Is early chemical thromboprophylaxis in patients with solid organ injury a solid decision?

A comparison of adult and pediatric guidelines for the management of blunt splenic trauma

The management of blunt splenic trauma varies between children and adults, with disparate rates of splenectomy and angioembolization. This practice variation can be explained by some of the most recently published guidelines by the American Pediatric Surgical Association (APSA) and the Western Trauma Association (WTA). This narrative review compares these guidelines, and the evidence behind them. A comparison of the guidelines published in 2023 by WTA and APSA was undertaken, supplemented by recommendations in the 2016 WTA & 2015 ATOMAC guidelines. The publications that underpinned the guidelines were also examined. The recommendations from each guideline were summarized and similarities & differences noted, focusing on initial evaluation and resuscitation, the role of imaging, management strategies, hospitalization and follow up. While both guidelines highlight standardized initial resuscitation, subsequent management of both stable and unstable patients is different: guided by CT findings and hemodynamic status in adults and hemodynamic status alone in children. In stable adults, the grade of injury dictates the use of angioembolization, a therapeutic intervention rarely used in children. Differences with regards to ICU admission, follow up investigations and the use of thromoprophylaxis, also underscore the different management strategies in each cohort. It is hoped that this comparison lays the foundation for further exploration of how a unified guideline may be developed, acknowledging the need for nuanced care and resource optimization.

Optimal Timing for Initiation of Thromboprophylaxis After Hepatic Angioembolization

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the optimal timing of thromboprophylaxis (TPX) initiation after hepatic angioembolization in trauma patients.

BACKGROUND

TPX after hepatic trauma is complicated by the risk of bleeding, but the relative risk after hepatic angioembolization is unknown.

METHODS

Patients who underwent hepatic angioembolization within 24 hours were retrospectively identified from the 2017 to 2019 American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Project data sets. Cases with <24-hour length of stay and other serious injuries were excluded. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) included deep venous thrombosis and PE. Bleeding complications included hepatic surgery, additional angioembolization, or blood transfusion after TPX initiation. Differences were tested with univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Of 1550 patients, 1370 had initial angioembolization. Bleeding complications were higher in those with TPX initiation within 24 hours (20.0% vs 8.9%, P <0.001) and 48 hours (13.2% vs 8.4%, P =0.013). However, VTE was higher in those with TPX initiation after 48 hours (6.3% vs 3.3%, P =0.025). In the 180 patients with hepatic surgery before angioembolization, bleeding complications were higher in those with TPX initiation within 24 hours (72% vs 20%, P <0.001), 48 hours (50% vs 17%, P <0.001), and 72 hours (37% vs 14%, P =0.001). Moreover, deep venous thrombosis was higher in those with TPX initiation after 96 hours (14.3% vs 3.1%, P =0.023).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to address the timing of TPX after hepatic angioembolization in a national sample of trauma patients. For these patients, initiation of TPX at 48 to 72 hours achieves the safest balance in minimizing bleeding while reducing the risk of VTE.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III-retrospective cohort study.

Contemporary management of major haemorrhage in critical care

Haemorrhagic shock is frequent in critical care settings and responsible for a high mortality rate due to multiple organ dysfunction and coagulopathy. The management of critically ill patients with bleeding and shock is complex, and treatment of these patients must be rapid and definitive. The administration of large volumes of blood components leads to major physiological alterations which must be mitigated during and after bleeding. Early recognition of bleeding and coagulopathy, understanding the underlying pathophysiology related to specific disease states, and the development of individualised management protocols are important for optimal outcomes. This review describes the contemporary understanding of the pathophysiology of various types of coagulopathic bleeding; the diagnosis and management of critically ill bleeding patients, including major haemorrhage protocols and post-transfusion management; and finally highlights recent areas of opportunity to better understand optimal management strategies for managing bleeding in the intensive care unit (ICU).

