Comparison of efficacy of nadroparin and fondaparinux sodium for prevention of deep vein thromboembolism in lower extremities after total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty: a retrospective study of 592 patients.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of nadroparin and fondaparinux sodium for prevention of deep vein thromboembolism (DVT) in lower extremities after total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: A total of 592 patients were enrolled in the study. Clinical data of patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in our hospital from December 2021 to September 2022 were retrospectively collected, which mainly included patients' general information, surgery-related information, and DVT-related information. The patients were categorized into the nadroparin group(n = 278) and the fondaparinux sodium group(n = 314) according to the types of anticoagulants used. Anticoagulant therapy began 12-24 h after operation and continued until discharge. DVT prevalence between two groups was compared. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 25 (SPSS, Armonk, NY, USA) was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The prevalence of DVT in the nadroparin group and the fondaparinux sodium group was 8.3% (23/278) and 15.0% (47/314), respectively(p = 0.012). Statistical analysis showed that nadroparin group showed a lower prevalence of thrombosis than fondaparinux group (OR = 1.952, P = 0.012). Subgroup analyses showed that nadroparin group had a lower prevalence of DVT than fondaparinux group in some special patients groups such as female patients (OR = 2.258, P = 0.007), patients who are 65-79 years old (OR = 2.796, P = 0.004), patients with hypertension (OR = 2.237, P = 0.042), patients who underwent TKA (OR = 2.091, P = 0.011), and patients who underwent combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (OR = 2.490, P = 0.003) (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Nadroparin may have an advantage over fondaparinux sodium in preventing DVT in lower extremities after THA and TKA.

Large variation in anti-factor Xa levels with nadroparin as thromboprophylaxis in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 critically ill patients.

PURPOSE: Critically ill COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients receive thromboprophylaxis with the LMWH nadroparin. Whether a standard dosage is adequate in attaining the target anti-FXa levels (0.20-0.50 IU/ml) in these groups is unknown. METHODS: This study was a prospective, observational study in the ICU of a large general teaching hospital in the Netherlands. COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU who received LMWH in a prophylactic dosage of 2850 IU, 5700 IU or 11400 IU subcutaneously were eligible for the study. Anti-FXa levels were determined 4 h after administration. Relevant laboratory parameters, prespecified co-variates and clinical data were extracted from the electronic health record system. The primary goal was to evaluate anti-FXa levels in critically ill patients on a prophylactic dosage of nadroparin. The second goal was to investigate whether covariates had an influence on anti-FXa levels. RESULTS: A total of 62 patients were included in the analysis. In the COVID-19 group and non-COVID-19 group, 29 (96%) and 12 patients (38%) reached anti-FXa levels above 0.20 IU/ml, respectively. In the non-COVID-19 group, 63% of the patients had anti-FXA levels below the target range. When adjusted for nadroparin dosage a significant relation was found between body weight and the anti-FXa level (p = 0.013). CONCLUSION: A standard nadroparin dosage of 2850 IU sc in the critically ill patient is not sufficient to attain target anti-FXa levels in the majority of the studied patient group. We suggest a standard higher dosage in combination with body-weight dependent dosing as it leads to better exposure to nadroparin. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered, ClinicalTrials.gov ID NTC 05926518 g, date of registration 06/01/23, unique ID 2020/1725.

The effect of renal impairment and obesity on anti-Xa peak and trough levels in patients receiving therapeutic doses of nadroparin: a comparison with control patients.

