'Pulmonary thrombosis in situ': risk factors, clinic characteristics and long-term evolution

: Pulmonary embolism typically occurs from deep venous thrombosis (DVT). However, not always a DVT can be identified, and 'in situ' generation of pulmonary embolism has been considered, referred to in the literature as 'De novo pulmonary embolism' (DNPE). The objective of the study is to assess risk factors, comorbidities, clinic characteristics and long-term evolution of patients with pulmonary embolism in the absence of an identified source. Retrospective study of 280 patients with pulmonary embolism, 190 pulmonary embolisms with DVT group and 90 (32%) pulmonary embolism without DVT (DNPE group), admitted to an Internal Medicine Department of a tertiary hospital from January 2012 to December 2015. In the DNPE group, segmental and subsegmental arteries were more frequently affected (P = 0.01). As compared with pulmonary embolisms with DVT group: older age, female sex, sedentary lifestyle, diabetes mellitus, arterial hypertension, heart failure, respiratory infections and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were significantly more frequent in DNPE. In multivariate analysis, respiratory infection [odds ratio (OR) 12.2, P < 0.0001], COPD (OR 8.7, P < 0.0001) and female sex (OR 3.0, P = 0.003) were independently associated risk factors. Long-term mortality (median follow-up 15 months) was also higher in DNPE group (34 vs. 16%, P = 0.01). De novo pulmonary embolism occurred in 32% of cases of pulmonary embolisms and was more frequent in female and COPD patients or those with respiratory infections as compared with pulmonary embolisms in which DVT was identified as a source of embolism.

Upper Extremity Deep Venous Thrombosis Prophylaxis After Elective Upper Extremity Surgery

Historically, upper extremity deep venous thromboses (DVTs) have been rare; however, their incidence has increased as awareness has increased. Patients who develop upper extremity DVTs often have multiple comorbidities. However, in the past decade, studies have found a small risk of upper extremity DVTs associated with orthopedic procedures involving the upper extremity. The risk of complications following a DVT, including postthrombotic syndrome and pulmonary embolism, is substantially higher with a DVT of the upper extremity compared with a DVT of the lower extremity. Furthermore, there is no consensus regarding the role and efficacy of prophylactic measures in preventing upper extremity DVT after upper extremity surgery. This article discusses the use of prophylactic agents after elective upper extremity surgery, with an emphasis on the efficacy of commonly used interventions. [Orthopedics. 2018; 41(1):21-27.].

Thromboprophylaxis for trauma patients

BACKGROUND

Trauma is a leading causes of death and disability in young people. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a principal cause of death. Trauma patients are at high risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT). The incidence varies according to the method used to measure the DVT and the location of the thrombosis. Due to prolonged rest and coagulation abnormalities, trauma patients are at increased risk of thrombus formation. Thromboprohylaxis, either mechanical or pharmacological, may decrease mortality and morbidity in trauma patients who survive beyond the first day in hospital, by decreasing the risk of VTE in this population.A previous systematic review did not find evidence of effectiveness for either pharmacological or mechanical interventions. However, this systematic review was conducted 10 years ago and most of the included studies were of poor quality. Since then new trials have been conducted. Although current guidelines recommend the use of thromboprophylaxis in trauma patients, there has not been a comprehensive and updated systematic review since the one published.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of thromboprophylaxis in trauma patients on mortality and incidence of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. To compare the effects of different thromboprophylaxis interventions and their effects according to the type of trauma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register (searched April 30 2009), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials 2009, issue 2 (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (Ovid) 1950 to April (week 3) 2009, EMBASE (Ovid) 1980 to (week 17) April 2009, PubMed (searched 29 April 2009), ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) (1970 to April 2009), ISI Web of Science: Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) (1990 to April 2009).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled clinical trials involving people of any age with major trauma defined by one or more of the following criteria: physiological: penetrating or blunt trauma with more than two organs and unstable vital signs, anatomical: people with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) higher than 9, mechanism: people who are involved in a 'high energy' event with a risk for severe injury despite stable or normal vital signs. We excluded trials that only recruited outpatients, trials that recruited people with hip fractures only, or people with acute spinal injuries.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four authors, in pairs (LB and CM, EF and RC), independently examined the titles and the abstracts, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias of the trials and analysed the data. PP resolved any disagreement between the authors.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixteen studies were included (n=3005). Four trials compared the effect of any type (mechanical and/or pharmacological) of prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis. Prophylaxis reduced the risk of DVT in people with trauma (RR 0.52; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.84). Mechanical prophylaxis reduced the risk of DVT (RR = 0.43; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.73). Pharmacological prophylaxis was more effective than mechanical methods at reducing the risk of DVT (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.95). LMWH appeared to reduce the risk of DVT compared to UH (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.94). People who received both mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis had a lower risk of DVT (RR 0.34; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.60)

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not find evidence that thromboprophylaxis reduces mortality or PE in any of the comparisons assessed. However, we found some evidence that thromboprophylaxis prevents DVT. Although the strength of the evidence was not high, taking into account existing information from other related conditions such as surgery, we recommend the use of any DVT prophylactic method for people with severe trauma.

Thromboprophylaxis for trauma patients

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To assess the effects of thromboprophylaxis in trauma patients on mortality and incidence of DVT and PE. To compare the effects of different thromboprophylaxis interventions and their relative effects according to the type of trauma.