Similar rate of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and failure of non-operative management for early versus delayed VTE chemoprophylaxis in adolescent blunt solid organ injuries: a propensity-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Early initiation of venous thromboembolism (VTE) chemoprophylaxis in adults with blunt solid organ injury (BSOI) has been demonstrated to be safe but this is controversial in adolescents. We hypothesized that adolescent patients with BSOI undergoing non-operative management (NOM) and receiving early VTE chemoprophylaxis (eVTEP) (≤ 48 h) have a decreased rate of VTE and similar rate of failure of NOM, compared to similarly matched adolescents receiving delayed VTE chemoprophylaxis (dVTEP) (> 48 h).

METHODS

The 2017-2019 Trauma Quality Improvement Program database was queried for adolescents (12-17 years of age) with BSOI (liver, kidney, and/or spleen) undergoing NOM. We compared eVTEP versus dVTEP using a 1:1 propensity score model, matching for age, comorbidities, BSOI grade, injury severity score, hypotension on arrival, and need for transfusions. We performed subset analyses in patients with isolated spleen, kidney, and liver injury.

RESULTS

From 1022 cases, 417 (40.8%) adolescents received eVTEP. After matching, there was no difference in matched variables (all p > 0.05). Both groups had a similar rate of VTE (dVTEP 0.6% vs. eVTEP 1.7%, p = 0.16), mortality (dVTEP 0.3% vs. eVTEP 0%, p = 0.32), and failure of NOM (eVTEP 6.7% vs. dVTEP 7.3%, p = 0.77). These findings remained true in all subset analyses of isolated solid organ injury (all p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of VTE with adolescent BSOI is exceedingly rare. Early VTE chemoprophylaxis in adolescent BSOI does not increase the rate of failing NOM. However, unlike adult trauma patients, adolescent patients with BSOI receiving eVTEP had a similar rate of VTE and death, compared to adolescents receiving dVTEP.

Identifying the severely injured benefitting from a specific level of trauma care in an inclusive network: A multicentre retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

Defining major trauma (MT) with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 15 has limitations. This threshold is used for concentrating MT care in networks with multiple levels of trauma care.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to identify subgroups of severely injured patients benefiting on in-hospital mortality and non-fatal clinical outcome measures in an optimal level of trauma care.

METHODS

A multicentre retrospective cohort study on data of the Dutch National Trauma Registry, region South West, from January 1, 2015 until December 31, 2019 was conducted. Patients ≥ 16 years admitted within 48 h after trauma transported with (H)EMS to a level I trauma centre (TC) or a non-level I trauma facility with a Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS) ≥ 3 were included. Patients with burns or patients of ≥ 65 years with an isolated hip fracture were excluded. Logistic regression models were used for comparing level I with non-level I. Subgroup analysis were done for MT patients (ISS > 15) and non-MT patients (ISS 9-14).

RESULTS

A total of 7,493 records were included. In-hospital mortality of patients admitted to a non-level I trauma facility did not differ significantly from patients admitted to the level I TC (adjusted Odds Ratio (OR): 0.94; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68-1.30). This was also applicable for MT patients (OR: 1.06; 95% CI 0.73-1.53) and non-MT patients (OR: 1.30; 95% CI (0.56-3.03). Hospital and ICU LOS were significantly shorter for patients admitted to a non-level I trauma facilities, and patients admitted to a non-level I trauma facility were more likely to be discharged home. Findings were confirmed for MT and non-MT patients, per injured body region.

CONCLUSION

All levels of trauma care performed equally on in-hospital mortality among severely injured patients (MAIS ≥ 3), although patients admitted to the level I TC were more severely injured. Subgroups of patients by body region or ISS, with a survival benefit or more favorable clinical outcome measures were not identified. Subgroups analysis on clinical outcome measures across different levels of trauma care in an inclusive trauma network is too simplistic if subgroups are based on injuries in specific body region or ISS only.

Evaluating associations between level of trauma care and outcomes of patients with specific severe injuries: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Trauma networks have multiple designated levels of trauma care. This classification parallels concentration of major trauma care, creating innovations and improving outcome measures.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to assess associations of level of trauma care with patient outcomes for populations with specific severe injuries.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using six electronic databases up to April 19, 2022 (PROSPERO CRD42022327576). Studies comparing fatal, nonfatal clinical, or functional outcomes across different levels of trauma care for trauma populations with specific severe injuries or injured body region (Abbreviated Injury Scale score ≥3) were included. Two independent reviewers included studies, extracted data, and assessed quality. Unadjusted and adjusted pooled effect sizes were calculated with random-effects meta-analysis comparing Level I and Level II trauma centers.

