SynthesisPharmacology research & perspectives2025
Aspirin Versus LMWH for Thromboprophylaxis Following Hip or Knee Arthroplasty-Clinical Implications and Budget Impact.
Synthesis in Pharmacology research & perspectives, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Aspirin Versus LMWH for Thromboprophylaxis Following Hip or Knee Arthroplasty-Clinical Implications and Budget Impact.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains a significant concern for patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty, with a need to balance effective thromboprophylaxis and bleeding risk. We aimed to compare the efficacy, safety, and budget impact of aspirin versus low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) as sole thromboprophylactic agents initiated immediately postoperatively in this population. First, we conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases, assessing clinical outcomes and healthcare costs. Subsequently, a simplified budget impact analysis was performed using data from the largest identified and most recent RCT (CRISTAL trial) and its secondary analyses. Primary outcomes included symptomatic VTE, bleeding events, and reoperation rates. Through a systematic search, seven RCTs were considered to be eligible, with the CRISTAL trial providing the most compelling evidence. Aspirin was non-inferior to LMWH for all-cause mortality but was associated with a significantly higher symptomatic VTE rate (3,27% vs. 1,76%) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT), predominantly distal DVT. The budget impact analysis revealed that despite aspirin's lower per tablet cost, thromboprophylaxis with LMWH led to annual savings of $35,912,459 to $110,431,241 for U.S. healthcare stakeholders, and $17,075 to $56,450 for single hospitals performing 1000 arthroplasty procedures annually. To conclude, enoxaparin appears to offer superior clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness compared to aspirin for thromboprophylaxis following hip and knee arthroplasty. These findings support the preferential use of LMWH in this setting, while highlighting the need for further investigation into the clinical significance of aspirin's higher distal DVT and pulmonary embolism risk.
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.