Prophylactic low dose heparin anticoagulant therapy in patients with spinal cord injuries: a retrospective study

Usefulness of D-dimer and Ultrasonography Screening for Detecting Deep Vein Thrombosis in Patients with Spinal Cord Injury Undergoing Rehabilitation

Patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) are at an increased risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT). This study aims at assessing usefulness of D-dimer and compressive Doppler ultrasonography (CDUS) for detecting DVT in patients undergoing rehabilitation at various time-points post-SCI. One-hundred forty-five patients were divided into three groups based on time elapsed since SCI: I (≥3 weeks to 3 months), II (≥3 to 6 months), and III (≥6 months). On admission, D-dimer plasma level measurement and CDUS of the lower limbs venous system were performed. DVT was diagnosed using CDUS in 15 patients (10.3% of entire group), more frequently in group I (22.2% of group) and II (11.7%) compared to group III (1.5%). Most DVT patients received thromboprophylaxis (80%) and were asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic (60%). Median D-dimer was elevated in patients with DVT from all groups, and also patients without DVT from groups I and II, but not group III. D-dimers were higher in patients with DVT than without DVT in the entire group (p = 0.001) and group I (p = 0.02), but not in groups II and III. The risk of DVT in SCI patients undergoing rehabilitation and thromboprophylaxis including asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic cases, is high within 6 months post-injury, and especially within 3 months. Measurement of D-dimer level should be complemented by routine CDUS for detecting DVT within 6 months post-SCI. Over 6 months, the usefulness of D-dimer screening alone is better for DVT detection.

Thromboprophylaxie en chirurgie rachidienne traumatologique et non traumatologique

The risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) after spinal cord injury is very high. Without prophylaxis the incidence of DVT using venography is 81% and the risk of symptomatic DVT is between 12 and 23%. The risk is much lower in elective spine surgery. After discectomy or laminectomy on less than two spine levels, the risk of DVT is less than 1%. After spinal fusion or extended laminectomy, the risk can be estimated between 0.3 and 2.2%. A prophylaxis is recommended for all patients after spinal cord injury (grade A). The association of a mechanical method and heparin is recommended (grade B). The duration of prophylaxis is 3 months in patients with a motor deficit (grade C). No prophylaxis is recommended after discectomy or limited laminectomy in patients without additional risk factors. Mechanical methods are recommended after spinal fusion or extended laminectomy. For patients with additional risk factors a low molecular weight heparin is recommended.

Prevention of venous thromboembolism: the Seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy

This article discusses the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and is part of the Seventh American College of Chest Physicians Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy: Evidence-Based Guidelines. Grade 1 recommendations are strong and indicate that the benefits do, or do not, outweigh risks, burden, and costs. Grade 2 suggests that individual patients' values may lead to different choices (for a full understanding of the grading see Guyatt et al, CHEST 2004; 126:179S-187S). Among the key recommendations in this chapter are the following. We recommend against the use of aspirin alone as thromboprophylaxis for any patient group (Grade 1A). For moderate-risk general surgery patients, we recommend prophylaxis with low-dose unfractionated heparin (LDUH) (5,000 U bid) or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) [< or = 3,400 U once daily] (both Grade 1A). For higher risk general surgery patients, we recommend thromboprophylaxis with LDUH (5,000 U tid) or LMWH (> 3,400 U daily) [both Grade 1A]. For high-risk general surgery patients with multiple risk factors, we recommend combining pharmacologic methods (LDUH three times daily or LMWH, > 3,400 U daily) with the use of graduated compression stockings and/or intermittent pneumatic compression devices (Grade 1C+). We recommend that thromboprophylaxis be used in all patients undergoing major gynecologic surgery (Grade 1A) or major, open urologic procedures, and we recommend prophylaxis with LDUH two times or three times daily (Grade 1A). For patients undergoing elective total hip or knee arthroplasty, we recommend one of the following three anticoagulant agents: LMWH, fondaparinux, or adjusted-dose vitamin K antagonist (VKA) [international normalized ratio (INR) target, 2.5; range, 2.0 to 3.0] (all Grade 1A). For patients undergoing hip fracture surgery (HFS), we recommend the routine use of fondaparinux (Grade 1A), LMWH (Grade 1C+), VKA (target INR, 2.5; range, 2.0 to 3.0) [Grade 2B], or LDUH (Grade 1B). We recommend that patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty, or HFS receive thromboprophylaxis for at least 10 days (Grade 1A). We recommend that all trauma patients with at least one risk factor for VTE receive thromboprophylaxis (Grade 1A). In acutely ill medical patients who have been admitted to the hospital with congestive heart failure or severe respiratory disease, or who are confined to bed and have one or more additional risk factors, we recommend prophylaxis with LDUH (Grade 1A) or LMWH (Grade 1A). We recommend, on admission to the intensive care unit, all patients be assessed for their risk of VTE. Accordingly, most patients should receive thromboprophylaxis (Grade 1A).

Nonoperative management of acute spinal cord injury

Advances in transport, imaging, and stabilization of the injured patient have made the topic of acute management more important than ever in patients with spinal cord injury. Optimal treatment requires prompt delivery of care for life-threatening respiratory and hemodynamic events in a manner that will not further damage the unstable spinal elements. The application of these treatment principles broadly to injured patients is necessitated by our inability to determine, on an acute basis, those patients who might eventually recover meaningful neurologic function from those who will not. Therefore, nonoperative management of acute spinal cord injury requires consideration of two goals: 1) the preservation of the patient's life and 2) optimizing the potential for recovery of neurologic function. The first consideration requires not only an understanding of the novel systemic consequences of spinal cord injury but also of treatments directed at combating them. The second includes the application of resuscitative measures without further damaging the spinal cord and, in some cases, the use of traction and immobilization. In the past these efforts were aimed primarily at increasing the survival rate of patients with spinal cord injury, whereas current care may also play an important role in the eventual recovery of neurologic function. Despite many advances in our understanding of the basic mechanisms of paralysis, clinical management of spinal cord injury remains a significant challenge and one that requires continuing efforts at improving acute and postacute therapies.

[Risk factors and incidence of venous thromboembolic disease in internal medicine: prospective descriptive study on 947 hospitalized patients]

PURPOSE

The thromboembolic risk is difficult to evaluate in medical inpatients because of the multiplicity of risk factors. The lack of scientific data leads to a certain empiricism in selection of patients who need a preventive treatment.

METHODS

All patients hospitalised in an internal medicine department were included during 34 months. The pathogenic mechanism of risk factors (venous stasis or hypercoagulability) was analysed as well as their progress (transient or permanent risk factors) and their pathogenic weight (major risk factor or not). Three levels of embolic risk (high, intermediate, low) were identified. A preventive treatment was initiated only for patients at high or intermediate risk. A clinical screening for thromboembolic events was performed daily. Therefore, we have excluded patients who needed a hypocoagulant treatment.

RESULTS

Nine hundred and forty-seven patients were included. Age (over 60) was the most frequent permanent risk factor (70%). Bed rest was the most frequent transient risk factor responsible for venous stasis. Fifty percent of patients had a transient and permanent risk factor and needed a preventive treatment according to our selection criteria. The incidence of thromboembolic events was 0.4% in the high-risk treated group and 0.2% in the low-risk non-treated group.

CONCLUSIONS

Venous stasis factors are the more frequent risk factor in internal medicine, perhaps because of the increasing number of geriatric patients. The incidence of thromboembolic disease is low in high-risk inpatients when a preventive treatment is performed.