Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis practice and its association with outcomes in Australia and New Zealand burns patients

Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in Rehabilitation: A Review and Practice Suggestions

ABSTRACT

Venous thromboembolism is a frequent complication of acute hospital care, and this extends to inpatient rehabilitation. The timely use of appropriate thromboprophylaxis in patients who are at risk is a strong, evidence-based patient safety priority that has reduced clinically important venous thromboembolism, associated mortality and costs of care. While there has been extensive research on optimal approaches to venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in acute care, there is a paucity of high-quality evidence specific to patients in the rehabilitation setting, and there are no clinical practice guidelines that make recommendations for (or against) thromboprophylaxis across the broad spectrum of rehabilitation patients. Herein, we provide an evidence-informed review of the topic with practice suggestions. We conducted a series of literature searches to assess the risks of venous thromboembolism and its prevention related to inpatient rehabilitation as well as in major rehabilitation subgroups. Mobilization alone does not eliminate the risk of venous thromboembolism after another thrombotic insult. Low molecular weight heparins and direct oral anticoagulants are the principal current modalities of thromboprophylaxis. Based on the literature, we make suggestions for venous thromboembolism prevention and include an approach for consideration by rehabilitation units that can be aligned with local practice.

The Association Between the Timing of Initiation of Pharmacologic Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis with Outcomes in Burns Patients

Hospitalized burn patients are at increased risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Guidelines regarding thromboprophylaxis in burn patients are unclear. This study aims to compare the outcomes of early versus late thromboprophylaxis initiation in burn patients. In this 3-year analysis of 2017-2019 ACS-TQIP, adult(18-64years) burn patients were identified after applying inclusion/exclusion criteria and stratified based on timing of initiation of VTE prophylaxis: Early(<24 hours of admission); Late(>24 hours). Outcomes were deep venous thrombosis(DVT), pulmonary embolism(PE), unplanned return to operating room (OR), unplanned intensive care unit (ICU) admission, post-prophylaxis packed red blood cells (PRBC) transfusion, and mortality. Nine thousand two hundred and seventy-two patients were identified. Overall, median age was 41years, 71.5% were male, and median[IQR] injury severity score was 3[1-8]. 53% had second-degree burns, and 80% had less than 40% of total body surface area affected. Median time to thromboprophylaxis initiation was 11[6-20.6]hours. Overall VTE rate was 0.9% (DVT-0.7%, PE-0.2%). On univariable analysis, early prophylaxis group had lower rates of DVT(0.6% vs 1.1%, P = .025), and PE(0.1% vs 0.6%, P < .001). On multivariable regression, late prophylaxis was associated with 1.8 times higher odds of DVT (aOR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.04-3.11, P = .03), 4.8 times higher odds of PE(aOR = 4.8, 95% CI = 1.9-11.9, P < .001), and 2 times higher odds of unplanned ICU admission(aOR = 2.1, 95% CI = 1.4-3.1, P < .001). Furthermore, early thromboprophylaxis was not associated with increased odds of post-prophylaxis PRBC transfusion(aOR = 1.1, 95% CI = 0.8-1.4, P = .4), and mortality(aOR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.4-1.1, P = .13). Early VTE prophylaxis in burn patients is associated with decreased rates of DVT and PE, without increasing the risk of bleeding and mortality. VTE prophylaxis may be initiated within 24 hours of admission to reduce VTE in this high-risk patient population.

Surviving Sepsis After Burn Campaign

INTRODUCTION

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign was developed to improve outcomes for all patients with sepsis. Despite sepsis being the primary cause of death after thermal injury, burns have always been excluded from the Surviving Sepsis efforts. To improve sepsis outcomes in burn patients, an international group of burn experts developed the Surviving Sepsis After Burn Campaign (SSABC) as a testable guideline to improve burn sepsis outcomes.

METHODS

The International Society for Burn Injuries (ISBI) reached out to regional or national burn organizations to recommend members to participate in the program. Two members of the ISBI developed specific "patient/population, intervention, comparison and outcome" (PICO) questions that paralleled the 2021 Surviving Sepsis Campaign [1]. SSABC participants were asked to search the current literature and rate its quality for each topic. At the Congress of the ISBI, in Guadalajara, Mexico, August 28, 2022, a majority of the participants met to create "statements" based on the literature. The "summary statements" were then sent to all members for comment with the hope of developing an 80% consensus. After four reviews, a consensus statement for each topic was created or "no consensus" was reported.

RESULTS

The committee developed sixty statements within fourteen topics that provide guidance for the early treatment of sepsis in burn patients. These statements should be used to improve the care of sepsis in burn patients. The statements should not be considered as "static" comments but should rather be used as guidelines for future testing of the best treatments for sepsis in burn patients. They should be updated on a regular basis.