Renal vein thrombosis in the course of non-operative treatment of kidney trauma: A rare case report

INTRODUCTION

Venous thromboembolism is widely recognized as a life-threatening complication in trauma, yet renal vein thrombosis (RVT) following trauma is particularly rare.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

We report a case of a 67-year-old man who was brought to the emergency department after falling down a 14-step staircase at home which presented right kidney trauma (parenchyma laceration with a perirenal hematoma) on computed tomography, and hematuria. Considering the patient's hemodynamic stability, a non-operative treatment was initiated, and the patient was referred to the intensive care unit for close observation. On post-trauma day 3, a repeated CT revealed right renal vein thrombosis. After evaluation, it was decided to maintain prophylactic anticoagulation doses of enoxaparin (40 mg/day) due to the elevated risk of bleeding in high-grade renal trauma and planned an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement. In the following days, the hematuria resolved spontaneously and an IVC filter was placed. The patient progressed with no complaints, spontaneous diuresis, improvement in laboratory parameters, and cardiovascular stability, which led to his discharge on day 12 with rivaroxaban 10 mg/day. The patient was successfully treated with a non-operative approach, and the RVT disappeared after 35 days.

DISCUSSION

Post-traumatic renal vein thrombosis is a rare occurrence, and due to the infrequent nature of these events, specific management guidelines are not fully established, particularly when thrombosis is confirmed in an acutely injured patient.

CONCLUSION

Conservative therapy seems to play a meaningful role in trauma-related renal vein thrombosis treatment.

When is it safe to start venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after blunt solid organ injury? A prospective American Association for the Surgery of Trauma multi-institutional trial

BACKGROUND

The optimal time to initiate venous thromboembolism (VTE) chemoprophylaxis (VTEp) after blunt solid organ injury remains controversial, as VTE mitigation must be balanced against bleeding promulgation. Evidence from primarily small, retrospective, single-center work suggests that VTEp ≤48 hours is safe and effective. This study was undertaken to validate this clinical practice.

METHODS

Blunt trauma patients presenting to 19 participating trauma centers in North America were screened over a 1-year study period beginning between August 1 and October 1, 2021. Inclusions were age older than 15 years; ≥1 liver, spleen, or kidney injury; and initial nonoperative management. Exclusions were transfers, emergency department death, pregnancy, and concomitant bleeding disorder/anticoagulation/antiplatelet medication. A priori power calculation stipulated the need for 1,158 patients. Time of VTEp initiation defined study groups: Early (≤48 hours of admission) versus Late (>48 hours). Bivariate and multivariable analyses compared outcomes.

RESULTS

In total, 1,173 patients satisfied the study criteria with 571 liver (49%), 557 spleen (47%), and 277 kidney injuries (24%). The median patient age was 34 years (interquartile range, 25-49 years), and 67% (n = 780) were male. The median Injury Severity Score was 22 (interquartile range, 14-29) with Abbreviated Injury Scale Abdomen score of 3 (interquartile range, 2-3), and the median American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grade of solid organ injury was 2 (interquartile range, 2-3). Early VTEp patients (n = 838 [74%]) had significantly lower rates of VTE (n = 28 [3%] vs. n = 21 [7%], p = 0.008), comparable rates of nonoperative management failure (n = 21 [3%] vs. n = 12 [4%], p = 0.228), and lower rates of post-VTEp blood transfusion (n = 145 [17%] vs. n = 71 [23%], p = 0.024) when compared with Late VTEp patients (n = 301 [26%]). Late VTEp was independently associated with VTE (odd ratio, 2.251; p = 0.046).

CONCLUSION

Early initiation of VTEp was associated with significantly reduced rates of VTE with no increase in bleeding complications. Venous thromboembolism chemoprophylaxis initiation ≤48 hours is therefore safe and effective and should be the standard of care for patients with blunt solid organ injury.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic and Care Management; Level III.

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.

Venous thromboembolic disease in admitted blunt trauma patients: what matters?

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolic events (VTE) are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality following traumatic injury. We examined demographic characteristics, chemoprophylaxis, and outcomes of VTE patients with blunt trauma requiring hospitalization.

METHODS

A retrospective review of adult blunt trauma hospitalizations with and without VTE between 2012 and 2019 was conducted. Deaths in the emergency department were excluded. Univariate and multivariable analyses, including machine learning classification algorithms for VTE, were performed.

RESULTS

Of 10,926 admitted adult blunt trauma patients, 177 had VTE events. VTE events occurred at a median of 6 [IQR 3-11] days, with 7.3% occurring within 1 day of admission. VTE patients were more often male, and more often underwent surgery. They had higher injury severity as well as longer intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay. While VTE occurred throughout the spectrum of injury severity, 27.7% had low injury severity (ISS < = 9). In multivariable analyses, both heparin and enoxaparin had reduced adjusted odds ratios for VTE.