PURPOSE: Anti-Xa peak level monitoring is recommended during LMWH treatment in renal impairment or obesity. The trough level has been proposed as marker for bleeding. We studied the influence of renal impairment and obesity on anti-Xa levels. METHODS: Peak and trough levels were collected during therapeutic nadroparin treatment in patients with renal impairment, obese patients, and controls. 27 patients (n = 68 samples) were evaluated and combined with published data (n = 319 samples from 35 patients) using population pharmacokinetic (popPK) modelling. RESULTS: Median peak level was 0.44 and 0.95 IU/mL in renal impairment with and without dose reduction and 0.60 and 0.43 IU/mL in obesity and controls, respectively. Trough levels were < 0.5 IU/mL in all patients with renal impairment with dose reduction and in 5/6 control patients. In the popPK model, total body weight and eGFR were covariates for clearance and lean body weight for distribution volume. Model-based evaluations demonstrated peak levels below the therapeutic window in controls and increased levels in renal impairment. Dose reductions resulted in a different effect on peak and trough levels. Obese patients (BMI up to 32 kg/m2) had similar levels upon weight-based dosing. CONCLUSION: In renal impairment, anti-Xa peak levels after dose reduction are comparable to those in controls. Weight-based dosing is suitable for obese patients. Aiming for peak levels between 0.6 and 1.0 IU/mL in these patients would result in overexposure compared to controls. Considering the association of trough levels and bleeding risk and our findings, trough monitoring seems to be a suitable parameter to identify nadroparin accumulation.

Population Pharmacokinetics and Probability of Target Attainment Analysis of Nadroparin in Different Stages of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The risk of thrombotic complications in critical patients with COVID-19 remains extremely high, and multicenter trials failed to prove a survival benefit of escalated doses of low-molecular-weight heparins (nadroparin calcium) in this group. The aim of this study was to develop a pharmacokinetic model of nadroparin according to different stages of COVID-19 severity. METHODS: Blood samples were obtained from 43 patients with COVID-19 who received nadroparin and were treated with conventional oxygen therapy, mechanical ventilation, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. We recorded clinical, biochemical, and hemodynamic variables during 72 h of treatment. The analyzed data comprised 782 serum nadroparin concentrations and 219 anti-Xa levels. We conducted population nonlinear mixed-effects modeling (NONMEM) and performed Monte Carlo simulations of the probability of target attainment for reaching 0.2-0.5 IU/mL anti-Xa levels in study groups. RESULTS: We successfully developed a one-compartment model to describe the population pharmacokinetics of nadroparin in different stages of COVID-19. The absorption rate constant of nadroparin was 3.8 and 3.2 times lower, concentration clearance was 2.22 and 2.93 times higher, and anti-Xa clearance was 0.87 and 1.1 times higher in mechanically ventilated patients and the extracorporeal membrane oxygenation group compared with patients treated with conventional oxygen, respectively. The newly developed model indicated that 5.900 IU of nadroparin given subcutaneously twice daily in the mechanically ventilated patients led to a similar probability of target attainment of 90% as 5.900 IU of subcutaneous nadroparin given once daily in the group supplemented with conventional oxygen. CONCLUSIONS: Different nadroparin dosing is required for patients undergoing mechanical ventilation and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation to achieve the same targets as those for non-critically ill patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier no. NCT05621915.

Low and Highly Variable Exposure to Prophylactic LMWH Nadroparin in Critically Ill Patients: Back to the Drawing Board for Prophylactic Dosing?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Low-molecular-weight heparins are routinely administered to patients in the intensive care unit to prevent venous thromboembolisms. There is considerable evidence that low-molecular-weight heparin doses should be personalised based on anti-Xa levels, but pharmacokinetic data in intensive care unit patients are lacking. This study aimed to characterise the pharmacokinetics and associated variability of the low-molecular-weight heparin nadroparin in critically ill patients. METHODS: Critically ill adult patients who were admitted to the intensive care unit and received nadroparin for prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism were included in a study. Population pharmacokinetic analysis was performed by means of parametric non-linear mixed-effects modelling (NONMEM). RESULTS: A total of 30 patients were enrolled with 12 patients undergoing continuous veno-venous hemodialysis and 18 patients not undergoing continuous veno-venous hemodialysis. Very high variability in pharmacokinetics was observed with an inter-individual variability in the volume of distribution of 63.7% (95% confidence interval 46.5-90.6), clearance of 166% (95% confidence interval 84.7-280) and relative bioavailability of 40.2% (95% confidence interval 29.5-52.6). We found that standard doses of 2850 IE and 5700 IE of nadroparin resulted in sub-prophylactic exposure in critically ill patients. CONCLUSIONS: Low exposure and highly variable pharmacokinetics of nadroparin were observed in intensive care unit patients treated with a prophylactic dose. It can be debated whether nadroparin is currently dosed optimally in intensive care unit patients and our findings encourage the investigation of higher and tailored dosing of nadroparin in the critically ill.

