Adjusted versus fixed doses of LMWHs in trauma patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) causes significant morbidity and mortality in patients with traumatic injuries, despite thromboprophylaxis. To decrease both thrombotic and bleeding risks, some authors suggest adjusting the thromboprophylactic doses of low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH), in particular according to body weight at treatment initiation or to changes in anti-factor Xa level during treatment. Our objective was to estimate in trauma patients the efficacy and safety of such adjustments, compared with the conventional strategy of fixed-dose LMWH thromboprophylaxis. SOURCE: A systematic review and a meta-analysis were conducted to identify and assess randomised control trials and observational studies with prospective enrolment that included trauma patients and compared adjustment of LMWH thromboprophylaxis versus no adjustment. The primary and secondary endpoints were VTE and bleeding, respectively. The Odds Ratio (OR) and 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Nine studies were included in the meta-analysis. No significant reduction in the risk of VTE was observed with adjusted doses of LMWH compared with fixed doses when considering only randomised control trials (OR 1.02 [95% CI, 0.09 to 11.6]) or all trials (OR 0.70 [95% CI, 0.34 to 1.42]). Similarly, there was no significant difference in bleeding risk (OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.59 to 3.10). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis shows that, to date, there is no evidence to justify adjusting LMWH doses, in agreement with the recommendations of the American College of Chest Physicians.