Iliofemoral venous injuries: an indication for prophylactic caval filter placement

Risk Factors for Venous Thromboembolism and Eventual Amputation in Traumatic Femoral and Iliac Vein Injuries: A Trauma Quality Improvement Program Analysis

BACKGROUND

Iliac and femoral venous injuries represent a challenging dilemma in trauma surgery with mixed results. Venous restoration of outflow (via repair or bypass) has been previously identified as having higher rates of VTE (venous thromboembolism) compared to ligation. We hypothesized that rates of VTE and eventual amputation were similar whether restoration of venous outflow vs ligation was performed at initial operation.

METHODS

Patients in the 2019-2021 National Trauma Data Bank with iliac and femoral vein injuries were abstracted and analyzed. The primary outcomes of interest were in-hospital lower extremity amputation and VTE.

RESULTS

A total of 2642 patients with operatively managed iliac and femoral vein injuries were identified VTE was found in 10.8% of patients. Multivariable logistic regression was performed and identified bowel injury, higher ISS, older age, open repair, and longer time to VTE prophylaxis initiation as independent predictors of VTE. Amputation was required in 4.2% of patients. Multivariable logistic regression identified arterial or nerve injury, femur or tibia fracture, venous ligation, percutaneous intervention, fasciotomy, bowel injury, and higher ISS as independent factors of amputation.

CONCLUSION

Venous restoration was not an independent predictor of VTE. Venous ligation on index operation was the only modifiable independent predictor of amputation identified on regression analysis.

Factors Contributing to Morbidity after Combined Arterial and Venous Lower Extremity Trauma

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of management of venous injury on clinical outcomes in patients with combined lower extremity arterial and venous trauma. Patients with common and external iliac, common and superficial femoral, and popliteal artery injuries were identified. Patients who underwent vein repair and those who received vein ligation were compared. The analysis was repeated for those patients who required secondary intervention for their arterial injury and those who did not require secondary intervention. Seventy patients were identified with both arterial and venous injuries: 40 underwent vein ligation and 30 received vein repair. There was no difference in ischemic time between patients undergoing vein repair compared with ligation. Vein ligation did not produce a higher incidence of muscle debridement (10% vs 15%, P = 0.72), necessity for secondary intervention (10% vs 7.5%, P = 0.99), or amputation (3.3% vs 7.5%, P = 0.63). Patients who required secondary intervention had a greater degree of shock on presentation (packed red blood cells (PRBC), 13 units vs 6 units, P = 0.02) and were more likely to require muscle debridement (50% vs 9%, P = 0.02) and amputation (33% vs 3%, P = 0.03). Vein ligation did not impact muscle ischemia or success of arterial repair in patients with combined venous and arterial trauma in the lower extremities. Patient morbidity after extremity vascular trauma is most related to degree of shock.

Venous thromboembolism after major venous injuries: Competing priorities

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) after major vascular injury (MVI) is particularly challenging because the competing risk of thrombosis and embolization after direct vessel injury must be balanced with risk of bleeding after surgical repair. We hypothesized that venous injuries, repair type, and intraoperative anticoagulation would influence VTE formation after MVI.

METHODS

A multi-institution, retrospective cohort study of consecutive MVI patients was conducted at three urban, Level I centers (2005-2013). Patients with MVI of the neck, torso, or proximal extremities (to elbows/knees) were included. Our primary study endpoint was the development of VTE (DVT or pulmonary embolism [PE]).

RESULTS

The 435 major vascular injury patients were primarily young (27 years) men (89%) with penetrating (84%) injuries. When patients with (n = 108) and without (n = 327) VTE were compared, we observed no difference in age, mechanism, extremity injury, tourniquet use, orthopedic and spine injuries, damage control, local heparinized saline, or vascular surgery consultation (all p > 0.05). VTE patients had greater Injury Severity Score (ISS) (17 vs. 12), shock indices (1 vs. 0.9), and more torso (58% vs. 35%) and venous (73% vs. 48%) injuries, but less often received systemic intraoperative anticoagulation (39% vs. 53%) or postoperative enoxaparin (47% vs. 61%) prophylaxis (all p < 0.05). After controlling for ISS, hemodynamics, injured vessel, intraoperative anticoagulation, and postoperative prophylaxis, multivariable analysis revealed venous injury was independently predictive of VTE (odds ratio, 2.7; p = 0.002). Multivariable analysis of the venous injuries subset (n = 237) then determined that only delay in starting VTE chemoprophylaxis (odds ratio, 1.3/day; p = 0.013) independently predicted VTE after controlling for ISS, hemodynamics, injured vessel, surgical subspecialty, intraoperative anticoagulation, and postoperative prophylaxis. Overall, 3.4% of venous injury patients developed PE, but PE rates were not related to their operative management (p = 0.72).