CONCLUSION

Members of the burn community from the around the world have developed the Surviving Sepsis After Burn Campaign guidelines with the goal of improving the outcome of sepsis in burn patients.

Mortality data from omission of early thromboprophylaxis in critically ill patients highlights the importance of an individualised diagnosis-related approach

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis is effective in reducing VTE events, however, its impact on mortality is unclear. We examined the association between omission of VTE prophylaxis within the first 24 h after intensive care unit (ICU) admission and hospital mortality.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from the Australian New Zealand Intensive Care Society Adult Patient Database. Data were obtained for adult admissions between 2009 and 2020. Mixed effects logistic regression models were used to evaluate the association between omission of early VTE prophylaxis and hospital mortality.

RESULTS

Of the 1,465,020 ICU admissions, 107,486 (7.3%) did not receive any form of VTE prophylaxis within the first 24 h after ICU admission without documented contraindication. Omission of early VTE prophylaxis was independently associated with 35% increased odds of in-hospital mortality (odds ratios (OR): 1.35; 95% CI: 1.31-1.41). The associations between omission of early VTE prophylaxis and mortality varied by admission diagnosis. In patients diagnosed with stroke (OR: 1.26, 95% CI: 1.05-1.52), cardiac arrest (OR: 1.85, 95% CI: 1.65-2.07) or intracerebral haemorrhage (OR: 1.48, 95% CI: 1.19-1.84), omission of VTE prophylaxis was associated with increased risk of mortality, but not in patients diagnosed with subarachnoid haemorrhage or head injury.

CONCLUSIONS

Omission of VTE prophylaxis within the first 24 h after ICU admission was independently associated with increased risk of mortality that varied by admission diagnosis. Consideration of early thromboprophylaxis may be required for patients with stroke, cardiac arrest and intracerebral haemorrhage but not in those with subarachnoid haemorrhage or head injury. The findings highlight the importance of individualised diagnosis-related thromboprophylaxis benefit-harm assessments.

Adherence with early allied health assessments in specialist burn services

Appropriate multidisciplinary allied health assessment during the early stages of admission following burn injury positively influences recovery and quality of life. Variation in allied health care may affect patient outcomes. We aimed to explore adherence in providing early allied health assessments in accordance with local parameters. Associations between the number of assessments and hospital length of stay (LOS) were also explored. The Burns Registry of Australia and New Zealand was queried for adult (≥ 16 years) burn injured patients admitted to a specialist burn service for > 48 hours between July 2016 and June 2020. Quality indicator data relating to allied health assessment processes were examined; patients were grouped according to the number of assessments they received within 48 hours of admission. Of the 5789 patients included in the study, 5598 (97%) received at least one allied health assessment within 48 hours of admission and 3976 (69%) received all three assessments. A greater proportion of patients who received no assessments were admitted on a Saturday. Patients receiving three assessments had more severe injuries compared to their counterparts who received fewer assessments. Hospital LOS was not associated with the number of allied health assessments during an acute admission following burn injury after accounting for confounding factors, particularly TBSA. Multidisciplinary allied health teams provide routine burn care to Australian and New Zealand burns patients at a consistent level. Further, this study provides evidence that allied health input is prioritised towards patients with increasing severity of burn injury, playing an integral role in early rehabilitation.

Burn Registries State of Affairs: A Scoping review

Registry science allows for the interpretation of disease-specific patient data from secondary databases. It can be utilized to understand disease and injury, answer research questions, and engender benchmarking of quality-of-care indicators. Numerous burn registries exist globally, however, their contributions to burn care have not been summarized. The objective of this study is to characterize the available literature on burn registries. The authors conducted a scoping review, having registered the protocol a priori. A thorough search of the English literature, including grey literature, was carried out. Publications of all study designs were eligible for inclusion provided they utilized, analyzed, and/or critiqued data from a burn registry. Three hundred twenty studies were included, encompassing 16 existing burn registries. The most frequently used registries for peer-reviewed publications were the American Burn Association Burn Registry, Burn Model System National Database, and the Burns Registry of Australia and New Zealand. The main limitations of existing registries are the inclusion of patients admitted to burn centers only, deficient capture of outpatient and long-term outcome data, lack of data standardization across registries, and the paucity of studies on burn prevention and quality improvement methodology. Registries are an invaluable source of information for research, delivery of care planning, and benchmarking of processes and outcomes. Efforts should be made to stimulate other jurisdictions to build burn registries and for existing registries to be improved through data linkage with administrative databases, and by standardizing one international minimum dataset, in order to maximize the potential of registry science in burn care.