Low-Molecular-Weight Heparins (LMWH) and Synthetic Factor X Inhibitors Can Impair the Osseointegration Process of a Titanium Implant in an Interventional Animal Study.

Background and objectives: Cementless total hip arthroplasty is a common surgical procedure and perioperative thromboprophylaxis is used to prevent deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. Osseointegration is important for long-term implant survival, and there is no research on the effect of different thromboprophylaxis agents on the process of osseointegration. Materials and Methods: Seventy rats were allocated as follows: Group I (control group), Group II (enoxaparin), Group III (nadroparin), and Group IV (fondaparinux). Ovariectomy was performed on all subjects, followed by the introduction of an intramedullary titanium implant into the femur. Thromboprophylaxis was administered accordingly to each treatment group for 35 days postoperatively. Results: Group I had statistically significantly lower anti-Xa levels compared to treatment groups. Micro-CT analysis showed that nadroparin had lower values compared to control in bone volume (0.12 vs. 0.21, p = 0.01) and percent bone volume (1.46 vs. 1.93, p = 0.047). The pull-out test showed statistically significant differences between the control group (8.81 N) compared to enoxaparin, nadroparin, and fondaparinux groups (4.53 N, 4 N and 4.07 N, respectively). Nadroparin had a lower histological cortical bone tissue and a higher width of fibrous tissue (27.49 µm and 86.9 µm) at the peri-implant area, compared to control (43.2 µm and 39.2 µm), enoxaparin (39.6 µm and 24 µm), and fondaparinux (36.2 µm and 32.7 µm). Conclusions: Short-term administration of enoxaparin, nadroparin, and fondaparinux can reduce the osseointegration of titanium implants, with nadroparin having the most negative effect. These results show that enoxaparin and fondaparinux are preferred to be administered due to a lesser negative impact on the initial implant fixation.

Optimising the Nadroparin Dose for Thromboprophylaxis During Hemodialysis by Developing a Population Pharmacodynamic Model Using Anti-Xa Levels.

INTRODUCTION: The optimal nadroparin dose in patients undergoing hemodialysis is difficult to determine in clinical practice. Anti-Xa levels ≥ 0.4 IU/mL and < 2.0 IU/mL are suggested to prevent thrombus formation within the extracorporeal circuit whilst minimizing bleeding risk. We aimed to characterize the variability in the association between dose and anti-Xa levels, identify patient and dialysis characteristics that explained this variability, and optimize nadroparin dosing based on the identified characteristics. METHODS: Anti-Xa samples were collected in patients who received intravenous nadroparin as thromboprophylaxis during routine dialysis sessions. A population pharmacodynamic model was developed using non-linear mixed-effects modelling. The percentage of patients ≥ 0.4 IU/mL (efficacy) and < 2.0 IU/mL (safety) was simulated for different doses, patient and dialysis characteristics. RESULTS: Patients (n = 137) were predominantly receiving standard hemodialysis (84.7% vs. hemodiafiltration 15.3%) and had a mean bodyweight of 76.3 kg (± 16.9). Lean body mass (LBM), mode of dialysis, and dialyzer partially explained between-subject variability in anti-Xa levels. Patients on hemodiafiltration and those receiving hemodialysis with a high LBM (≥ 80 kg) had a low probability (< 29%) of anti-Xa levels ≥ 0.4 IU/mL during the entire dialysis session. All patients, except hemodialysis patients with a low LBM (< 50 kg), had a high probability (> 70%) of peak anti-Xa levels < 2.0 IU/mL. CONCLUSION: Mainly patients receiving hemodiafiltration and those receiving hemodialysis with a high LBM can benefit from a higher nadroparin dose than currently used in clinical practice, while having anti-Xa levels < 2.0 IU/mL.