CONCLUSION

Approximately 7.3% of VTE events occurred within one day of admission. A substantial proportion of VTE events occurred in patients with low injury severity (ISS < = 9). Subcutaneous unfractionated heparin and enoxaparin chemoprophylaxis were both inversely associated with VTE. These findings underscore the need for vigilance for VTE identification in blunt trauma patients throughout their hospitalization and VTE prevention efforts.

Saudi Critical Care Society clinical practice guidelines on the prevention of venous thromboembolism in adults with trauma: reviewed for evidence-based integrity and endorsed by the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine

BACKGROUND

To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention in adults with trauma in inpatient settings.

METHODS

The Saudi Critical Care Society (SCCS) sponsored guidelines development and included 22 multidisciplinary panel members who completed conflict-of-interest forms. The panel developed and answered structured guidelines questions. For each question, the literature was searched for relevant studies. To summarize treatment effects, meta-analyses were conducted or updated. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then the evidence-to-decision (EtD) framework was used to generate recommendations. Recommendations covered the following prioritized domains: timing of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis initiation in non-operative blunt solid organ injuries; isolated blunt traumatic brain injury (TBI); isolated blunt spine trauma or fracture and/or spinal cord injury (SCI); type and dose of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis; mechanical VTE prophylaxis; routine duplex ultrasonography (US) surveillance; and inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs).

RESULTS

The panel issued 12 clinical practice recommendations-one, a strong recommendation, 10 weak, and one with no recommendation due to insufficient evidence. The panel suggests starting early pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis for non-operative blunt solid organ injuries, isolated blunt TBIs, and SCIs. The panel suggests using low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) over unfractionated heparin (UFH) and suggests either intermediate-high dose LMWH or conventional dosing LMWH. For adults with trauma who are not pharmacologic candidates, the panel strongly recommends using mechanical VTE prophylaxis with intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC). The panel suggests using either combined VTE prophylaxis with mechanical and pharmacologic methods or pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis alone. Additionally, the panel suggests routine bilateral lower extremity US in adults with trauma with elevated risk of VTE who are ineligible for pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis and suggests against the routine placement of prophylactic IVCFs. Because of insufficient evidence, the panel did not issue any recommendation on the use of early pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis in adults with isolated blunt TBI requiring neurosurgical intervention.

CONCLUSION

The SCCS guidelines for VTE prevention in adults with trauma were based on the best available evidence and identified areas for further research. The framework may facilitate adaptation of recommendations by national/international guideline policymakers.

Efficacy and Safety of Anti-Xa-Guided Versus Fixed Dosing of Low Molecular Weight Heparin for Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Trauma Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Trauma patients are at high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). We summarize the comparative efficacy and safety of anti-Xa-guided versus fixed dosing for low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) for the prevention of VTE in adult trauma patients.

METHODS

We searched Medline and Embase from inception through June 1, 2022. We included randomized controlled trials or observational studies comparing anti-Xa-guided versus fixed dosing of LMWH for thromboprophylaxis in adult trauma patients. We incorporated primary data from 2 large observational cohorts. We pooled effect estimates using a random-effects model. We assessed risk of bias using the ROBINS-I tool for observational studies and assessed certainty of findings using GRADE methodology.

RESULTS

We included 15 observational studies involving 10,348 patients. No randomized controlled trials were identified. determined that, compared to fixed LMWH dosing, anti-Xa-guided dosing may reduce deep vein thrombosis [adjusted odds ratio (aOR); 0.52, 95% CI: 0.40-0.69], pulmonary embolism (aOR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.30-0.78) or any VTE (aOR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.42-0.69), though all estimates are based on low certainty evidence. There was an uncertain effect on mortality (aOR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.85-1.32) and bleeding events (aOR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.50-1.39), limited by serious imprecision. We used several sensitivity and subgroup analyses to confirm the validity of our assumptions.

CONCLUSION

Anti-Xa-guided dosing may be more effective than fixed dosing for prevention of deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and VTE for adult trauma patients. These promising findings justify the need for a high-quality randomized study with the potential to deliver practice changing results.

