Timing and choice of systemic anticoagulation in the setting of extremity arterial injury repair.

Purpose: The role of perioperative anticoagulation in the setting of peripheral arterial injury remains unclear. We hypothesized that early initiation of anticoagulation is associated with a reduced amputation rate without increasing bleeding complications.
Methods: Using the 2016-2019 ACS-TQIP database, adult patients with upper and lower extremity vascular injuries who underwent open arterial repair and received anticoagulation were included. Patients were divided into two groups: (1) early venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (≤ 24 h) and (2) late prophylaxis (> 24 h) following arterial repair. The primary outcomes were the rates of limb amputation and bleeding complications. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the impact of timing and type of anticoagulation on the rates of limb amputation and bleeding complications.
Results: 4379 patients were included, and 83.9% were males. 68.1% of patients received early anticoagulation, whereas 31.9% received late thromboprophylaxis. Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) was used in 62.0% of patients, and unfractionated heparin (UFH) was administered in 34.3% of patients. Multivariable analysis showed that late initiation of thromboprophylaxis (OR = 1.69 [1.16-2.45], p = 0.006) and use of UFH (OR = 2.61 [1.80-3.79], p < 0.001) were associated with increased rate of amputation. Early initiation of anticoagulation (OR = 2.16 [1.63-2.85], p < 0.001) was associated with increased risk of bleeding complications requiring blood transfusions. Similarly, the use of UFH was associated with a higher rate of bleeding events compared to LWMH (OR = 2.61, [1.80-3.79], p < 0.001).
Conclusion: Patients with the operative repair of arterial injuries receiving early perioperative anticoagulation demonstrated an improved limb salvage outcome than those who received late thromboprophylaxis. Our data also suggest that early initiation of prophylaxis may be associated with increased bleeding risk, which may be attenuated using LMWH compared to UFH.
(© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany.)