Pharmacokinetic profiles of intravenous versus subcutaneous administration of low molecular weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis in critically ill patients: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) are recommended for thromboprophylaxis in ICU patients but often fail to reach adequate peak anti-Xa activity. OBJECTIVE: To compare the pharmacokinetic profiles of intravenous (IV) versus subcutaneous (SC) route of administration of LMWH. METHOD: This was a prospective, monocentric, randomized trial. Patients were randomized to the IV route of administration with a 4-h infusion of nadroparin 3800 IU or to the SC route of administration. Randomization was stratified according to the need for vasopressor or not. Anti-Xa activity was measured at baseline, and at 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 24 h after the administration was started. RESULTS: Sixty patients were included, of whom 30 were randomized to the IV group and 30 to the SC route. Pharmacokinetic profiles were significantly different. Mean peak anti-Xa activity was 0.38 IU/ml in the IV group vs 0.20 IU/ml in the SC group (p < 0.001). Trough values and AUC (0-24 h) were similar in both groups. Pharmacokinetic profiles were similar whether patients received vasopressors or not. CONCLUSIONS: The IV route of administration with a 4-h infusion lead to a significantly higher peak anti-Xa activity without affecting trough value or the AUC (0-24 h). Whether the IV administration of LMWH might improve the efficacy of thromboprophylaxis requires further research. REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04982055, retrospectively registered 08 July 2021, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04982055?cond=NCT04982055&draw=2&rank=1.

Bleeding complications of thromboprophylaxis with dabigatran, nadroparin or rivaroxaban for 6 weeks after total knee arthroplasty surgery: a randomised pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: For the non-vitamin-K oral anticoagulants, data on bleeding when used for 42 days as thromboprophylaxis after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are scarce. This pilot study assessed feasibility of a multicentre randomised clinical trial to evaluate major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding during 42-day use of dabigatran, nadroparin and rivaroxaban after TKA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In 70 weeks, between July 2012 and November 2013, 198 TKA patients were screened for eligibility in the Martini Hospital (Groningen, the Netherlands). Patients were randomly assigned to dabigatran (n=45), nadroparin (n=45) or rivaroxaban (n=48). The primary outcome was the combined endpoint of major bleeding and clinically relevant non-major bleeding. Secondary endpoints of this study were the occurrence of clinical venous thromboembolism (VTE) (pulmonary embolism or deep venous thrombosis), compliance, duration of hospital stay, rehospitalisation, adverse events and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). RESULTS: The primary outcome was observed in 33.3% (95% CI 20.0% to 49.0%), 24.4% (95% CI 12.9% to 39.5%) and 27.1% (95% CI 15.3% to 41.8%) of patients who received dabigatran, nadroparin or rivaroxaban, respectively (p=0.67). Major bleeding was found in two patients who received nadroparin (p=0.21). Clinically relevant non-major bleeding was observed in 33.3% (95% CI 20.0% to 49.0%), 22.2% (95% CI 11.2% to 37.1%) and 27.1% (95% CI 15.3% to 41.8%) for dabigatran, nadroparin and rivaroxaban, respectively (p=0.51). Wound haematoma was the most observed bleeding event. VTE was found in one patient who received dabigatran (p=0.65). The presurgery and postsurgery KOOS qQuestionnaires were available for 32 (71%), 35 (77%) and 35 (73%) patients for dabigatran, nadroparin and rivaroxaban, respectively. KOOS was highly variable, and no significant difference between treatment groups in mean improvement was observed. CONCLUSIONS: A multicentre clinical trial may be feasible. However, investments will be substantial. No differences in major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding events were found between dabigatran, nadroparin and rivaroxaban during 42 days after TKA. KOOS may not be suitable to detect functional loss due to bleeding. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01431456.

[Celiac crisis in patients with celiac disease. Case report].

