Association of perioperative thromboprophylaxis on revision rate due to infection and aseptic loosening in primary total hip arthroplasty - new evidence from the Nordic Arthroplasty Registry Association (NARA)

Background and purpose: Results regarding the impact of anticoagulants on revision rate are conflicting. We examined the association between the use of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) as thromboprophylaxis after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and the revision rate due to infection, aseptic loosening, and all causes. Patients and methods: We conducted a cohort study (n = 53,605) based on prospectively collected data from the national hip arthroplasty registries from Denmark and Norway. The outcome was time to revision due to infection, aseptic loosening, and all causes, studied separately. Kaplan–Meier (KM) survival analysis and a Cox proportional hazard model was used to estimate implant survival and cause-specific hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) adjusting for age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, fixation type, start, and duration of thromboprophylaxis, and preoperative use of Vitamin K antagonists, NOAC, aspirin, and platelet inhibitors as confounders. Results: We included 40,451 patients in the LMWH group and 13,154 patients in the NOAC group. Regarding revision due to infection, the 1-year and 5-year KM survival was 99% in both the LMWH group and in the NOAC group. During the entire follow-up period, the adjusted HR for revision due to infection was 0.9 (CI 0.7–1.1), 1.6 (CI 1.3–2.1) for aseptic loosening, and 1.2 (CI 1.1–1.4) for all-cause revision for the NOAC compared with the LMWH group. The absolute differences in revision rates between the groups varied from 0.2% to 1%. Interpretation: Compared with LMWH, NOACs were associated with a slightly lower revision rate due to infection, but higher revisions rates due to aseptic loosening and all-cause revision. The absolute differences between groups are small and most likely not clinically relevant. In addition, the observed associations might partly be explained by selection bias and unmeasured confounding, and should be a topic for further research.publishedVersio

Countrywise results of total hip replacement. An analysis of 438,733 hips based on the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association database

Background and purpose: An earlier Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) report on 280,201 total hip replacements (THRs) based on data from 1995–2006, from Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, was published in 2009. The present study assessed THR survival according to country, based on the NARA database with the Finnish data included. Material and methods: 438,733 THRs performed during the period 1995–2011 in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland were included. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to calculate survival probabilities with 95% confidence interval (CI). Cox multiple regression, with adjustment for age, sex, and diagnosis, was used to analyze implant survival with revision for any reason as endpoint. Results: The 15-year survival, with any revision as an endpoint, for all THRs was 86% (CI: 85.7–86.9) in Denmark, 88% (CI: 87.6–88.3) in Sweden, 87% (CI: 86.4–87.4) in Norway, and 84% (CI: 82.9–84.1) in Finland. Revision risk for all THRs was less in Sweden than in the 3 other countries during the first 5 years. However, revision risk for uncemented THR was less in Denmark than in Sweden during the sixth (HR = 0.53, CI: 0.34–0.82), seventh (HR = 0.60, CI: 0.37–0.97), and ninth (HR = 0.59, CI: 0.36–0.98) year of follow-up. Interpretation: The differences in THR survival rates were considerable, with inferior results in Finland. Brand-level comparison of THRs in Nordic countries will be required

Homogeneity in prediction of survival probabilities for subcategories of hipprosthesis data: the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association, 2000-2013

Introduction: The four countries in the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) share geographic proximity, culture, and ethnicity. Pooling data from different sources in order to obtain higher precision and accuracy of survival-probability estimates is appealing. Nevertheless, survival probabilities of hip replacements vary between the countries. As such, risk prediction for individual patients within countries may be problematic if data are merged. In this study, our primary question was to address when data merging for estimating prosthesis survival in subcategories of patients is advantageous for survival prediction of individual patients, and at what sample sizes this may be advised.Methods: Patients undergoing total hip replacements for osteoarthritis between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2013 in the four Nordic countries were studied. A total of 184,507 patients were stratified into 360 patient subcategories based on country, age-group, sex, fixation, head size, and articulation. For each patient category, we determined the sample size needed from a single country to obtain a more accurate and precise estimate of prosthesis-survival probability at 5 and 10 years compared to an estimate using data from all countries. The comparison was done using mean-square error.Results: We found large variations in the sample size needed, ranging from 40 to 2,060 hips, before an estimate from a single Nordic country was more accurate and precise than estimates based on the NARA data.Conclusion: Using pooled survival-probability estimates for individual risk prediction may be imprecise if there is heterogeneity in the pooled data sources. By applying mean-square error, we demonstrate that for small sample sizes, applying the larger NARA database may provide a more accurate and precise estimate; however, this effect is not consistent and varies with the characteristics of the subcategory.</p

