Temporary Abdominal Closure Combined With an Irrigating System Utilizing Hypochlorous Acid Solution to Decrease Abdominal Mucopurulence.

Introduction: Leaving the abdominal cavity open is a well-described and frequently utilized technique in the treatment of severe intra-abdominal sepsis. Irrigation through a negative pressure wound therapy device is a technique employed to assist in the closure of wounds as well as the reduction of bacterial contamination. Furthermore, hypochlorous acid has been found to be safe and effective in microorganismal elimination from extremity wounds. There is no literature regarding the infusion of hypochlorous solution into the abdominal cavity for intra-abdominal sepsis or mucopurulent abscesses or biofilm. Objectives: A 47-year-old man with granulomatosis polyangiitis was started on weekly rituximab. After 4 infusions, skin sloughing, ultimately diagnosed as toxic epidermal necrolysis, developed. During the hospital course, he developed sepsis and bowel perforation necessitating an exploratory laparotomy. The abdomen was left open with a temporary abdominal closure using the Abthera open abdomen negative wound therapy device; however, the abdomen remained infected with visually diffuse, thickening mucopurulence despite multiple washouts. Therefore, a VAC Vera-Flo irrigation device was combined with the Abthera open abdomen negative wound therapy device and cyclical irrigation of hypochlorous acid. After 72 hours, the purulence visually was improved and no adverse events were recorded with the placement of intra-abdominal hypochlorous acid. Conclusions: The combination of two medical devices for the intra-abdominal instillation of irrigation is considered "off-label use" from the manufacturer's recommendations. In addition, the repeated instillation of hypochlorous acid solution has not been described but was noted to have visually decreased the contaminated effluent within the intra-abdominal fluid.

Goal directed enoxaparin dosing provides superior chemoprophylaxis against deep vein thrombosis.

INTRODUCTION: Optimal enoxaparin dosing for deep venous thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis remains elusive. Prior research demonstrated that trauma patients at increased risk for DVT based upon Greenfield's risk assessment profile (RAP) have DVT rates of 10.8% despite prophylaxis. The aim of this study was to determine if goal directed prophylactic enoxaparin dosing to achieve anti-Xa levels of 0.3-0.5IU/ml would decrease DVT rates without increased complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of trauma patients having received prophylactic enoxaparin and appropriately timed anti-Xa levels was performed. Dosage was adjusted to maintain an anti-Xa level of 0.3-0.5IU/ml. RAP was determined on each patient. A score of ≥5 was considered high risk for DVT. Sub-analysis was performed on patients who received duplex examinations subsequent to initiation of enoxaparin therapy to determine the incidence of DVT. RESULTS: 306 patients met inclusion criteria. Goal anti-Xa levels were met initially in only 46% of patients despite dosing of >40mg twice daily in 81% of patients; however, with titration, goal anti-Xa levels were achieved in an additional 109 patients (36%). An average enoxaparin dosage of 0.55mg/kg twice daily was required for adequacy. Bleeding complications were identified in five patients (1.6%) with three requiring intervention. There were no documented episodes of HIT. Subsequent duplex data was available in 197 patients with 90% having a RAP score >5. Overall, five DVTs (2.5%) were identified and all occurred in the high-risk group. All patients were asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis. CONCLUSION: An increased anti-Xa range of 0.3-0.5IU/ml was attainable but frequently required titration of enoxaparin dosage. This produced a lower rate of DVT than previously published without increased complications.

Alternative dosing of prophylactic enoxaparin in the trauma patient: is more the answer?

BACKGROUND: Inadequate anti-factor Xa levels and increased venous thromboembolic events occur in trauma patients receiving standard prophylactic enoxaparin dosing. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that higher dosing (40 mg twice daily) would improve peak anti-Xa levels and decrease venous thromboembolism. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of trauma patients who received prophylactic enoxaparin and peak anti-Xa levels over 27 months. Patients were divided on the basis of dose: group A received 30 mg twice daily, and group B received 40 mg twice daily. Demographics and rates of venous thromboembolism were compared between dose groups and patients with inadequate or adequate anti-Xa levels. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-four patients were included, 90 in group A and 34 in group B. Demographics were similar, except that patients in group B had a higher mean body weight. Despite this, only 9% of group B patients had inadequate anti-Xa levels, compared with 33% of those in group A (P = .01). Imaging studies were available in 69 patients and revealed 8 venous thromboembolic events (P = NS, group A vs group B) with significantly more venous thromboembolic events occurring in patients with low anti-Xa levels (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Although higher dosing of enoxaparin led to improved anti-Xa levels, this did not equate to a statistical decrease in venous thromboembolism.