Celiac crisis (CC) is a rare life-threatening course of celiac disease, observed mainly in children. In adults, CK can be the first manifestation of the disease and, very rarely, a relapse that occurs in patients who do not follow the gluten-free diet (AGD). Triggers can be stress, surgery, childbirth, etc. A clinical observation of CC developed in a 49-year-old patient with previously established latent celiac disease with subtotal villous atrophy, stage Marsh III C is presented. The patient did not comply with AHD. After severe angina, she developed anorexia, diarrhea, emaciation, coagulopathy, bilateral pulmonary embolism, infarction pneumonia, and enterogenic sepsis. As a result of intensive therapy with prednisolone, Fraxiparine, antibiotics, fresh frozen plasma and strict adherence to hypertension, remission of the disease was achieved.

Unfractionated Heparin Versus Subcutaneous Nadroparin in Adults Supported With Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: a Retrospective, Multicenter Study.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) requires constant management of coagulation. Whereas unfractionated heparin remains the anticoagulant of choice, experienced centers report high bleeding rates. Biocompatibility of the extracorporeal circuit enables management of anticoagulation with subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparins only. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of anticoagulation with subcutaneous nadroparin compared with unfractionated heparin during respiratory ECMO in patients. We assessed for thrombotic complications and number of bleeding and life-threatening bleeding events. Additionally, we evaluated the change in resistance to flow in the oxygenator and the number of transfused blood products. Nadroparin and unfractionated heparin were comparable in terms of number of bleeding (34 vs. 53%; p = 0.12), life-threatening bleeding (2.8 vs. 9.3%; p = 0.26) events, and daily red blood cell transfusion rates (0.79 units/patient/day vs. 0.71 units/patient/day in nadroparin group; p = 0.87) during respiratory ECMO. The relative change in resistance to flow in the oxygenator was similar between groups (8.03 vs. 11.6%; p = 0.27). Nadroparin seemed equivalent to unfractionated heparin in the number of thrombotic and hemorrhagic events as well as in the daily red blood cell transfusion rates during venovenus-ECMO.

Effective use of fondaparinux in patient with unresponsiveness to nadroparin.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Fondaparinux exhibits a similar mechanism of action as LMWH. Since both of these drugs bind to antithrombin and increase its affinity to factor Xa, fondaparinux is not expected to be an effective alternative anticoagulant to LMWH in case of LMWH resistance. CASE SUMMARY: We report on a case of effective anticoagulation using fondaparinux following total unresponsiveness to high doses of nadroparin administered twice daily, as confirmed via repeated anti-Xa measurements. The antithrombin levels were within the normal range. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of the effective use of fondaparinux in the case of unresponsiveness to LMWH.

Thromboembolic and bleeding complications in patients with oesophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: In patients who undergo curative treatment for oesophageal cancer, risk estimates of venous thromboembolism (VTE), arterial thromboembolism and bleeding are needed to guide decisions about thromboprophylaxis. METHODS: This was a single-centre, retrospective cohort study of patients with stage I-III oesophageal cancer who received neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by oesophagectomy. The outcomes VTE, arterial thromboembolism, major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major bleeding and mortality were analysed for four consecutive cancer treatment stages (from diagnosis to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, during neoadjuvant treatment, 30-day postoperative period, and up to 6 months after postoperative period). RESULTS: Some 511 patients were included. The 2-year survival rate was 67·3 (95 per cent c.i. 63·2 to 71·7) per cent. During the 2-year follow-up, 50 patients (9·8 per cent) developed VTE, 20 (3·9 per cent) arterial thromboembolism, 21 (4·1 per cent) major bleeding and 30 (5·9 per cent) clinically relevant non-major bleeding. The risk of these events was substantial at all treatment stages. Despite 30-day postoperative thromboprophylaxis, 17 patients (3·3 per cent) developed VTE after surgery. Patients with VTE had worse survival (time-varying hazard ratio 1·81, 95 per cent c.i. 1·25 to 2·64). Most bleeding events occurred around the time of medical intervention, and approximately one-half during concomitant use of prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation. CONCLUSION: Patients with oesophageal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery are at substantial risk of thromboembolic and bleeding events throughout all stages of treatment. Survival is worse in patients with thromboembolic events during follow-up.