Proceedings from the 2022 Consensus Conference to Implement Optimal Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Trauma

ABSTRACT

On May 4 and 5, 2022, a meeting of multidisciplinary stakeholders in the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) after trauma was convened by the Coalition for National Trauma Research, funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health, and hosted by the American College of Surgeons in Chicago, Illinois. This consensus conference gathered more than 40 in-person and 80 virtual attendees, including trauma surgeons, other physicians, thrombosis experts, nurses, pharmacists, researchers, and patient advocates. The objectives of the meeting were twofold: (1) to review and summarize the present state of the scientific evidence regarding VTE prevention strategies in injured patients and (2) to develop consensus on future priorities in VTE prevention implementation and research gaps.To achieve these objectives, the first part of the conference consisted of talks from physician leaders, researchers, clinical champions, and patient advocates to summarize the current state of knowledge of VTE pathogenesis and prevention in patients with major injury. Video recordings of all talks and accompanying slides are freely available on the conference website ( https://www.nattrauma.org/research/research-policies-templates-guidelines/vte-conference/ ). Following this curriculum, the second part of the conference consisted of a series of small-group breakout sessions on topics potentially requiring future study. Through this process, research priorities were identified, and plans of action to develop and undertake future studies were defined.The 2022 Consensus Conference to Implement Optimal VTE Prophylaxis in Trauma answered the National Trauma Research Action Plan call to define a course for future research into preventing thromboembolism after trauma. A multidisciplinary group of clinical champions, physicians, scientists, and patients delineated clear objectives for future investigation to address important, persistent key knowledge gaps. The series of papers from the conference outlines the consensus based on the current literature and a roadmap for research to answer these unanswered questions.

Timing of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis initiation after injury: Findings from the consensus conference to implement optimal VTE prophylaxis in trauma

ABSTRACT

Optimizing prophylaxis against venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) is a critical issue in the care of injured patients. Although these patients are at significant risk of developing VTE, they also present competing concerns related to exacerbation of bleeding from existing injuries. Especially after high-risk trauma, including injuries to the abdominal solid organs, brain, and spine, trauma providers must delineate the time period in which VTE prophylaxis successfully reduces VTE rates without encouraging bleeding. Although existing data are primarily retrospective in nature and further study is required, literature supports early VTE chemoprophylaxis initiation even for severely injured patients. Early initiation is most frequently defined as <48 hours from admission but varies from <24 hours to 72 hours and occasionally refers to time from initial trauma. Prior to chemical VTE prophylaxis initiation in patients at risk for bleeding, an observation period is necessary during which injuries must show themselves to be hemostatic, either clinically or radiographically. In the future, prospective examination of optimal timing of VTE prophylaxis is necessary. Further study of specific subsets of trauma patients will allow for development of effective VTE mitigation strategies based upon collective risks of VTE and hemorrhage progression.

Thromboprophylaxis Timing After Blunt Solid Organ Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Trauma patients with blunt abdominal solid organ injuries are at high risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE), but the optimal time to safely administer chemical thromboprophylaxis is controversial, especially for patients who are managed nonoperatively due to increased risk of hemorrhage. We sought to compare failure of nonoperative management (NOM) and VTE events based on timing of chemical thromboprophylaxis initiation.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted in PubMed and Embase databases. Studies were included if they evaluated timing of initiation of chemical thromboprophylaxis in trauma patients who underwent NOM of blunt solid organ injuries. Outcomes included failure of NOM and incidence of VTE. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed comparing patients who received late (>48 h) versus early thromboprophylaxis initiation.

RESULTS

Twelve retrospective cohort studies, comprising 21,909 patients, were included. Three studies, including 6375 patients, provided data on adjusted outcomes. Pooled adjusted analysis demonstrated no difference in failure of NOM in patients receiving late versus early thromboprophylaxis (odds ratio [OR] 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI]:0.4-2.14). When including all unadjusted studies, even those at high risk of bias, there remained no difference in failure of NOM (OR 1.16, 95% CI:0.72-1.86). In the adjusted analysis for VTE events, which had 6259 patients between two studies, patients receiving late chemical thromboprophylaxis had a higher risk of VTE compared with those who received early thromboprophylaxis (OR 1.89, 95% CI:1.15-3.12).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on current observational evidence, initiation of prophylaxis before 48 h is associated with lower VTE rates without higher risk of failure of NOM.

Timing of venous thromboembolism chemoprophylaxis using objective hemoglobin criteria in blunt solid organ injury

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of early venous thromboembolism (VTE) chemoprophylaxis following blunt solid organ injury.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients was performed for patients with blunt solid organ injury between 2009-2019. Enoxaparin was initiated when patients had <1g/dl Hemoglobin decline over a 24 h period. These patients were then categorized by initiation: ≤48 h and >48 h.

