Article

The practice of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in the major trauma patient.

Department of Surgery, Univeristy of Toronto, Canada.
The Journal of trauma (Impact Factor: 2.35). 03/2007; 62(3):557-62; discussion 562-3. DOI: 10.1097/TA.0b013e318031b5f5
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) without prophylaxis is as high as 80% after major trauma. Initiation of prophylaxis is often delayed because of concerns of injury-associated bleeding. As the effect of delays in the initiation of prophylaxis on VTE rates is unknown, we set out to evaluate the relationship between late initiation of prophylaxis and VTE.
Data were derived from a multicenter prospective cohort study evaluating clinical outcomes in adults with hemorrhagic shock after injury. Analyses were limited to patients with an Intensive Care Unit length of stay >or=7 days. The rate of VTE was estimated as a function of the time to initiation of pharmacologic prophylaxis. A multivariate stepwise logistic regression model was used to evaluate factors associated with late initiation.
There were 315 subjects who met inclusion criteria; 34 patients (11%) experienced a VTE within the first 28 days. Prophylaxis was initiated within 48 hours of injury in 25% of patients, and another one-quarter had no prophylaxis for at least 7 days after injury. Early prophylaxis was associated with a 5% risk of VTE, whereas delay beyond 4 days was associated with three times that risk (risk ratio, 3.0, 95% CI [1.4-6.5]). Factors associated with late (>4 days) initiation of prophylaxis included severe head injury, absence of comorbidities, and massive transfusion, whereas the presence of a severe lower extremity fracture was associated with early prophylaxis.
Clinicians are reticent to begin timely VTE prophylaxis in critically injured patients. Patients are without VTE prophylaxis for half of all days within the first week of admission and this delay in the initiation of prophylaxis is associated with a threefold greater risk of VTE. The relative risks and benefits of early VTE prophylaxis need to be defined to better direct practice in this high-risk population.

1 Bookmark
 · 
203 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Soldiers with combat-related traumatic injury are at high risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) and often require regional anesthesia (RA) for pain control. We evaluated whether the recommended reduction in chemoprophylaxis in the presence of RA increases VTE rates. We collected data each hospital day for all soldiers admitted to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center following injury in Iraq or Afghanistan. We analyzed thromboprophylaxis and RA rates and assessed risk factors for VTE. We separated outcomes by whether RA was central neuraxial (cNAB) or peripheral blockade. Among 1,259 patients, 323 received RA for a median of 12 days (5-27 days). Those with RA were younger and more likely to have been injured in combat or by an improvised explosive device. They also received more packed red blood cell transfusions and had longer admissions. Patients with RA spent a greater percentage of days on enoxaparin 40 mg daily compared with those without RA (34.4% vs. 22.0%, p < 0.001) and more hospital days without any chemoprophylaxis (2.0 [1.0-6.0] vs. 1.0 [0.0-3.0], p < 0.001). Patients with cNAB were less likely to be placed on enoxaparin 30 mg twice daily. Patients with RA in place had mechanical prophylaxis ordered at the same rate as those without RA. Neither the presence of any RA nor cNAB specifically was associated with an increased risk for VTE. No bleeding or neurologic complications occurred in those receiving RA. Despite changes to chemoprophylaxis, soldiers wounded in combat who receive RA are not at increased risk for VTE. Therapeutic study, level III.
    The journal of trauma and acute care surgery. 01/2014; 76(1):152-9.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis reduces the incidence of venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients, it may increase the risk of devastating bleeding complications in neurosurgical patients. For this population, anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis remains controversial and randomized controlled studies are sparse. Our goal was to establish sufficient clinical equipoise to facilitate future research in this area. We conducted a survey of Canadian neurosurgeons and neurointensivists to better understand current practice. We developed a novel self-administered questionnaire on anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis for different neurosurgical subgroups using illustrative clinical scenarios. The instrument was evaluated for clinical sensibility by 20 nurses, neurosurgeons, and intensivists and then mailed to Canadian neurosurgeons (Canadian Neurosurgery Society) and intensivists (Canadian Critical Care Society). The response rate after 3 mailings was 50% for neurosurgeons (66/132) and 49% for intensivists (94/193). Most respondents reported use of anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis for neurosurgical patients, although the timing varied considerably. Use of anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis (ever) ranged from 60% for traumatic intracranial hemorrhage after decompressive craniotomy to 90% for traumatic spinal injury. The responses were comparable between specialties. Most Canadian physicians reported using anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis after neurosurgery, although practice patterns differed as to when and for whom. Future research should quantify the benefits and risks in relation to the time of initiation in different neurosurgical subgroups. Our results suggest there is equipoise regarding the use of anticoagulation thromboprophylaxis in neurosurgical patients. Therefore randomized controlled trials are justifiable and needed to guide clinicians.
    Journal of critical care 07/2009; 24(2):176-84. · 2.13 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) are at an increased risk of developing venous thromboembolic events (VTE). Pharmacological thromboprophylaxis (PTP) is routinely delayed because of concerns of exacerbating intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). The aim of this review is to examine the literature and assimilate suitable data to assess the safety and efficacy of PTP administered within 72 h in TBI patients. We systematically searched the literature for randomized controlled trials or cohort studies reporting on the timing of PTP in TBI. We dichotomized the timing of PTP to early and late at 72 h post-injury. The rates of VTE and ICH progression were our primary endpoints and were pooled using a fixed-effects model. A total of five retrospective cohort studies were included within the review including a total of 1624 patients, of which 713 received early PTP and 911 received late PTP. Within the early and late group there was a total of 43 and 106 VTE respectively, with a risk ratio of 0.52 (0.37, 0.73). Assessing safety, the relative risk of ICH progression in the early compared with the late PTP group was 0.64 (0.35, 1.14). Based on the available literature, we can tentatively conclude that early PTP (<72 h) reduces the risk of VTE without affecting progression of ICH. However, much work is yet to be done to better clarify ICH subtypes at risk of progression and the implementation of evidence-based guidelines backed up with randomized control trial level evidence.
    Journal of neurotrauma 03/2013; · 4.25 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

View
79 Downloads
Available from
May 30, 2014