ANTECEDENTES: Para tomar decisiones en cuanto a la profilaxis tromboembólica, es preciso estimar el riesgo de tromboembolismo venoso (venous thromboembolism, VTE), de tromboembolismo arterial y de hemorragia en pacientes a los que se vaya a realizar un tratamiento curativo para el cáncer de esófago. MÉTODOS: Se realizó un estudio de cohortes retrospectivo de un solo centro, de pacientes con cáncer de esófago en estadios I-III que fueron tratados con quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante y esofagectomía. Se analizaron, en cuatro momentos del tratamiento (desde el momento del diagnóstico hasta la quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante, durante el tratamiento neoadyuvante, en los 30 días del período postoperatorio y a los 6 meses de la cirugía) las siguientes variables: VTE, tromboembolismo arterial, hemorragia grave, hemorragia no grave clínicamente relevante y mortalidad. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 511 pacientes. La supervivencia a los 2 años fue del 67,3% (ic. del 95%, 63,2-71,7). Durante el seguimiento de 2 años, 50 pacientes desarrollaron un VTE (9,8%), 20 un tromboembolismo arterial (3,9%), 21 hemorragias graves (4,1%) y 30 hemorragias no graves clínicamente relevantes (5,9%). El riesgo de estos accidentes fue notable en todas las etapas del tratamiento. A pesar de la profilaxis tromboembólica posquirúrgica, a los 30 días, 17 pacientes (3,3%) desarrollaron un VTE después de la operación. Los pacientes con VTE tuvieron una supervivencia menor (cociente de riesgos instantáneos, hazard ratio en función del tiempo 1,81; i.c. del 95%, 1,25-2,64). La mayoría de los accidentes hemorrágicos ocurrieron en el contexto de una intervención médica y el 48% durante el uso concomitante de anticoagulación profiláctica o terapéutica. CONCLUSIÓN: Los pacientes con cáncer de esófago tratados con quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante y cirugía tienen un riesgo sustancial de sufrir accidentes tromboembólicos y hemorrágicos en todas las fases del tratamiento. La supervivencia es peor en aquellos pacientes que presentan accidentes tromboembólicos durante el seguimiento.

Nadroparin Plus Compression Stockings versus Nadroparin Alone for Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Cerebellopontine Angle Tumour Excisions: A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Both compression stockings and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) are used for the prevention of post-operative venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cerebellopontine angle (CPA) tumour excisions. OBJECTIVE: In an attempt to optimise the prophylactic treatment in these patients, we compared LMWH (nadroparin) plus compression stockings to nadroparin as single therapy. METHODS: Patients undergoing CPA tumour excision in the period between January 2014 and November 2015 received nadroparin as a single therapy. Patients treated since November 2015 received, in addition to this therapy, peri-operative compression stockings as VTE prophylaxis due to a change in protocol. VTE was defined as symptomatic deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism and was confirmed via radiological imaging or autopsy. RESULTS: A total of 146 consecutive patients were reviewed. Treatment groups were comparable with respect to demographics and risk factors. Six of the 60 patients (10.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.8-20.5) receiving nadroparin single therapy developed symptomatic VTE. One out of 86 patients (1.2%; 95% CI 0-6.3) treated with combination therapy developed VTE (p = 0.019) with a risk difference of 8.8% (95% CI 1.43-19.0). In comparison to combination therapy, nadroparin single therapy showed a relative risk of 8.6 (95% CI 1.1-69.6). CONCLUSION: Adding compression stockings to peri-operative nadroparin, as a prophylactic strategy for thromboembolic complications in patients undergoing surgical intervention for CPA tumours, was associated with a significant reduction in the occurrence of VTE.

Low molecular weight heparin (nadroparin) improves placental permeability in rats with gestational diabetes mellitus via reduction of tight junction factors.

