RESUMO
BACKGROUND: In patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), clinicians must balance preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE) with the risk of intracranial hemorrhagic expansion (ICHE). We hypothesized that low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) would not increase risk of ICHE or VTE as compared to unfractionated heparin (UH) in patients with severe TBI. METHODS: Patients ≥ 18 years of age with isolated severe TBI (AIS ≥ 3), admitted to 24 level I and II trauma centers between January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2020 and who received subcutaneous UH and LMWH injections for chemical venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (VTEP) were included. Primary outcomes were VTE and ICHE after VTEP initiation. Secondary outcomes were mortality and neurosurgical interventions. Entropy balancing (EBAL) weighted competing risk or logistic regression models were estimated for all outcomes with chemical VTEP agent as the predictor of interest. RESULTS: 984 patients received chemical VTEP, 482 UH and 502 LMWH. Patients on LMWH more often had pre-existing conditions such as liver disease (UH vs LMWH 1.7 % vs. 4.4 %, p = 0.01), and coagulopathy (UH vs LMWH 0.4 % vs. 4.2 %, p < 0.001). There were no differences in VTE or ICHE after VTEP initiation. There were no differences in neurosurgical interventions performed. There were a total of 29 VTE events (3 %) in the cohort who received VTEP. A Cox proportional hazards model with a random effect for facility demonstrated no statistically significant differences in time to VTE across the two agents (p = 0.44). The LMWH group had a 43 % lower risk of overall ICHE compared to the UH group (HR = 0.57: 95 % CI = 0.32-1.03, p = 0.062), however was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: In this multi-center analysis, patients who received LMWH had a decreased risk of ICHE, with no differences in VTE, ICHE after VTEP initiation and neurosurgical interventions compared to those who received UH. There were no safety concerns when using LMWH compared to UH. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Therapeutic Care Management.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) are at high risk of venous thromboembolism events (VTE). We hypothesized that early chemical VTE prophylaxis initiation (≤24 hours of a stable head CT) in severe TBI would reduce VTE without increasing risk of intracranial hemorrhage expansion (ICHE). METHODS: A retrospective review of adult patients 18 years or older with isolated severe TBI (Abbreviated Injury Scale score, ≥ 3) who were admitted to 24 Level I and Level II trauma centers from January 1, 2014 to December 31 2020 was conducted. Patients were divided into those who did not receive any VTE prophylaxis (NO VTEP), who received VTE prophylaxis ≤24 hours after stable head CT (VTEP ≤24) and who received VTE prophylaxis >24 hours after stable head CT (VTEP>24). Primary outcomes were VTE and ICHE. Covariate balancing propensity score weighting was utilized to balance demographic and clinical characteristics across three groups. Weighted univariate logistic regression models were estimated for VTE and ICHE with patient group as predictor of interest. RESULTS: Of 3,936 patients, 1,784 met inclusion criteria. Incidences of VTE was significantly higher in the VTEP>24 group, with higher incidences of DVT in the group. Higher incidences of ICHE were observed in the VTEP≤24 and VTEP>24 groups. After propensity score weighting, there was a higher risk of VTE in patients in VTEP >24 compared with those in VTEP≤24 (odds ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-3.30; p = 0.307), however was not significant. Although, the No VTEP group had decreased odds of having ICHE compared with VTEP≤24 (odds ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-1.02, p = 0.070), the result was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: In this large multi-center analysis, there were no significant differences in VTE based on timing of initiation of VTE prophylaxis. Patients who never received VTE prophylaxis had decreased odds of ICHE. Further evaluation of VTE prophylaxis in larger randomized studies will be necessary for definitive conclusions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Care Management; Level III.