ArticleArthroplasty today2018
A dedicated anticoagulation clinic does not improve postoperative management of warfarin after total joint arthroplasty.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeriprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are devastating complications. Excessive anticoagulation with warfarin is an independent risk factor for PJIs. The use of a dedicated anticoagulation clinic to improve warfarin management has not been proven.
methodsBetween 2006 and 2014, we identified 92 patients who were placed on postoperative warfarin, and later developed PJI. These patients were compared to 313 patients who underwent total joint arthroplasty placed on warfarin without developing PJI. Patients were included if they had no history of a venous thromboembolic event, were warfarin naive, and enrolled in the anticoagulation clinic. A univariate analysis compared independent variables, and statistical analysis was performed using Student's t-test and Pearson chi-square test for continuous and categorical variables.
resultsThirty-six PJI patients and 297 control patients met the inclusion criteria. The venous thromboembolism rate was 2.1%. At discharge, 82% of all patients were subtherapeutic. Patients were within their target international normalized ratio (INR) range 26.7% of the time. The mean INR in the initial postoperative period for the PJI group was 1.46 and 1.29 in the control group (
conclusionsDespite utilization of a dedicated anticoagulation clinic, patients were only within their target INR range 27% of the time. Total knee arthroplasty patients who developed a PJI were more likely to be therapeutic or supratherapeutic in the initial postoperative period. Consequently, the risks associated with warfarin as a venous thromboembolism prophylaxis may outweigh the potential benefits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.