Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42803994›Full record

ArticleActa neurochirurgica2026

Clinical outcomes following a hospital-wide transition from enoxaparin to tinzaparin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in neurosurgical patients.

Leonard Ritter, Adrian Liebert, Jens Weigel, Karl M Schebesch, Thomas Eibl

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Leonard RitterDepartment of Neurosurgery, Paracelsus Medical University, Nuremberg General Hospital, Breslauer Straße 201, 90471, Nuremberg, Germany. leonard.ritter@klinikum-nuernberg.de.
Adrian LiebertDepartment of Neurosurgery, Paracelsus Medical University, Nuremberg General Hospital, Breslauer Straße 201, 90471, Nuremberg, Germany.
Jens WeigelDepartment of Neurosurgery, Paracelsus Medical University, Nuremberg General Hospital, Breslauer Straße 201, 90471, Nuremberg, Germany.
Karl M SchebeschDepartment of Neurosurgery, Paracelsus Medical University, Nuremberg General Hospital, Breslauer Straße 201, 90471, Nuremberg, Germany.
Thomas EiblDepartment of Neurosurgery, Paracelsus Medical University, Nuremberg General Hospital, Breslauer Straße 201, 90471, Nuremberg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveVenous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis is a key component of neurosurgical care, with low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) representing the standard pharmacological approach. While enoxaparin is well established, the evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of tinzaparin in neurosurgical patients remains limited. This study aimed to compare the incidence of VTE and postoperative rebleeding between enoxaparin and tinzaparin in a large cohort of neurosurgical patients.

methodsFollowing a standardized institutional switch from enoxaparin to tinzaparin in 2021, we conducted a retrospective cohort study including all adult patients undergoing neurosurgical procedures during the 2.5-year periods before and after the change. Patients were stratified according to their perioperative VTE risk. The primary outcome was imaging-confirmed symptomatic VTE during hospitalization, and the secondary outcome was postoperative rebleeding requiring surgical evacuation. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to adjust for potential confounders.

resultsA total of 4,888 patients were included. Overall, 51 symptomatic VTE events occurred (1.04%). In low risk patients (Group A), VTE incidence did not differ significantly between enoxaparin and tinzaparin (0.44% vs. 0.86%, p = 0.35). In moderate-to-high risk patients (Group B), VTE occurred significantly more frequently with tinzaparin than enoxaparin (1.67% vs. 0.84%, p = 0.04), driven predominantly by PE (1.05% vs. 0.18%, p = 0.01), while DVT rates were comparable (0.62% vs. 0.67%, p = 0.87). Multivariable analysis in Group B confirmed lower odds of VTE with enoxaparin (OR 0.475, 95% CI 0.246-0.919, p = 0.027). Postoperative rebleeding rates did not differ significantly between treatment groups. The increase in PE coincided with increased CTA utilization and showed no clear temporal step change following the switch to tinzaparin.

conclusionBoth enoxaparin and tinzaparin were associated with low VTE rates and comparable postoperative rebleeding rates. Although higher VTE rates with tinzaparin were observed in the medium-to-high risk group, the predominance of PE, increased CTA utilization, and absence of a temporal step change limit a causal interpretation. These findings should therefore be considered hypothesis-generating rather than evidence of superior efficacy of either agent.

Indexed as

AnticoagulantsEnoxaparinFibrinolytic AgentsNeurosurgical ProceduresPostoperative ComplicationsTinzaparinVenous ThromboembolismAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesAnticoagulantsEnoxaparinFibrinolytic AgentsTinzaparinAnticoagulationEfficacyEnoxaparinNeurosurgerySurgeryThromboembolismTinzaparin

Identifiers

PMID42803994
PMCPMC13619725

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.