Tinzaparin vs. Nadroparin Safety and Efficacy in Neurosurgery

Background: An outbreak of African swine fever (ASF) in China in 2020 has led to an unprecedented shortage of nadroparin. Most patients, especially those kept in hospital for surgery, are currently treated with prophylactic anticoagulation (AC). In search of alternatives for nadroparin (fraxiparine), we found no sufficient data on alternatives for neurosurgical patients, such as tinzaparin of European origin. We compared nadroparin and tinzaparin concerning adverse events (bleeding versus thromboembolic events) in neurosurgical patients. Methods: Between 2012 and 2018, 517 neurosurgical patients with benign and malignant brain tumors as well as 297 patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) were treated in the Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Leipzig, receiving prophylactic anticoagulation within 48 h. In 2015, prophylactic anticoagulation was switched from nadroparin to tinzaparin throughout the university hospital. In a retrospective manner, the frequency and occurrence of adverse events (rebleeding and thromboembolic events) in connection with the substance used were analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher’s exact test and the chi-squared test. Results: Rebleeding rates were similar in both nadroparin and tinzaparin cohorts in patients being treated for meningioma, glioma, and SAH combined (8.8% vs. 10.3%). Accordingly, the rates of overall thromboembolic events were not significantly different (5.5% vs. 4.3%). The severity of rebleeding did not vary. There was no significant difference among subgroups when compared for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE). Conclusion: In this retrospective study, tinzaparin seems to be a safe alternative to nadroparin for AC in patients undergoing brain tumor surgery or suffering from SAH

Tinzaparin vs. Nadroparin Safety and Efficacy in Neurosurgery

Background: An outbreak of African swine fever (ASF) in China in 2020 has led to an unprecedented shortage of nadroparin. Most patients, especially those kept in hospital for surgery, are currently treated with prophylactic anticoagulation (AC). In search of alternatives for nadroparin (fraxiparine), we found no sufficient data on alternatives for neurosurgical patients, such as tinzaparin of European origin. We compared nadroparin and tinzaparin concerning adverse events (bleeding versus thromboembolic events) in neurosurgical patients. Methods: Between 2012 and 2018, 517 neurosurgical patients with benign and malignant brain tumors as well as 297 patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) were treated in the Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Leipzig, receiving prophylactic anticoagulation within 48 h. In 2015, prophylactic anticoagulation was switched from nadroparin to tinzaparin throughout the university hospital. In a retrospective manner, the frequency and occurrence of adverse events (rebleeding and thromboembolic events) in connection with the substance used were analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher’s exact test and the chi-squared test. Results: Rebleeding rates were similar in both nadroparin and tinzaparin cohorts in patients being treated for meningioma, glioma, and SAH combined (8.8% vs. 10.3%). Accordingly, the rates of overall thromboembolic events were not significantly different (5.5% vs. 4.3%). The severity of rebleeding did not vary. There was no significant difference among subgroups when compared for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE). Conclusion: In this retrospective study, tinzaparin seems to be a safe alternative to nadroparin for AC in patients undergoing brain tumor surgery or suffering from SAH

Perioperative anticoagulation in patients with intracranial meningioma: No increased risk of intracranial hemorrhage?

ObjectiveAnticoagulation (AC) is a critical topic in perioperative and post-bleeding management. Nevertheless, there is a lack of data about the safe, judicious use of prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation with regard to risk factors and the cause and modality of brain tissue damage as well as unfavorable outcomes such as postoperative hemorrhage (PH) and thromboembolic events (TE) in neurosurgical patients. We therefore present retrospective data on perioperative anticoagulation in meningioma surgery.MethodsData of 286 patients undergoing meningioma surgery between 2006 and 2018 were analyzed. We followed up on anticoagulation management, doses and time points of first application, laboratory values, and adverse events such as PH and TE. Pre-existing medication and hemostatic conditions were evaluated. The time course of patients was measured as overall survival, readmission within 30 days after surgery, as well as Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) and modified Rankin Scale (mRS). Statistical analysis was performed using multivariate regression.ResultsWe carried out AC with Fraxiparin and, starting in 2015, Tinzaparin in weight-adapted recommended prophylactic doses. Delayed (216 ± 228h) AC was associated with a significantly increased rate of TE (p = 0.026). Early (29 ± 21.9h) prophylactic AC, on the other hand, did not increase the risk of PH. We identified additional risk factors for PH, such as blood pressure maxima, steroid treatment, and increased white blood cell count. Patients' outcome was affected more adversely by TE than PH (+3 points in modified Rankin Scale in TE vs. +1 point in PH, p = 0.001).ConclusionEarly prophylactic AC is not associated with an increased rate of PH. The risks of TE seem to outweigh those of PH. Early postoperative prophylactic AC in patients undergoing intracranial meningioma resection should be considered