Search

Abstract: Trauma patients are at an elevated risk for developing venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis. In the inpatient setting, prompt pharmacologic prophylaxis is utilized to prevent VTE. For patients with lower extremity fractures or limited mobility, VTE risk does not return to baseline levels postdischarge. Currently, there are limited data to guide postdischarge VTE prophylaxis in trauma patients. The goal of these postdischarge VTE prophylaxis guidelines are to identify patients at the highest risk of developing VTE after discharge and to offer pharmacologic prophylaxis strategies to limit this risk., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Abstract: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major issue in trauma patients. Without prophylaxis, the rate of deep venous thrombosis approaches 60% and even with chemoprophylaxis may be nearly 30%. Advances in VTE reduction are imperative to reduce the burden of this issue in the trauma population. Novel approaches in VTE prevention may include new medications, dosing regimens, and extending prophylaxis to the postdischarge phase of care. Standard dosing regimens of low-molecular-weight heparin are insufficient in trauma, shifting our focus toward alternative dosing strategies to improve prophylaxis. Mixed data suggest that anti-Xa-guided dosage, weight-based dosing, and thromboelastography are among these potential strategies. The concern for VTE in trauma does not end upon discharge, however. The risk for VTE in this population extends well beyond hospitalization. Variable extended thromboprophylaxis regimens using aspirin, low-molecular-weight heparin, and direct oral anticoagulants have been suggested to mitigate this prolonged VTE risk, but the ideal approach for outpatient VTE prevention is still unclear. As part of the 2022 Consensus Conference to Implement Optimal Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Trauma, a multidisciplinary array of participants, including physicians from multiple specialties, pharmacists, nurses, advanced practice providers, and patients met to attack these issues. This paper aims to review the current literature on novel approaches for optimizing VTE prevention in injured patients and identify research gaps that should be investigated to improve VTE rates in trauma., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is widely used for venous thromboembolism chemoprophylaxis following injury. However, unfractionated heparin (UFH) is a less expensive option. We compared LMWH and UFH for prevention of posttraumatic deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE)., Methods: Trauma patients 15 years or older with at least one administration of venous thromboembolism chemoprophylaxis at two level I trauma centers with similar DVT-screening protocols were identified. Center 1 administered UFH every 8 hours for chemoprophylaxis, and center 2 used twice-daily antifactor Xa-adjusted LMWH. Clinical characteristics and primary chemoprophylaxis agent were evaluated in a two-level logistic regression model. Primary outcome was incidence of DVT and PE., Results: There were 3,654 patients: 1,155 at center 1 and 2,499 at center 2. The unadjusted DVT rate at center 1 was lower than at center 2 (3.5% vs. 5.0%; p = 0.04); PE rates did not significantly differ (0.4% vs. 0.6%; p = 0.64). Patients at center 2 were older (mean, 50.3 vs. 47.3 years; p < 0.001) and had higher Injury Severity Scores (median, 10 vs. 9; p < 0.001), longer stays in the hospital (mean, 9.4 vs. 7.0 days; p < 0.001) and intensive care unit (mean, 3.0 vs. 1.3 days; p < 0.001), and a higher mortality rate (1.6% vs. 0.6%, p = 0.02) than patients at center 1. Center 1's patients received their first dose of chemoprophylaxis earlier than patients at center 2 (median, 1.0 vs. 1.7 days; p < 0.001). After risk adjustment and accounting for center effects, primary chemoprophylaxis agent was not associated with risk of DVT (odds ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-1.48; p = 0.949). Cost calculations showed that UFH was less expensive than LMWH., Conclusion: Primary utilization of UFH is not inferior to LMWH for posttraumatic DVT chemoprophylaxis and rates of PE are similar. Given that UFH is lower in cost, the choice of this chemoprophylaxis agent may have major economic implications., Level of Evidence: Prognostic and epidemiological, level II; Therapeutic, level III., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients on antithrombotic medications presenting with blunt trauma are at risk for delayed intracranial hemorrhage. We hypothesized that clinically significant delayed intracranial hemorrhage is rare in patients presenting on antithrombotic medications and therefore routine, repeat head computed tomography imaging is not a cost-effective practice to monitor for delayed intracranial hemorrhage., Methods: Patients presenting to our institution on antithrombotic (anticoagulant and antiplatelet) medications during a 5-y period from January 2014 through March 2019 who underwent a head computed tomography for blunt trauma were identified in our trauma registry. Patients with an initial negative head computed tomography underwent repeat imaging 6 h after their initial head computed tomography. Patient demographics, antithrombotic medication, international