CONCLUSION

Patients with major venous injuries are at high risk for VTE, regardless of intraoperative management. Our results support the immediate initiation of postoperative chemoprophylaxis in patients with major venous injuries.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/care management, level IV.

Risk of pulmonary embolism with repair or ligation of major venous injury following penetrating trauma

BACKGROUND

There are many benefits of repair over ligation of major venous injuries (MVIs) following penetrating trauma, but the risk of pulmonary embolism (PE) is not well defined. We hypothesized that rates of PE are comparable between repair and ligation of MVI.

METHODS

All penetrating trauma patients with MVI requiring an operation from 2003 to 2012 (n = 158) were retrospectively reviewed. Propensity scores were based on a logistic regression model using patient and injury characteristics. A 1:1 fixed ratio nearest neighbor matching was performed to compare outcomes of the repair and ligation cohorts. Data are reported as mean ± SD if parametric, or median (interquartile range) if not, and compared using a t test, Mann-Whitney U-test, χ2, or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate.

RESULTS

The population was 89% male, age 32 ± 12 years, 74% gunshot wound, Injury Severity Score of 19 ± 13, length of stay of 9 (18) days, 3.8% PE, and a mortality of 21.5%. Repair was performed in 37% (n = 59), ligation was performed in 60% (n = 94), and 3% required both. With ligation versus repair, ligation patients were generally more critically injured; 48-hour survival was 78% versus 93% (p = 0.0083), initial Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score was 12 ± 5 versus 14 ± 3 (p = 0.003), initial base excess was -9 ± 8 versus -5 ± 5 mEq/L (p = 0.003), more packed red blood cells were transfused (12 (14) U vs. 9 (12) U; p = 0.032), and major arterial injury was more likely (86% vs. 42%, p < 0.001), but the PE rate was identical (5.9%) in propensity-matched cohorts. In those who developed a PE, all were receiving standard thromboprophylaxis.

CONCLUSION

Following penetrating trauma, the risk of PE between repair and ligation of MVI is comparable.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Epidemiologic study, level III.

Deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis in trauma patients

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) are known collectively as venous thromboembolism (VTE). Venous thromboembolic events are common and potentially life-threatening complications following trauma with an incidence of 5 to 63%. DVT prophylaxis is essential in the management of trauma patients. Currently, the optimal VTE prophylaxis strategy for trauma patients is unknown. Traditionally, pelvic and lower extremity fractures, head injury, and prolonged immobilization have been considered risk factors for VTE; however it is unclear which combination of risk factors defines a high-risk group. Modalities available for trauma patient thromboprophylaxis are classified into pharmacologic anticoagulation, mechanical prophylaxis, and inferior vena cava (IVC) filters. The available pharmacologic agents include low-dose heparin (LDH), low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), and factor Xa inhibitors. Mechanical prophylaxis methods include graduated compression stockings (GCSs), pneumatic compression devices (PCDs), and A-V foot pumps. IVCs are traditionally used in high risk patients in whom pharmacological prophylaxis is contraindicated. Both EAST and ACCP guidelines recommend primary use of LMWHs in trauma patients; however there are still controversies regarding the definitive VTE prophylaxis in trauma patients. Large randomized prospective clinical studies would be required to provide level I evidence to define the optimal VTE prophylaxis in trauma patients.

The effect of vein repair on the risk of venous thromboembolic events: a review of more than 100 traumatic military venous injuries

BACKGROUND

The management of venous trauma remains controversial. Critics of venous repair have cited an increased incidence of associated venous thromboembolic events with this management. We analyzed the current treatment of wartime venous injuries in United States military personnel in an effort to answer this question.

METHODS

From December 1, 2001, to October 31, 2005, all United States casualties with named venous injuries were evaluated. A retrospective review of a clinical database was performed on demographics, mechanism of injury, associated injuries, treatment, outcomes, and venous thromboembolic events. Data were analyzed using the Fisher exact test, analysis of variance, and logarithmic transformation.

RESULTS

During this 5-year period, 82 patients sustained 103 named venous injuries due to combat operations. All patients were male, with an average age of 27.9 years (range, 20.3-58.3 years). Blast injuries accounted for 54 venous injuries (65.9%), gunshot wounds for 25 (30.5%), and motor vehicle accidents for 3 (3.6%). The venous injury was isolated in 28 patients (34.1%), and 16 (19.5%) had multiple venous injuries. The venous injury in two patients was associated with acute phlegmasia, with fractures in 33 (40.2%), and 22 (28.1%) sustained neurologic deficits. Venous injuries were treated by ligation in 65 patients (63.1%) and by open surgical repair in 38 (36.9%). Postoperative extremity edema occurred in all patients irrespective of method of management. Thrombosis after venous repair occurred in six of the 38 cases (15.8%). Pulmonary emboli developed in three patients, one after open repair and two after ligation (P > .99).

