RESUMO
Objective: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk reduction strategies include early initiation of chemoprophylaxis, reducing missed doses, weight-based dosing and dose adjustment using anti-Xa levels. We hypothesized that time to initiation of chemoprophylaxis would be the strongest modifiable risk for VTE, even after adjusting for competing risk factors. Methods: A prospectively maintained trauma registry was queried for patients admitted July 2017-October 2021 who were 18 years and older and received emergency release blood products. Patients with deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (VTE) were compared to those without (no VTE). Door-to-prophylaxis was defined as time from hospital arrival to first dose of VTE chemoprophylaxis (hours). Univariate and multivariate analyses were then performed between the two groups. Results: 2047 patients met inclusion (106 VTE, 1941 no VTE). There were no differences in baseline or demographic data. VTE patients had higher injury severity score (29 vs 24), more evidence of shock by arrival lactate (4.6 vs 3.9) and received more post-ED transfusions (8 vs 2 units); all p<0.05. While there was no difference in need for enoxaparin dose adjustment or missed doses, door-to-prophylaxis time was longer in the VTE group (35 vs 25 hours; p=0.009). On multivariate logistic regression analysis, every hour delay from time of arrival increased likelihood of VTE by 1.5% (OR 1.015, 95% CI 1.004 to 1.023, p=0.004). Conclusion: The current retrospective study of severely injured patients with trauma who required emergency release blood products found that increased door-to-prophylaxis time was significantly associated with an increased likelihood for VTE. Chemoprophylaxis initiation is one of the few modifiable risk factors available to combat VTE, therefore early initiation is paramount. Similar to door-to-balloon time in treating myocardial infarction and door-to-tPA time in stroke, "door-to-prophylaxis time" should be considered as a hospital metric for prevention of VTE in trauma. Level of evidence: Level III, retrospective study with up to two negative criteria.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Hypofibrinogenemia has been shown to predict massive transfusion and is associated with higher mortality in severely injured patients. However, the role of empiric fibrinogen replacement in bleeding trauma patients remains controversial. We sought to determine the effect of empiric cryoprecipitate as an adjunct to a balanced transfusion strategy (1:1:1). STUDY DESIGN: This study is a subanalysis of patients treated at the single US trauma center in a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Trauma patients (more than 15 years) were eligible if they had evidence of active hemorrhage requiring emergent surgery or interventional radiology, massive transfusion protocol (MTP) activation, and received at least 1 unit of blood. Transfer patients, those with injuries incompatible with life, or those injured more than 3 hours earlier were excluded. Patients were randomized to standard MTP (STANDARD) or MTP plus 3 pools of cryoprecipitate (CRYO). Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality at 28 days. Secondary outcomes were transfusion requirements, intraoperative and postoperative coagulation laboratory values, and quality-of-life measures (Glasgow outcome score-extended). RESULTS: Forty-nine patients (23 in the CRYO group and 26 in the STANDARD group) were enrolled between May 2021 and October 2021. Time to randomization was similar between groups (14 vs 24 minutes, p = 0.676). Median time to cryoprecipitate was 41 minutes (interquartile range 37 to 48). There were no differences in demographics, arrival physiology, laboratory values, or injury severity. Intraoperative and ICU thrombelastography values, including functional fibrinogen, were similar between groups. There was no benefit to CRYO with respect to post-emergency department transfusions (intraoperative and ICU through 24 hours), complications, Glasgow outcome score, or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of severely injured, bleeding trauma patients, empiric cryoprecipitate did not improve survival or reduce transfusion requirements. Cryoprecipitate should continue as an "on-demand" addition to a balanced transfusion strategy, guided by laboratory values and should not be given empirically.