Prevalence of thromboembolic complications depending upon compliance and preventive care after endoprosthetics of large joints

Objective. The study objective is to assess the efficacy of preventive care for thromboembolic complications after endoprosthetics of large joints depending on patients’ compliance.

Methods: Prospective clinical examination of 686 patients aged 50–70 years, who underwent the endoprosthetics of knee and hip joints. Preventive care for thrombosis and embolism was performed according to three regimens: 1) monotherapy with parenteral low molecular weight heparins, 2) therapy with low molecular weight heparins converted to indirect anticoagulants, 3) administration of oral anticoagulants.

Results: 376 patients (54.8%) fully complied with the medical recommendations. The rest 310 patients (45.2%), non-compliant patients, ignored medical prescriptions: refusal to take anticoagulants, spontaneous replacement of anticoagulants with antiplatelet agents, not taking medications as prescribed. Among compliant patients, deep vein thrombosis of lower extremities was registered in 9 cases (2.4%); among non-compliant patients, it was registered in 13 cases (4.2%).

Conclusions: Deep vein thrombosis of lower extremities was registered significantly more often in non-compliant patients. To increase the efficacy of the prevention care for thromboembolic complications after endoprosthetics of large joints, more attention should be paid to explanatory work, explaining to patients the nature and negative consequences of compliance violations. 

1. Kopenkin SS. Prevention of venous thromboembolic complications in orthopedic surgery: New opportunities. N.N. Priorov Journal of Traumatology and Orthopedics. 2010;1:35–9 (In Russ).

2. Moiseev SV. Adherence to anticoagulant therapy: Problems and solutions. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapy. 2014;23(4):23–8 (In Russ).

3. Collins R, Scrimgeour A, Yusuf S, Peto R. Reduction in fatal pulmonary embolism and venous thrombosis by perioperative administration of subcutaneous heparin: Overview of randomized trials in general, orthopedic, and urologic surgery. N Engl J Med. 1988;318:1162–73.

4. Lassen M, Laux V. Emergence of new oral antithrombotics: A critical appraisal of their clinical potential. Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2008;4(6):1373–86.

5. Clagett GP, Reisch JS. Prevention of venous thromboembolism in general surgical patients: results of meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 1988;208:227–40.

6. Geerts WH, Heit JA, Clagett GP, Pineo GF, Colwell CW, Anderson FA Jr, Wheeler HB. Prevention of venous thromboembolism. Chest. 2001;119:132S–75S.

7. Solod EI, Lazarev AF, Zagorodny NV, Kostiv EP, Furtyk AB, Dendymarchenko RS, Kostiv RE. The surgical treatment of patients with medial fractures of the femoral neck. Pacific Medical Journal. 2018;1:19–25 (In Russ).

8. Ginsberg J, Davidson B. Oral thrombin inhibitor dabigatranetexilate vs North American enoxaparin regimen for prevention of venous thromboembolism after knee arthroplasty surgery. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24(1):1–9.

9. Koch A, Ziegler S, Breitschwerdt H, Victor N. Low molecular weigh heparin and unfractionated heparin in thrombosis prophylaxis: Meta-analysis based on original patient data. Thromb Res. 2001;102:295–309.

10. Charters MA, Frisch NB, Wessell NM, Dobson C, Les CM, Silverton CD. Rivaroxaban versus Enoxaparin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after hip and knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(7):1277–80.