Statistical analysis shows that all-cause mortality was similar in both groups (0.78% in the “aspirin” group vs. 0.73% in the “LMWH” group, difference not significant). Moreover, these results were not influenced by the age of the patient. Likewise, the proportion pulmonary embolism non-fatal was comparable (1.49% in both groups), as was that of deep phlebitis (2.51% in the “aspirin” group vs 1.7% in the “LMWH” group, difference not significant).
As for tolerance, at 90 days the authors found a similar profile between the “aspirin” group and the “LMWH” group, in terms of bleeding (13.7% vs 14.27%), delayed healing (0.13% vs 0.23%) and surgical site infections (1.73% vs 1.55%). No difference in the incidence of other serious events either.
Despite certain limitations of the study (open trial, participants were able to receive two doses of LMWH before inclusion, variable duration of thromboprophylaxis after discharge from hospital), the authors conclude that these results show that aspirin is non-inferior to LMWHs in preventing post-fracture thrombosis and that they plead for its use in this indication, because it is an inexpensive and easy-to-use treatment (taking per us facilitating compliance).