CONCLUSION

In the largest review of military venous trauma in more than three decades, we found no difference in the incidence of venous thromboembolic complications between venous injuries managed by open repair vs ligation. Blast injuries of the extremities have caused most of the venous injuries. Ligation is the most common modality of treatment in combat zones. Long-term morbidity associated with venous injuries and their management will be assessed in future follow-up studies.

Safety and efficacy of vena cava filters in trauma patients

Pulmonary embolism (PE), due to its sudden onset, notoriously difficult diagnosis, unpredictable nature and often fatal outcome, remains one of the most feared complications in surgical practice. Trauma patients with multisystem injuries, extremity or pelvic fractures and head or spinal cord injuries often pose a significant dilemma for the surgeon because of the inability to use conventional measures such as anticoagulation therapy and compression devices. On the other hand, the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is high among trauma patients and the attendant risk of PE is an important cause of morbidity and mortality. Inferior vena cava (IVC) interruption by placement of diverse filtering devices has evolved over the past three decades. With the use of these devices, the risk of PE has been reduced dramatically. However, variable rates of complications are reported from their use. In this study, we review all the available data on IVC filter placement in trauma patients and we discuss the potential complications of IVC filters in order to understand better the risk/benefit ratio of their use.

Thromboembolism after trauma: an analysis of 1602 episodes from the American College of Surgeons National Trauma Data Bank

OBJECTIVE

Venous thromboembolic events (VTE) are potentially preventable causes of morbidity and mortality after injury. We hypothesized that the current clinical incidence of VTE is relatively low and that VTE risk factors could be identified.

METHODS

We queried the ACS National Trauma Data Bank for episodes of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and/or pulmonary embolism (PE). We examined demographic data, VTE risk factors, outcomes, and VTE prophylaxis measures in patients admitted to the 131 contributing trauma centers.

RESULTS

From a total of 450,375 patients, 1602 (0.36%) had a VTE (998 DVT, 522 PE, 82 both), for an incidence of 0.36%. Ninety percent of patients with VTE had 1 of the 9 risk factors commonly associated with VTE. Six risk factors found to be independently significant in multivariate logistic regression for VTE were age > or = 40 years (odds ratio [OR] 2.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.74 to 2.32), lower extremity fracture with AIS > or = 3 (OR 1.92; 95% CI 1.64 to 2.26), head injury with AIS > or = 3 (OR 1.24; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.46), ventilator days >3 (OR 8.08; 95% CI 6.86 to 9.52), venous injury (OR 3.56; 95% CI 2.22 to 5.72), and a major operative procedure (OR 1.53; 95% CI 1.30 to 1.80). Vena cava filters were placed in 3,883 patients, 86% as PE prophylaxis, including in 410 patients without an identifiable risk factor for VTE.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who need VTE prophylaxis after trauma can be identified based on risk factors. The use of prophylactic vena cava filters should be re-examined.

Prophylactic inferior vena cava filters in trauma patients at high risk: follow-up examination and risk/benefit assessment

PURPOSE

The efficacy of prophylactic inferior vena cava filters in selected trauma patients at high risk has come into question in relation to risk/benefit assessment. To evaluate the usefulness of prophylactic inferior vena cava filters, we reviewed our experience and overall complication rate.

METHODS

From February 1991 to April 1998, the trauma registry identified 7333 admissions. One hundred eighty-seven prophylactic inferior vena cava filters were inserted. After the exclusion of 27 trauma-related deaths (none caused by thromboembolism), 160 patients were eligible for the study. The eligible patients were contacted and asked to complete a survey and return for a follow-up examination to include physical examination, Doppler scan study, vena cava duplex scanning, and fluoroscopic examination. The patients' hospital charts were reviewed in detail. The indications for prophylactic inferior vena cava filter insertion included prolonged immobilization with multiple injuries, closed head injury, pelvic fracture, spine fracture, multiple long bone fracture, and attending discretion.

RESULTS

Of the 160 eligible patients, 127 were men, the mean age was 40.3 years, and the mean injury severity score was 26.1. The mean day of insertion was hospital day 6. Seventy-five patients (47%) returned for evaluation, with a mean follow-up period of 19.4 months after implantation (range, 7 to 60 months). On survey, patients had leg swelling (n = 27), lower extremity numbness (n = 14), shortness of breath (n = 9), chest pain (n = 7), and skin changes (n = 4). All the survey symptoms appeared to be attributable to patient injuries and not related to prophylactic inferior vena cava filter. Physical examination results revealed edema (n = 12) and skin changes (n = 2). Ten Doppler scan studies had results that were suggestive of venous insufficiency, nine of which had histories of deep vein thrombosis. With duplex scanning, 93% (70 of 75) of the vena cavas were visualized, and all were patent. Only 52% (39 of 75) of the prophylactic inferior vena cava filters were visualized with duplex scanning. All the prophylactic inferior vena cava filters were visualized with fluoroscopy, with no evidence of filter migration. Of the total 187 patients, 24 (12.8%) had deep vein thrombosis develop after prophylactic inferior vena cava filter insertion, including 10 of 75 (13.3%) in the follow-up group, and one patient had a nonfatal pulmonary embolism despite filter placement. Filter insertion complications occurred in 1.6% (three of 187) of patients and included one groin hematoma, one arteriovenous fistula, and one misplacement in the common iliac vein.

