Concerning the prevention of lower extremities DVT by enoxaparin (40 mg per day), the results indicated 100% prevention (i.e., zero incidence). Thao, in a study that used a dose similar to our study, reported that the rate of newly diagnosed DVT in the prevention group was 13.4% and in the non-prophylaxis group was 43.7%; this difference was statistically significant (P < 0.001) (
10). Wang et al. also found a significant decrease in DVT risk in prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin (pooled OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.77, P < 0.001) (
16). According to Western studies, the incidence of DVT after prophylaxis was 5.5% for MEDENOX study (
17), 2.8% for PREVENT study (
18), and 5.6% for ARTEMIS study (
19). These differences may be due to differences in patient populations, co-morbidities, study duration, and methods of diagnosing DVT. All studies showed that the rate of new DVT in the prevention group was lower than in the non-prophylaxis group; the difference was statistically significant.
In our study, there was one case (1.7%) of a cerebral hemorrhage after day 4 (
Figure 3). Two cases (3.4%) had hemorrhage and hematoma under the skin at the injection site ≥ 5 cm. Also, one case (1.7) experienced airway bleeding, and gastrointestinal bleeding was observed in one case (1.7%) (
Figure 3). The results of this study are similar to studies conducted in the West that reported a low rate of heavy bleeding. For instance, Samama et al.: 1.7% and 1.1% (
20), Fraisse et al.: 5, 6% and 2.7% (
21), Lazoroviz et al.: 0.5% and 0.2% (
18), and Cohen et al.: 0.2% and 0.2% (
19). A systematic review by Wang et al. also reported similar results; so that there was a significant increase in postoperative hemorrhage in patients treated with enoxaparin than those who did not receive anticoagulation treatment (pooled OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.31, P = 0.033) (
16). They reported no significant difference in the rate of severe bleeding between the prevention and non-prophylaxis groups (P > 0.05).
We also investigated thrombocytopenia on admission time. There was one case (1.7%) of thrombocytopenia > 50% after providing the intervention, but there was no case with bleeding complications (
Table 4). In the group of < 30% thrombocytopenia, five cases presented mild to severe bleeding (
Table 4). The difference in mean platelet counts before and after treatment was -13.29 (CI: -33.89 to 7.3) (
Table 5), which was not statistically significant (t57 = -1.29; P = 0.20). Thao reported six cases (1.7%) of thrombocytopenia: 2 cases (1.3%) in the prevention group and 4 cases (1.9%) in the non-prevention group (
10). There was no statistically significant difference between the prophylaxis and non-prophylaxis groups concerning the rate of thrombocytopenia (P = 0.651) (
10). The rate of thrombocytopenia in the study was similar to that of prevention studies conducted abroad. Samama et al. (
20), in a prevention study, reported rates of 2.2% and 3.6%, and Lazoroviz et al. (
18) reported rates of 0.3% and 0.5%. These studies reported no statistically significant difference in the incidence of thrombocytopenia between the prevention and non-prophylaxis groups. Enoxaparin was not the primary cause, and thrombocytopenia was only an incidental symptom in patients with and without prophylaxis. Therefore, thrombocytopenia > 50% is not the main cause of major bleeding complications.