RESULTS

Thirty-five studies (1,100,888 patients) were included, of which 25 studies (n = 443,095) used for meta-analysis, suggesting a survival benefit for the severely injured admitted to a Level I trauma center compared with a Level II trauma center (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.25). Adjusted subgroup analysis on in-hospital mortality was done for patients with traumatic brain injuries (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.01-1.50) and hemodynamically unstable patients (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.98-1.22). Hospital and intensive care unit length of stay resulted in an unadjusted mean difference of -1.63 (95% CI, -2.89 to -0.36) and -0.21 (95% CI, -1.04 to 0.61), respectively, discharged home resulted in an unadjusted OR of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.78-1.09).

CONCLUSION

Severely injured patients admitted to a Level I trauma center have a survival benefit. Nonfatal outcomes were indicative for a longer stay, more intensive care, and more frequently posthospital recovery trajectories after being admitted to top levels of trauma care. Trauma networks with designated levels of trauma care are beneficial to the multidisciplinary character of trauma care.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level III.

Retrospective evaluation of chemical venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in traumatic brain injury

Background

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a risk factor for venous thromboembolism (VTE) but few studies address optimal timing or choice of agent.

Materials and Methods

Retrospective review of moderate to severe TBI patients receiving chemical VTE prophylaxis (early initiation [≤ 72 h from admission], late [> 72 h to 7 days], or delayed [> 7 days]) between 2012 through 2017. Primary outcome was VTE occurrence. Secondary objectives evaluated intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) requiring cessation of prophylaxis and differences between unfractionated (UFH) and low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH).

Results

A total of 198 patients were evaluated; median age was 44 years (IQR 25-60), median Glasgow Coma Scale score 3 (IQR 3-7), and median injury severity score 27 (IQR 22-34). Ten percent of patients (n = 20) developed VTE. Median time to VTE prophylaxis was 81 h (IQR 53-152) and there was no difference in VTE incidence across all groups (p = 0.09). Intergroup comparison showed patients that received early prophylaxis had lower VTE rates (6% vs. 16%, p = 0.04) and mortality (3% vs. 15%, p = 0.02) compared to late initiation (but not delayed). There were no instances of new onset or expanded ICH requiring cessation of prophylaxis. VTE rates for patients receiving UFH only or LMWH only, 14/115 (12.2%) vs. 3/46 (6.5%), were not different (p = 0.4). Mortality was lower in the LMWH only group (0% vs. 13.0%, p<0.01).

Conclusions

Initiating VTE prophylaxis within 72 h of moderate to severe TBI appears to be safe and may be associated with lower rates of VTE and mortality.

Timing of venous thromboembolic pharmacological prophylaxis in traumatic combined subdural and subarachnoid hemorrhage

BACKGROUND

The combination of subdural and subarachnoid hemorrhage is the most common intracranial bleeding. The present study evaluated the timing and type of venous thromboembolic chemoprophylaxis (VTEp) for efficacy and safety in patients with blunt head trauma with combined acute subdural and subarachnoid hemorrhage.

METHODS

Patients with isolated combined acute subdural and subarachnoid hemorrhage were extracted from the ACS-TQIP database (2013-2017). After 1:1 cohort matching of patients receiving early prophylaxis (EP, ≤48 h) versus late prophylaxis (LP, >48 h) outcomes were compared with univariable and multivariable regression analysis.

RESULTS

Multivariable regression analysis identified EP as an independent protective factor for VTE complications (OR 0.468, CI 0.293-0.748) but not mortality (p = 0.485). The adjusted risk for delayed craniectomy was not associated with EP compared to LP (p = 0.283). The type of VTEp was not associated with VTE complications (p = 0.301), mortality (p = 0.391) or delayed craniectomy (p = 0.126).

CONCLUSIONS

Early VTEp (≤48 h) was associated with fewer VTE complications in patients and did not increase the risk for craniectomies in patients with combined acute subdural and subarachnoid hemorrhage.

Venous thromboembolic pharmacological prophylaxis in severe traumatic acute subdural hematomas: Early prophylaxis is effective and safe

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the optimal timing and type of pharmacological venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (VTEp) in patients with severe blunt head trauma with acute subdural hematomas (ASDH).

METHODS

Matched cohort study using ACS-TQIP database (2013-2016) including patients with isolated ASDH. Outcomes of matched patients receiving early prophylaxis (EP, ≤48 h) and late prophylaxis (LP, >48 h) were compared with univariable and multivariable regression analysis.

RESULTS

In 1,660 matched cases VTE complications (3.1% vs 0.5%, p < 0.001) were more common in the LP compared to the EP group. Multivariable regression analysis identified EP as an independent protective factor for VTE complications (OR 0.169, p < 0.001) but not mortality (p = 0.260). The adjusted risk for delayed craniectomy was not associated with EP compared to LP (p = 0.095). LMWH was independently associated with a lower mortality (OR 0.480, p = 0.008) compared to UH.

CONCLUSIONS

Early VTEp (≤48 h) does not increase the risk for craniectomies and is independently associated with fewer VTE complications in patients with isolated ASDH. LMWH was independently associated with a lower mortality compared to UH.