint arthroplasty or revision. Pharmacotherapy. 2021;41(7):608-615. doi:10.1002/phar.2599
30. Brimmo O, Glenn M, Klika AK, Murray TG, Molloy RM, Higuera CA. Rivaroxaban Use for Thrombosis Prophylaxis Is Associated With Early Periprosthetic Joint Infection. J Arthroplasty. 2016;31(6):1295-1298. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2015.12.027
31. Russell RD, Huo MH. Apixaban and rivaroxaban decrease deep venous thrombosis but not other complications after total hip and total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(9):1477-1481. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2013.02.016
32. Wang M, Xie J, Zheng H, et al. Wound complications and bleeding with new oral anticoagulants in patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Br J Clin Pharmacol. Published online July 28, 2021. doi:10.1111/bcp.15005
33. Gill SK, Theodorides A, Smith N, et al. Wound problems following hip arthroplasty before and after the introduction of a direct thrombin inhibitor for thromboprophylaxis. Hip Int J Clin Exp Res Hip Pathol Ther. 2011;21(6):678-683. doi:10.5301/HIP.2011.8842
34. Aquilina AL, Brunton LR, Whitehouse MR, Sullivan N, Blom AW. Direct thrombin inhibitor (DTI) vs. aspirin in primary total hip and knee replacement using wound ooze as the primary outcome measure. A prospective cohort study. Hip Int J Clin Exp Res Hip Pathol Ther. 2012;22(1):22-27. doi:10.5301/HIP.2012.9058
35. Mayer A, Schuster P, Fink B. A comparison of apixaban and dabigatran etexilate for thromboprophylaxis following hip and knee replacement surgery. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2017;137(6):797-803. doi:10.1007/s00402-017-2697-8
36. Bloch BV, Patel V, Best AJ. Thromboprophylaxis with dabigatran leads to an increased incidence of wound leakage and an increased length of stay after total joint replacement. Bone Jt J. 2014;96-B(1):122-126. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.96B1.31569
37. Adam SS, McDuffie JR, Lachiewicz PF, Ortel TL, Williams JW. Comparative Effectiveness of Newer Oral Anticoagulants and Standard Anticoagulant Regimens for Thromboprophylaxis in Patients Undergoing Total Hip or Knee Replacement. Department of Veterans Affairs; 2012. Accessed September 21, 2021. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK117192/