RESULTS

There were 653 patients: 328 (50.2%) <48 h and 325 (49.8%) ≥48 h. Twenty-nine (4.4%) developed VTE. Patients in ≥48 h group suffered more frequent VTE events (6.5% vs 2.4%, p = 0.021). Non-operative failure occurred in 6 patients (1.9%) in ≥48 h group, and 5 patients (1.5%) < 48 h group. Blood transfusion following chemophrophylaxis initiation was required in 69 (21.3%) in ≥48 h group, and 46 (14.0%) in < 48 h group, occurring similarly between groups (p=0.021).

CONCLUSION

Stable hemoglobin in the first 24 h is an efficacious, objective measure that allows early initiation of VTE chemoprophylaxis in solid organ injury. This practice is associated with earlier initiation of and fewer VTE events.

Follow-up strategies for patients with splenic trauma managed non-operatively: the 2022 World Society of Emergency Surgery consensus document

Background

In 2017, the World Society of Emergency Surgery published its guidelines for the management of adult and pediatric patients with splenic trauma. Several issues regarding the follow-up of patients with splenic injuries treated with NOM remained unsolved.

Methods

Using a modified Delphi method, we sought to explore ongoing areas of controversy in the NOM of splenic trauma and reach a consensus among a group of 48 international experts from five continents (Africa, Europe, Asia, Oceania, America) concerning optimal follow-up strategies in patients with splenic injuries treated with NOM.

Results

Consensus was reached on eleven clinical research questions and 28 recommendations with an agreement rate ≥ 80%. Mobilization after 24 h in low-grade splenic trauma patients (WSES Class I, AAST Grades I–II) was suggested, while in patients with high-grade splenic injuries (WSES Classes II–III, AAST Grades III–V), if no other contraindications to early mobilization exist, safe mobilization of the patient when three successive hemoglobins 8 h apart after the first are within 10% of each other was considered safe according to the panel. The panel suggests adult patients to be admitted to hospital for 1 day (for low-grade splenic injuries—WSES Class I, AAST Grades I–II) to 3 days (for high-grade splenic injuries—WSES Classes II–III, AAST Grades III–V), with those with high-grade injuries requiring admission to a monitored setting. In the absence of specific complications, the panel suggests DVT and VTE prophylaxis with LMWH to be started within 48–72 h from hospital admission. The panel suggests splenic artery embolization (SAE) as the first-line intervention in patients with hemodynamic stability and arterial blush on CT scan, irrespective of injury grade. Regarding patients with WSES Class II blunt splenic injuries (AAST Grade III) without contrast extravasation, a low threshold for SAE has been suggested in the presence of risk factors for NOM failure. The panel also suggested angiography and eventual SAE in all hemodynamically stable adult patients with WSES Class III injuries (AAST Grades IV–V), even in the absence of CT blush, especially when concomitant surgery that requires change of position is needed. Follow-up imaging with contrast-enhanced ultrasound/CT scan in 48–72 h post-admission of trauma in splenic injuries WSES Class II (AAST Grade III) or higher treated with NOM was considered the best strategy for timely detection of vascular complications.

Conclusion

This consensus document could help guide future prospective studies aiming at validating the suggested strategies through the implementation of prospective trauma databases and the subsequent production of internationally endorsed guidelines on the issue.

Optimal timing of venous thromboembolic chemoprophylaxis initiation following blunt solid organ injury: meta-analysis and systematic review

PURPOSE

The need to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) following blunt solid organ injury must be balanced against the concern for exacerbation of hemorrhage. The optimal timing for initiation of VTE chemoprophylaxis is not known. The objective was to determine the safety and efficacy of early (≤ 48 h) VTE chemoprophylaxis initiation following blunt solid organ injury.

METHODS

An electronic search was performed of medical libraries for English language studies on timing of VTE chemoprophylaxis initiation following blunt solid organ injury published from inception to April 2020. Included studies compared early (≤ 48 h) versus late (> 48 h) initiation of VTE chemoprophylaxis in adults with blunt splenic, liver, and/or kidney injury. Estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Odds ratios were utilized to quantify differences in failure of nonoperative management, need for blood transfusion and rates of VTE.