The benefits of collaboration:The Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association

□ The Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) was established in 2007 by arthroplasty register representatives from Sweden, Norway and Denmark with the overall aim to improve the quality of research and thereby enhance the possibility for quality improvement with arthroplasty surgery. Finland joined the NARA collaboration in 2010. □ NARA minimal hip, knee and shoulder datasets were created with variables that all countries can deliver. They are dynamic datasets, currently with 25 variables for hip arthroplasty, 20 for knee arthroplasty and 20 for shoulder arthroplasty. □ NARA has published statistical guidelines for the analysis of arthroplasty register data. The association is continuously working on the improvement of statistical methods and the application of new ones. □ There are 31 published peer-reviewed papers based on the NARA databases and 20 ongoing projects in different phases. Several NARA publications have significantly affected clinical practice. For example, metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty and resurfacing arthroplasty have been abandoned due to increased revision risk based on i.a. NARA reports. Further, the use of uncemented total hip arthroplasty in elderly patients has decreased significantly, especially in Finland, based on the NARA data. □ The NARA collaboration has been successful because the countries were able to agree on a common dataset and variable definitions. The collaboration was also successful because the group was able to initiate a number of research projects and provide answers to clinically relevant questions. A number of specific goals, set up in 2007, have been achieved and new one has emerged in the process

Statistical analysis of arthroplasty data: I. Introduction and background

It is envisaged that guidelines for statistical analysis and presentation of results will improve the quality and value of research. The Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) has therefore developed guidelines for the statistical analysis of arthroplasty register data. The guidelines are divided into two parts, this one with an introduction and a discussion of the background to the guidelines, and the second one with a more technical statistical discussion on how specific problems can be handled (Ranstam et al. 2011b, see pages x-y in this issue). This first part contains an overview of implant survival analysis and statistical methods used to evaluate factors with a potential influence on this outcome

Statistical analysis of arthroplasty data: II. Guidelines

It is envisaged that guidelines for statistical analysis and presentation of results will improve the quality and value of research. The Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) has therefore developed guidelines for the statistical analysis of arthroplasty register data. The guidelines are divided into two parts, one with an introduction and a discussion of the background to the guidelines (Ranstam et al. 2011a, see pages x-y in this issue), and this one with a more technical statistical discussion on how specific problems can be handled. This second part contains (1) recommendations for the interpretation of methods used to calculate survival, (2) recommendations on howto deal with bilateral observations, and (3) a discussion of problems and pitfalls associated with analysis of factors that influence survival or comparisons between outcomes extracted from different hospitals

Interstitial Lung Disease in Connective Tissue Diseases: Survival Patterns in a Population-Based Cohort

Objectives: Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is associated with impaired survival among patients with connective tissue diseases (CTDs), but population-based data on the frequency of ILD and pulmonary hypertension (PH) in different CTD subtypes and the impact on survival are sparse. Methods: We included patients with a first-time ICD-10 diagnosis of systemic sclerosis (SSc), mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), myositis, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), or Sjögren’s disease registered in the Danish National Patient Registry between 2000 and 2015. Among these, we identified patients with ILD and PH. Using Kaplan–Meier analysis, we assessed survival for the five subtypes of CTD ± ILD and compared survival among CTD patients overall ± ILD with survival in the general population ± ILD. Results: We identified 11,731 patients with a diagnosis of CTD; 637 (5.4%) had a diagnosis of ILD. The proportion of patients with ILD was higher in SSc (13.4%) and MCTD (9.1%) than in myositis (6.0%), SLE (4.1%), and Sjögren (2.8%). Fifty-one percent were diagnosed with ILD in their fifties and sixties. PH was more frequent in SSc (7.5%) and MCTD (4.1%). Five-year survival was 73.3% (66.7–80.6) in SSc-ILD, 81.0% (69.0–95.1) in MCTD-ILD, 84.7% (77.3–92.9) in myositis-ILD, 83.5% (76.2–91.5) in SLE-ILD, and 84.7 (78.4–91.6) in Sjögren-associated ILD. Survival in CTD-ILD overall was impaired for all age groups compared with CTD alone. Age-stratified survival was comparable between CTD-ILD and ILD in the general population. The survival gap between ILD and non-ILD increased with age. Conclusion: Survival was comparable between different CTD-ILD subtypes and comparable to survival in non-CTD-ILD