Deep venous thrombosis has been a problem in adult trauma patients for some time. Turns out, it’s a problem in injured children as well although much less common (<1%). However, the subset of kids admitted to the ICU for trauma have a much higher rate if not given prophylaxis (approx. 6%). Most trauma centers have protocols for chemical prophylaxis of adult patients, but not many have similar protocols for children.
The Medical College of Wisconsin looked at trends prior to and after implementation of a DVT protocol for patients < 19 years old. They used the following protocol to assess risk in patients admitted to the PICU and to determine what type of prophylaxis was warranted:
The need for and type of prophylaxis was balanced against the risk for significant bleeding, and this was accounted for in the protocol. The following significant findings were noted:
- The overall incidence of DVT decreased significantly (65%) after the protocol was introduced, from 5.2% to 1.8%
- The 1.8% incidence after protocol use is still higher than most other non-trauma pediatric populations
- After the protocol was used, all DVT was detected via screening. Suspicion based on clinical findings (edema, pain) only occurred pre-implementation.
- Use of the protocol did not increase use of anticoagulation, it standardized management in pediatric patients
Bottom line: DVT does occur in injured children, particularly in severely injured ones who require admission to the ICU. Implementation of a regimented system of monitoring and prophylaxis decreases the overall DVT rate and standardizes care in this group of patients. This is another example of how the use of a well thought out protocol can benefit our patients and provide a more uniform way of managing them.
Reference: Effectiveness of clinical guidelines for deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis in reducing the incidence of venous thromboembolism in critically ill children after trauma. J Trauma 72(5):1292-1297, 2012.
Deep venous thrombosis (DVT) is always a concern in trauma patients. Patients with spine and spinal cord injury have been shown to be at higher risk for DVT than many other trauma patients, with a reported incidence ranging from 5% to 70%. However, a few studies have suggested that paraplegics are actually at higher risk than quadriplegics. This just doesn’t seem to make sense.
A NTDB study was done to look at this issue. A total of 18,000+ patients were reviewed, and correlations with spinal cord injury level, demographics, comorbidities and associated injuries were determined.
High cervical (C1-4) and lumbar cord injuries had the lowest DVT rates at about 3%. Lower cervical (C5-7) and high thoracic (T1-6) had the highest rates at 5% and 6.3%, respectively. The lower thoracic spine was about 4.5%. These differences were statistically significant, and the authors also confirmed the usual DVT suspects as being significant (increasing age, increasing injury severity, TBI, chest trauma, and male gender).
Bottom line: Yes, this study does confirm the suspicion that paraplegics are at higher risk for DVT than quadriplegics. Why? We don’t know. And although it is statistically significant, is it clinically significant? I’m not so sure. We’re talking another 1-2 spinal cord injured patients with DVT for every 100 quadriplegics treated. How many do you admit per year? At my institution, this means that there will be 1 additional DVT in this patient group every three to four years. It’s hard to justify making any changes to existing protocols based on these new facts. Always look at the practical side of what you read!
Reference: Risk of venous thromboembolism after spinal cord injury: not all levels are the same. J Trauma 71(5):1241-1245, 2011.
I previously wrote about a new review that looked at using chemical prophylaxis for deep venous thrombosis (DVT) in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). The authors showed that it was safe to give subcutaneous heparin products within 24 to 48 hours after a stable 24 hour followup CT.
A just-published article now helps to refine the selection of the heparin product. A retrospective review looked at 386 ICU patients with a head Abbreviated Injury Score (AIS) > 2. A total of 57 received mechanical prophylaxis, the remainder received heparin products. Chemical prophylaxis consisted of subcutaneous enoxaparin 30mg bid or unfractionated heparin 5000u tid, at the whim of the attending neurosurgeon.
The heparin group had a slightly but significantly higher Head AIS (4.1 vs 3.8). The drugs were started at the same time post-injury, about 48 hours from admission. Unfractionated heparin was found to be inferior to enoxaparin. The unfractionated heparin patients had both a higher rate of pulmonary embolism, and were more likely to have progression of any intracranial hemorrhage (12% vs 5%). The authors claim a significantly lower DVT rate, but information in their data tables do not support this. Additionally, their overall DVT rate is very low, most likely because they did not routinely screen for it.
Bottom line: The head injury / DVT prophylaxis literature is expanding rapidly. It’s time to start working with your neurosurgeons to initiate chemoprophylaxis early (within 48 to 72 hours from injury once any intracranial bleeding is stable). And it looks like the drug of choice is enoxaparin, not unfractionated heparin.
Reference: Safety and efficacy of heparin or enoxaparin prophylaxis in blunt trauma patients with a head abbriviated injury severity score >2. J Trauma 71(2):396-400, 2011.
Related post: Brain injury and chemical prophylaxis for DVT
Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a potential problem for all trauma patients, primarily due to the small but real possibility of a resultant pulmonary embolism (PE). Many trauma programs have protocolized their evaluation and management of DVT, but this usually only involves clot in the lower extremities and pelvis. Unfortunately, up to 10% of DVT occurs in the upper extremities, and they are not usually addressed in the same fashion as lower extremity clot.
The American College of Chest Physicians has issued a number of recommendations for managing upper extremity DVT. This includes the use of anticoagulants in a similar manner as for lower extremities. These recommendations have varying literature support behind them, and it is not clear how well they apply to trauma patients.
Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles has just published a paper that prospectively looks at the problem of upper extremity DVT in critically ill trauma and surgery patients. They used an existing protocol to screen and treat lower extremity DVT, but had no such algorithm for the upper extremity. A total of 1269 patients were treated in 2.5 years, and 862 patients were screened for DVT at least once.
They found 316 DVTs in 198 patients (115 lower extremity, 201 upper extremity). A total of 77 patients with upper extremity DVT met inclusion criteria by have at least one followup duplex ultrasound. Since no protocol existed, management was at the discretion of the individual attending physician. Important findings regarding upper extremity DVT were:
- Most were nonocclusive (72%) and occurred in the internal jugular vein (52%)
- The average diagnosis was made on hospital day 19
- 64% were associated with a central venous catheter, usually double or triple lumen. Removal of the catheter was predictive of improvement by the next duplex exam.
- Pulmonary embolism occurred in 2.6%
- Two thirds were treated with prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation
- Anticoagulation did not lead to significant resolution by the final duplex exam
Bottom line: Trauma centers should develop a protocol for screening and treating upper extremity DVT. Anticoagulation may not be necessary, and specific criterial should be developed for its use. The patency and necessity for any central venous catheter associated with upper extremity DVT should be assessed, and preference given to moving or removing it.
Reference: The natural history of upper extremity deep venous thromboses in critically ill surgical and trauma patients: what is the role of anticoagulation? J Trauma 71(2):316-322, 2011.