CONCLUSION

This study's results show that prophylactic inferior vena cava filters can be placed safely with low morbidity and no attributable long-term disabilities. In this patient population with a high risk of pulmonary embolism, prophylactic inferior vena cava filters offered a 99.5% protection rate, with only one of 187 patients having a nonfatal pulmonary embolism.

Pulmonary Embolus after Vena Cava Filter Placement

This report characterizes risk factors in patients who suffer pulmonary embolus (PE) after insertion of vena caval filter (VCF) and formulates an organized diagnostic and therapeutic plan of management. Three hundred eighteen patients were included in a review of patients undergoing insertion of VCF from 1989 to 1995. Ten patients (six men and four women, ages 25–72 years) from this group (3.1%) experienced PE after VCF insertion. Risk factors for deep venous thrombosis were documented in these ten patients. Venacavography was performed after diagnosis of PE. Thrombus length measured from the apex of the filter was used to determine further therapy. Thrombus 5 cm or greater in length was treated with a second VCF (VCF-2). Smaller clots were treated with anticoagulation (AC). All patients treated with AC underwent repeat vena caval study (CT scan or venacavagram) 10 days to 18 months after treatment. PE occurred from 8 days to 5.5 years after original VCF insertion. Five patients suffered PE longer than 6 months (range, 21–66 months; mean, 39 months) after VCF insertion. Venacavagrams demonstrated thrombus in all ten patients with PE. Six patients were treated with VCF-2 and four patients with AC. Dissolution of thrombus was seen on follow-up in all patients given AC. All 10 patients harbored at least two risk factors for deep venous thrombosis. Malignancy was found in only two patients. Five patients were found to have procoagulant states characterized by decreased levels of anti-thrombin III or protein C or S. No postoperative deaths or early recurrent PE occurred. One patient experienced another PE 5 years after treatment with AC when she discontinued warfarin. Contraindications to AC appeared to be self-limited, and all patients were discharged on warfarin. No significant bleeding occurred during early follow-up. Our findings confirm the reliability and low complication rate for VCF. Patients experiencing PE after insertion of VCF mandate an aggressive diagnostic approach that should include venacavography and a search for identifiable risk factors including procoagulant state. Treatment with AC and insertion of a second VCF both give favorable results. All patients appear to benefit from short- or long-term warfarin therapy, and contraindications to AC frequently are self-limited. Therapy based on clot size warrants further study.

Inferior vena caval filter use in U.S. trauma centers: a practitioner survey

Questionnaires were mailed to 620 U.S. "trauma surgeons" to determine a consensus regarding indications for inferior vena caval (IVC) filter placement; 210 (34%) responded. Eighty-seven percent of respondents practiced in Level I trauma centers; 78% were in urban areas and 75% reported more than 1,000 trauma admissions per year. One-half (52%) of those responding were "trauma directors" at their centers. Filter insertion was done by radiologists at 81% of centers, by trauma surgeons at 34%, by vascular surgeons at 33%, and by general surgeons at 13%. Each month, 60% of trauma centers inserted zero or one filter, whereas 27% inserted two to three filters. Complications per year were reported as one or fewer in 85% of trauma centers. Respondents agreed that "absolute indications" for inserting IVC filters were pulmonary embolism while anticoagulated (93%), deep venous thrombosis present and anticoagulation contraindicated (89%), and free-floating ileofemoral thrombus by venogram (54%) and by duplex imaging (45%). "Relative indications" for placement were deep venous thrombosis by duplex imaging (41%) or by venogram (38%), spinal cord injury (40%), pelvic fractures (39%), multiple lower-extremity fractures (29%), concurrent cancer (19%), prolonged bed rest (14%), and obesity (10%). The permanent nature of the filter affected its rate of application. For example, potential removability would significantly (p < 0.01) increase prophylactic placement from 29 to 53% in the patient with multiple lower-extremity fractures. Only 12% considered sepsis and 10% young age as contraindications to IVC filter insertion. Contraindications and complications were few, yet frequency of use was surprisingly low. Radiologists insert the filter more than twice as often as surgeons.