RESULTS

The search identified 2,111 studies. Of these, ten studies comprising 14,675 patients were included. All studies were non-randomized and only one was prospective. The overall odds of failure of nonoperative management were no different between early and late groups, OR 1.09 (95%CI 0.92-1.29). Similarly, there was no difference in the need for blood transfusion either during overall hospital stay, OR 0.91 (95%CI 0.70-1.18), or post prophylaxis initiation, OR 1.23 (95%CI 0.55-2.73). There were significantly lower odds of VTE when patients received early VTE chemoprophylaxis, OR 0.51 (95%CI 0.33-0.81).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing nonoperative management for blunt solid organ injury can be safely and effectively prescribed early VTE chemoprophylaxis. This results in significantly lower VTE rates without demonstrable harm.

Timing of pharmacologic venous thromboembolism prophylaxis initiation for trauma patients with nonoperatively managed blunt abdominal solid organ injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Blunt abdominal solid organ injury is common and is often managed nonoperatively. Clinicians must balance risk of both hemorrhage and thrombosis. The optimal timing of pharmacologic venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (VTEp) initiation in this population is unclear. The objective was to evaluate early (< 48 h) compared to late initiation of VTEp in adult trauma patients with blunt abdominal solid organ injury managed nonoperatively.

Methods

Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to March 2021. Studies comparing timeframes of VTEp initiation were considered. The primary outcome was failure of nonoperative management (NOM) after VTEp initiation. Secondary outcomes included risk of transfusion, other bleeding complications, risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism, and mortality.

Results

Ten cohort studies met inclusion criteria, with a total of 4642 patients. Meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant increase in the risk of failure of NOM among patients receiving early VTEp (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.01–3.05, p = 0.05). There was no significant difference in risk of transfusion. Odds of DVT were significantly lower in the early group (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.22–0.59, p < 0.0001). There was no difference in mortality (OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.82–2.75, p = 0.19). All studies were at serious risk of bias due to confounding.

Conclusions

Initiation of VTEp earlier than 48 h following hospitalization is associated with an increased risk of failure of NOM but a decreased risk of DVT. Absolute failure rates of NOM are low. Initiation of VTEp at 48 h may balance the risks of bleeding and VTE.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13017-022-00423-1.

American Association for the Surgery of Trauma/American College of Surgeons-Committee on Trauma Clinical Protocol for inpatient venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after trauma

ABSTRACT

Trauma patients are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes both deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis is a critical component of optimal trauma care that significantly decreases VTE risk. Optimal VTE prophylaxis protocols must manage the risk of VTE with the competing risk of hemorrhage in patients following significant trauma. Currently, there is variability in VTE prophylaxis protocols across trauma centers. In an attempt to optimize VTE prophylaxis for the injured patient, stakeholders from the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma and the American College of Surgeons-Committee on Trauma collaborated to develop a group of consensus recommendations as a resource for trauma centers. The primary goal of these recommendations is to help standardize VTE prophylaxis strategies for adult trauma patients (age ≥15 years) across all trauma centers. This clinical protocol has been developed to (1) provide standardized medication dosing for VTE prophylaxis in the injured patient; and (2) promote evidence-based, prompt VTE prophylaxis in common, high-risk traumatic injuries.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/Care Management; Level V.

Early initiation of thromboembolic prophylaxis in critically ill trauma patients with high-grade blunt liver and splenic lacerations is not associated with increased rates of failure of non-operative management

Background

Non-operative management (NOM) is the current standard of care of hemodynamically stable patients with traumatic blunt solid abdominal organ injuries. Guidelines do not define the optimal timing of initiation of venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in this population, and fear of failure of NOM may lead to delayed initiation of prophylaxis specifically in patients with high-grade injuries.

Methods

This was a single-center, retrospective study of patients with high-grade (AAST grades ≥3) blunt liver and splenic lacerations presenting to our level 1 trauma center between January 2010 and October 2017. Patients were divided into groups based on timing of low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) initiation for VTE prophylaxis. The primary outcome was rate of failure of NOM, defined as the need for interventional radiology or surgical intervention for management of abdominal organ bleeding. Secondary outcomes included rates of VTE, lengths of ICU and hospital stay, and in-hospital mortality.

Results

A total of 207 patients with high-grade blunt liver and splenic injuries undergoing an initial attempt at NOM were identified. The distribution of grades 3, 4, and 5 liver and splenic injuries were similar across all groups. Overall, 55.5% of patients received LMWH during their index admission. Early administration of LMWH was not associated with a statistically significant increased risk of failure of NOM ( p = 0.054). Rates of VTE and in-hospital mortality were similar.