normalized ratio, Glasgow Coma Score, clinical change in neurologic status, and need for neurosurgical intervention were collected., Results: Our institution evaluated 1,676 patients on antithrombotic therapy with blunt trauma. The initial head computed tomography was negative in 1,377 patients (82.0%). Of those with an initial negative head computed tomography, 12 patients (0.9%) developed an intracranial hemorrhage that was identified on the second head computed tomography. Delayed intracranial hemorrhage included 6 patients with intraventricular hemorrhage, 3 with subdural hematoma, 2 with subarachnoid hemorrhage, and 1 with an intraparenchymal hemorrhage. None of the patients with delayed intracranial hemorrhage developed a change in neurologic status, required an intracranial pressure monitor, or underwent neurosurgical intervention. The estimated total direct cost of the negative head computed tomography scans was $926,247., Conclusion: Clinically significant delayed intracranial hemorrhage is rare in trauma patients on antithrombotic therapy, with an initial negative head computed tomography. Routine repeat head computed tomography imaging in patients with a negative scan on admission is not cost-effective., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Patients recovering from burn injury are at high risk of developing deep venous thrombosis (DVT). While 30-mg twice-daily enoxaparin is accepted as the standard prophylactic dose, recent evidence in injured patients suggests this dosing strategy may result in sub-optimal pharmacologic DVT prophylaxis. We hypothesized that standard enoxaparin dosing would result in inadequate DVT prophylaxis in burn patients., Methods: A retrospective review of an ABA-verified Burn center's registry from January 2012 - December 2016 identified patients with peak plasma anti-Xa levels to monitor the efficacy of pharmacologic DVT prophylaxis. Patients ≥18 years old were included if they received at least 3 doses of enoxaparin and had appropriately timed peak anti-Xa levels. We analyzed data including patient demographics, body weight, body mass index (BMI) and total body surface area burn (TBSA). Diagnosis of DVT was collected., Results: During the study period, 393 patients were screened with a plasma anti-Xa levels. Of the 157 patients that met inclusion criteria, 81 (51.6%) achieved target peak plasma anti-Xa levels (0.2-0.4 IU/mL) on standard 30-mg twice-daily prophylactic enoxaparin and 76 (48.4%) had sub-prophylactic levels. Sub-prophylactic patients were more likely to be male, have increased body weight and elevated BMI. 49 of the 76 sub-prophylactic patients received a dose-adjustment in order to reach target anti-Xa levels; 37 patients required 40mg twice-daily, 10 required 50mg twice-daily and 2 required 60mg twice-daily. The overall DVT rate was 3.8%., Conclusions: The current recommended prophylactic dose of 30-mg twice-daily enoxaparin is inadequate in many burn patients. Alternate dosing strategies should be considered to increase the number of burn patients achieving target prophylactic anti-Xa levels. Determining whether prophylactic enoxaparin dose adjustment decreases DVT rates in burn injured patients should be evaluated in future prospective trials., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd and ISBI. All rights reserved.)

Background: Empiric enoxaparin dosing is inadequate for most trauma patients, leading to below target initial anti-Xa levels and requiring dose adjustment for optimal venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. We hypothesize that patient factors affecting initial anti-Xa levels can be identified based on drug pharmacokinetics, allowing creation of a new dosing protocol that will provide a higher percentage of in-target (0.2-0.4 IU/mL) patients at initial anti-Xa level assessment., Methods: Records of 318 trauma patients were evaluated, and NONMEM and PSN software were used to analyze 11 variables for their effects on anti-Xa levels. Computer modeling was used to select a new dosing protocol, which was implemented on the trauma service as a quality improvement project. The first 145 patients appropriately enrolled were assessed for response and complications., Results: Only 29.5% of the pre-intervention group had initial anti-Xa levels in the appropriate prophylactic range (). Levels were most strongly influenced by patient weight, outweighing contributions from all other variables. A new regimen for initial dosing was therefore designed with three weight-defined categories for ease of administration. The post-intervention group showed an increase in in-target initial anti-Xa levels to 74.5% (p < 0.001), with a corresponding decrease in subprophylactic patients from 68.0% to 20.7%. There was an increase in supraprophylactic levels to 4.8%, but no supraprophylactic patients had hemorrhagic complications.(Figure is included in full-text article.) CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a new, categorized, weight-based enoxaparin dosing protocol was safe and significantly improved the percentage of trauma patients with in-target anti-Xa levels on initial assessment. Further studies are needed to determine whether such dosing decreases venous thromboembolism rates., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic/care management study, level II.