Placental structural abnormalities and dysfunction in those with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) can lead to increased placental permeability, which is in turn related to a poorer maternal and fetal prognosis. The present study sought to assess whether increased placental permeability in rats with GDM was accompanied by alterations in tight junction (TJ) factors and to evaluate the impact of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) on these factors. The present study was conducted using pregnant female rats that were randomized into control, GDM and GDM + LMWH groups. Diabetes was induced via intraperitoneal administration of streptozotocin to rats in the GDM and GDM + LMWH groups, whereas rats in the GDM + LMWH group received daily subcutaneous LMWH starting on day 5 of pregnancy. On gestational day 16, all rats were sacrificed and Evans Blue (EB) assay was used to gauge vascular permeability based on EB dye leakage. Transmission electron microscopy was further used to assess TJ structures, and the TJ proteins zonular occludens­1 (ZO­1) and occludin (OCLN) were assessed using immunohistochemistry and western blotting. Blood samples were obtained from the abdominal aorta for ELISA measurements of advanced glycation end products (AGEs) concentrations, and placental receptor for AGEs (RAGE) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) expression was assessed using reverse transcription­quantitative PCR. In addition, western blotting was used to measure placental NF­κB. Compared with in the control group, EB leakage was markedly increased in GDM group rats; this was associated with reduced ZO­1 and OCLN expression. Conversely, LMWH attenuated this increase in placental permeability in rats with GDM and also mediated a partial recovery of ZO­1 and OCLN expression. Blood glucose and serum AGEs concentrations did not differ between the GDM and GDM + LMWH groups. Furthermore, LMWH treatment resulted in decreases in RAGE and VEGF mRNA expression levels, which were upregulated in the GDM group, whereas it had the opposite effect on the expression of NF­κB. In conclusion, GDM was associated with increased placental permeability and this may be linked with changes in TJs. LMWH intervention mediated protection against this GDM­associated shift in placental permeability via the RAGE/NF­κB pathway.

Randomised phase 3 study of adjuvant chemotherapy with or without nadroparin in patients with completely resected non-small-cell lung cancer: the NVALT-8 study.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective studies suggest that low molecular weight heparin may delay the development of metastasis in patients with resected NSCLC. METHODS: Multicentre phase 3 study with patients with completely resected NSCLC who were randomised after surgery to receive chemotherapy with or without nadroparin. The main exclusion criteria were R1/2 and wedge/segmental resection. FDG-PET was required. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival (RFS). RESULTS: Among 235 registered patients, 202 were randomised (nadroparin: n = 100; control n = 102). Slow accrual enabled a decrease in the number of patients needed from 600 to 202, providing 80% power to compare RFS with 94 events (α = 0.05; 2-sided). There were no differences in bleeding events between the two groups. The median RFS was 65.2 months (95% CI, 36-NA) in the nadroparin arm and 37.7 months (95% CI, 22.7-NA) in the control arm (HR 0.77 (95% CI, 0.53-1.13, P = 0.19). FDG-PET SUVmax ≥10 predicted a greater likelihood of recurrence in the first year (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.22-0.9, P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant nadroparin did not improve RFS in patients with resected NSCLC. In this study, a high SUVmax predicted a greater likelihood of recurrence in the first year. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial registry: NTR1250/1217.

Outcomes following pancreatic surgery using three different thromboprophylaxis regimens.

BACKGROUND: Postpancreatectomy haemorrhage (PPH) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) are serious complications following pancreatic surgery. The aim was to assess the timing, occurrence and predictors of PPH and VTE. METHODS: Elective pancreatic resections undertaken in a single university hospital between November 2013 and September 2017 were assessed. Three intervals were reviewed, each with a different routine regimen of nadroparin: 2850 units once daily (single dose) administered in hospital only, or 5700 units once daily (double dose) or 2850 units twice daily (split dose) administered in hospital and continued for 6 weeks after surgery. Clinically relevant PPH (CR-PPH) was classified according to International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery criteria. VTE was defined according to a number of key diagnostic criteria within 6 weeks of surgery. Cox regression analyses were performed to test the hypotheses that the double-dose group would experience more PPH than the other two groups, the single-dose group would experience more VTE than the other two groups, and the split-dose group would experience the fewest adverse events (PPH or VTE). RESULTS: In total, 240 patients were included, 80 per group. The double-dose group experienced significantly more CR-PPH (hazard ratio (HR) 2·14, 95 per cent c.i. 1·16 to 3·94; P = 0·015). More relaparotomies due to CR-PPH were performed in the double-dose group (16 versus 3·8 per cent; P = 0·002). The single-dose group did not experience more VTE (HR 1·41, 0·43 to 4·62; P = 0·570). The split dose was not associated with fewer adverse events (HR 0·77, 0·41 to 1·46; P = 0·422). Double-dose low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), high BMI and pancreatic fistula were independent predictors of CR-PPH. CONCLUSION: A double dose of LMWH prophylaxis continued for 6 weeks after pancreatic resection was associated with a twofold higher rate of CR-PPH, resulting in four times more relaparotomies. Patients receiving a single daily dose of LMWH in hospital only did not experience a higher rate of VTE.