Conclusions

Early initiation of VTE prophylaxis was not associated with an increased rate of failure of NOM in patients with high-grade blunt abdominal organ injuries in patients who survived 24 h post-admission and did not require massive transfusion; however, the study was likely underpowered to detect a difference among groups due to small sample size.

Efficacy and Safety of Low Molecular Weight Heparin Versus Unfractionated Heparin for Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Trauma Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Trauma patients are at high risk of VTE. We summarize the efficacy and safety of LMWH versus UFH for the prevention of VTE in trauma patients.

METHODS

We searched 6 databases from inception through March 12, 2021. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or observational studies comparing LMWH versus UFH for thromboprophylaxis in adult trauma patients. We pooled effect estimates across RCTs and observational studies separately, using random-effects model and inverse variance weighting. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane tool for RCTs and the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies (ROBINS)-I tool for observational studies and assessed certainty of findings using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology.

RESULTS

We included 4 RCTs (879 patients) and 8 observational studies (306,747 patients). Based on pooled RCT data, compared to UFH, LMWH reduces deep vein thrombosis (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.88, moderate certainty) and VTE (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.90, moderate certainty). As compared to UFH, LMWH may reduce pulmonary embolism [adjusted odds ratio from pooled observational studies 0.56 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.62)] and mortality (adjusted odds ratio from pooled observational studies 0.54, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.65), though based on low certainty evidence. There was an uncertain effect on adverse events (RR from pooled RCTs 0.80, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.33, very low certainty) and heparin induced thrombocytopenia [RR from pooled RCTs 0.26 (95% CI 0.03 to 2.38, very low certainty)].

CONCLUSIONS

Among adult trauma patients, LMWH is superior to UFH for deep vein thrombosis and VTE prevention and may additionally reduce pulmonary embolism and mortality. The impact on adverse events and heparin induced thrombocytopenia is uncertain.

Time is of the Essence: Impact of a More Aggressive Chemical Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Regimen on Trauma Patients

BACKGROUND

Trauma patients are at high risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Opportunity for chemical VTE prophylaxis improvement was identified and practice was altered to start chemoprophylaxis on admission in most patients. The purpose of this study was to determine if early VTE prophylaxis is safe and reduces VTE.

METHODS

The trauma registry was queried over a 12-month period for patients admitted greater than 1 day for traumatic injury. The study spanned 6 months on either side of instituting aggressive chemoprophylaxis. Patients were risk adjusted on demographics, Injury Severity Score, transfusions, procedure type, length of stay, and mortality. Pre-intervention patients were then compared to patients in the aggressive cohort with the primary outcome of VTE. Secondary outcomes included transfusions, mortality, and length of stay (LOS).

RESULTS

1597 patients were identified over the study period with 754 (47%) patients in the aggressive period. There were no differences in age, sex, Injury Severity Score, transfusions, procedures, or LOS between cohorts. Pre-algorithm patients were more likely to have penetrating mechanism (9.3% vs 6.6%; P = .009) and longer time to VTE prophylaxis (23.3 vs 13.9 hours; P < .001). No differences were noted in anticoagulant, VTE rate (2.0% vs 1.2%; P = .195), or mortality. Linear regression analysis identified time to chemical prophylaxis as significant predictor of VTE (β = 43.9, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Early aggressive chemical VTE prophylaxis is safe without increasing transfusions. Venous thromboembolism rates were decreased, but did not reach statistical significance.

Non-operative management of blunt splenic trauma: evolution, results and controversies

The spleen is one of the most frequently affected organs in blunt abdominal trauma. Since Upadhyaya, the treatment of splenic trauma has undergone important changes. Currently, the consensus is that every splenic trauma presenting with hemodynamic stability should be initially treated nonoperatively, provided that the hospital has adequate structure and the patient does not present other conditions that indicate abdominal exploration. However, several topics regarding the nonoperative management (NOM) of splenic trauma are still controversial. Splenic angioembolization is a very useful tool for NOM, but there is no consensus on its precise indications. There is no definition in the literature as to how NOM should be conducted, neither about the periodicity of hematimetric control, the transfusion threshold that defines NOM failure, when to start venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, the need for control imaging, the duration of bed rest, and when it is safe to discharge the patient. The aim of this review is to make a critical analysis of the most recent literature on this topic, exposing the state of the art in the NOM of splenic trauma.

