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: Despite the high incidence of blunt trauma in older adults, there is a lack of evidence-based guidance for computed tomography (CT) imaging in this population. We aimed to identify an algorithm to guide use of a Pan-Scan (Head/C-spine/Torso) or a Selective Scan (Head/C-spine ± Torso). We hypothesized that a patient's initial history and exam could be used to guide imaging. METHODS: We prospectively studied blunt trauma patients aged 65+ at 18 Level I/II trauma centers. Patients presenting >24 h after injury or who died upon arrival were excluded. We collected history and physical elements and final injury diagnoses. Injury diagnoses were categorized into CT body regions of Head/C-spine or Torso (chest, abdomen/pelvis, and T/L spine). Using machine learning and regression modeling as well as a priori clinical algorithms based, we tested various decision rules against our dataset. Our priority was to identify a simple rule which could be applied at the bedside, maximizing sensitivity (Sens) and negative predictive value (NPV) to minimize missed injuries. RESULTS: We enrolled 5,498 patients with 3,082 injuries. Nearly half (47.1%, n = 2,587) had an injury within the defined CT body regions. No rule to guide a Pan-Scan could be identified with suitable Sens/NPV for clinical use. A clinical algorithm to identify patients for Pan-Scan, using a combination of physical exam findings and specific high-risk criteria, was identified and had a Sens of 0.94 and NPV of 0.86 This rule would have identified injuries in all but 90 patients (1.6%) and would theoretically spare 11.9% (655) of blunt trauma patients a torso CT. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings advocate for Head/Cspine CT in all geriatric patients with the addition of torso CT in the setting of positive clinical findings and high-risk criteria. Prospective validation of this rule could lead to streamlined diagnostic care of this growing trauma population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2, Diagnostic Tests or Criteria.