Effect of anticoagulant treatment on pain in distal deep vein thrombosis: an ancillary analysis from the cactus trial.

Essentials Management of patients with calf deep vein thrombosis remains controversial. We conducted a post-hoc analysis of a placebo controlled LMWH randomized clinical trial. Pain was assessed using visual analogue scale at inclusion, one and six weeks. There was no difference in pain control between the two arms. SUMMARY: Background The optimal management of distal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is highly debated. The only available placebo-controlled trial suggested the absence of clear benefit of anticoagulation. Many physicians feel that, beyond preventing thromboembolic complications, anticoagulation with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) has the potential to improve pain control. Objectives To analyze whether LMWHs decrease pain in patients with distal deep vein thrombosis. Patients and methods Two-hundred and fifty-two patients included in a multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial of LMWH in patients with acute distal DVT and who were asked to rate their pain at inclusion and at each medical visit, using a visual analogue pain scale (VAS). Results One hundred and thirty patients were randomized in the therapeutic nadroparin arm and 122 patients were randomized in the placebo arm. Mean VAS values were 4.6 (standard deviation [SD] 2.5) at inclusion, 2.1 (SD 2.0) at 1 week and 0.4 (SD 1.2) at 6 weeks. We calculated the individual variation in VAS between inclusion and 1 week in patients in whom VAS was available at the two study time-points. There was no difference in the mean VAS reduction between patients treated with therapeutic nadroparin (n = 106) and with placebo (n = 109): -2.6 (SD 2.4) vs. -2.3 (SD 2.0) after 1 week and -4.4 (SD 2.8) vs. -4.0 (SD 2.4) after 6 weeks, respectively. The use of compression stockings was associated with a reduction in pain. Conclusion These data suggests that LMWH use does not improve pain control as compared with placebo in patients with acute distal DVT.

A New Protocol for Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Bariatric Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Morbidly obese patients are at high risk for developing venous thromboembolism (VTE). The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of a new VTE prophylaxis protocol (low dosage, low-molecular-weight heparin [LMWH]) with a pneumatic compression device (PCD) in patients undergoing bariatric surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between November 2015 and December 2017, 368 patients underwent surgery due to obesity. The patients received 0.2 ml of nadroparin (Fraxiparine, GlaxoSmithKline) 12 h before the operation. A PCD (Kendall SCD Compression System) was applied to the patient during the operation and left on the patient during the subsequent 24 h. Nadroparin 0.4 ml was started subcutaneously after the PCD was removed from the patient and the same dosage of nadroparin was given daily for 15 days following the bariatric operation. Ambulation within 2 h of surgery was encouraged and was performed frequently. RESULTS: A total of 368 patients underwent laparoscopic bariatric surgery. The median age was 34.1 years (range, 18-61), the median weight was 128 kg (range, 90-182), and the median body mass index (BMI) was 47.2 kg/m2 (range, 36-72). No thrombotic events were observed postoperatively or at the 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-up visits. Four bleedings occurred requiring transfusions. None of these patients required a re-laparotomy for hemorrhage control. The mortality rate was 0% at 30 and 90 days and during the hospitalization. CONCLUSION: Low dosage LMWH with PCD is very effective for VTE prophylaxis in bariatric surgery.