Background:

Thromboprophylaxis can reduce the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) during lower-limb immobilisation, but it is unclear whether or not this translates into meaningful health benefit, justifies the risk of bleeding or is cost-effective. Risk assessment models (RAMs) could select higher-risk individuals for thromboprophylaxis.

Objectives:

To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different strategies for providing thromboprophylaxis to people with lower-limb immobilisation caused by injury and to identify priorities for future research.

Data sources:

Ten electronic databases and research registers (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Review of Effects, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health Technology Assessment database, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Science Citation Index Expanded, ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) were searched from inception to May 2017, and this was supplemented by hand-searching reference lists and contacting experts in the field.

Review methods:

Systematic reviews were undertaken to determine the effectiveness of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in lower-limb immobilisation and to identify any study of risk factors or RAMs for VTE in lower-limb immobilisation. Study quality was assessed using appropriate tools. A network meta-analysis was undertaken for each outcome in the effectiveness review and the results of risk-prediction studies were presented descriptively. A modified Delphi survey was undertaken to identify risk predictors supported by expert consensus. Decision-analytic modelling was used to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of different thromboprophylaxis strategies from the perspectives of the NHS and Personal Social Services.

Results:

Data from 6857 participants across 13 trials were included in the meta-analysis. Thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin reduced the risk of any VTE [odds ratio (OR) 0.52, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.37 to 0.71], clinically detected deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) (OR 0.40, 95% CrI 0.12 to 0.99) and pulmonary embolism (PE) (OR 0.17, 95% CrI 0.01 to 0.88). Thromboprophylaxis with fondaparinux (Arixtra^®, Aspen Pharma Trading Ltd, Dublin, Ireland) reduced the risk of any VTE (OR 0.13, 95% CrI 0.05 to 0.30) and clinically detected DVT (OR 0.10, 95% CrI 0.01 to 0.94), but the effect on PE was inconclusive (OR 0.47, 95% CrI 0.01 to 9.54). Estimates of the risk of major bleeding with thromboprophylaxis were inconclusive owing to the small numbers of events. Fifteen studies of risk factors were identified, but only age (ORs 1.05 to 3.48), and injury type were consistently associated with VTE. Six studies of RAMs were identified, but only two reported prognostic accuracy data for VTE, based on small numbers of patients. Expert consensus was achieved for 13 risk predictors in lower-limb immobilisation due to injury. Modelling showed that thromboprophylaxis for all is effective (0.015 QALY gain, 95% CrI 0.004 to 0.029 QALYs) with a cost-effectiveness of £13,524 per QALY, compared with thromboprophylaxis for none. If risk-based strategies are included, it is potentially more cost-effective to limit thromboprophylaxis to patients with a Leiden thrombosis risk in plaster (cast) [L-TRiP(cast)] score of ≥ 9 (£20,000 per QALY threshold) or ≥ 8 (£30,000 per QALY threshold). An optimal threshold on the L-TRiP(cast) receiver operating characteristic curve would have sensitivity of 84–89% and specificity of 46–55%.

Limitations:

Estimates of RAM prognostic accuracy are based on weak evidence. People at risk of bleeding were excluded from trials and, by implication, from modelling.

Conclusions:

Thromboprophylaxis for lower-limb immobilisation due to injury is clinically effective and cost-effective compared with no thromboprophylaxis. Risk-based thromboprophylaxis is potentially optimal but the prognostic accuracy of existing RAMs is uncertain.

Future work:

Research is required to determine whether or not an appropriate RAM can accurately select higher-risk patients for thromboprophylaxis.

Study registration:

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017058688.

Funding:

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Article history

The research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 15/187/06. The contractual start date was in April 2017. The draft report began editorial review in April 2018 and was accepted for publication in August 2018. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors’ report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.

Declared competing interests of authors

Steve Goodacre is chairperson of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme Clinical Evaluation and Trials Board and a member of the HTA Funding Boards Policy Group. Tim Nokes received personal fees from Bayer Pharmaceuticals (Bayer AG, Leverkusen, Germany), personal fees from the Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (New York City, NY, USA)–Pfizer Inc. (New York City, NY, USA) Alliance and personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo Company Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) outside the submitted work. Kerstin de Wit reports grants from Bayer Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work.