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in the trauma intensive care unit: an American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Critical Care Committee Clinical Consensus Document

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a potential sequela of injury, surgery, and critical illness. Patients in the Trauma Intensive Care Unit are at risk for this condition, prompting daily discussions during patient care rounds and routine use of mechanical and/or pharmacologic prophylaxis measures. While VTE rightfully garners much attention in clinical patient care and in the medical literature, optimal strategies for VTE prevention are still evolving. Furthermore, trauma and surgical patients often have real or perceived contraindications to prophylaxis that affect the timing of preventive measures and the consistency with which they can be applied. In this Clinical Consensus Document, the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Critical Care Committee addresses several practical clinical questions pertaining to specific or unique aspects of VTE prophylaxis in critically ill and injured patients.

Risks of venous thrombosis and bleeding in critically ill adolescents after trauma or major surgery

BACKGROUND

The risks of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding in critically ill adolescents based on interventions received and anatomic site of trauma or major surgery may identify a cohort eligible for enrollment in a trial of pharmacologic prophylaxis.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study using the Virtual Pediatric Systems database included adolescents admitted to pediatric intensive care units after trauma or major surgery between 2013 and 2017. Mixed effects logistic regression was used to determine the adjusted risks of VTE and bleeding with central venous catheterization (CVC), mechanical ventilation (MV) and anatomic site of trauma or major surgery. The adjusted risks were used to identify the cohort eligible for enrollment.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

VTE developed in 212 (0.8%) of 27,647 adolescents. The adjusted risk of VTE was >2% with CVC and 2 or more of MV and trauma or major surgery to the brain or abdomen. Excluding those with bleeds present on admission or at high risk of bleeding, 375 (1.4%) adolescents would be eligible for enrollment.

CONCLUSIONS

VTE is generally uncommon in adolescents after trauma or major surgery. The small proportion of adolescents who are at high risk of VTE and at low risk of bleeding impacts the feasibility of a trial.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic Study Level II.

Timing of thromboprophylaxis in patients with blunt abdominal solid organ injuries undergoing nonoperative management

BACKGROUND

Decision making regarding the optimal timing for initiating thromboprophylaxis in patients with blunt abdominal solid organ injuries (BSOIs) remains ill-defined, with no guidelines defining optimal timing. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the relationship of the timing of thromboprophylaxis with thromboembolic and bleeding complications in the setting of BSOIs.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the Trauma Quality Improvement Program database was performed between 2013 and 2016. All patients with isolated BSOIs (liver, spleen, pancreas, or kidney, Abbreviated Injury Scale score, <3 in other regions) who underwent initial nonoperative management (NOM) were included. Patients were divided into three groups (early, <48 hours; intermediate, 48-72 hours; and late, >72 hours) based on timing of thromboprophylaxis initiation. Primary outcomes were rates of thromboembolism and bleeding after thromboprophylaxis initiation.

RESULTS

Of the 25,118 patients with isolated BSOIs, 3,223 met the inclusion criteria (age, 38.7 ± 17.3 years; males, 2.082 [64.6%]), among which 1,832 (56.8%) received early thromboprophylaxis, 703 (21.8%) received intermediate thromboprophylaxis, and 688 (21.4%) received late thromboprophylaxis. Late thromboprophylaxis initiation was independently associated with a higher likelihood of both deep vein thrombosis (odds ratio [OR], 3.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.68-5.91, p < 0.001) and pulmonary embolism (OR, 4.29; 95% CI, 1.95-9.42; p < 0.001). Intermediate thromboprophylaxis initiation was independently associated with a higher likelihood of deep venous thrombosis (OR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.20-4.74; p = 0.013), but not pulmonary embolism (p = 0.960) compared with early initiation. Early (but not intermediate) thromboprophylaxis initiation was independently associated with a higher likelihood of bleeding (OR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.11-2.18; p = 0.023), along with a history of diabetes mellitus, splenic, and high-grade liver injuries.

CONCLUSION

Early thromboprophylaxis should be considered in patients with BSOIs undergoing nonoperative management who are at low likelihood of bleeding. An intermediate delay (48-72 hours) of thromboprophylaxis should be considered for patients with diabetes mellitus, splenic injuries, and Grades 3 to 5 liver injuries.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, Level IV.