BACKGROUND: Trauma patients are at high risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Opportunity for chemical VTE prophylaxis improvement was identified and practice was altered to start chemoprophylaxis on admission in most patients. The purpose of this study was to determine if early VTE prophylaxis is safe and reduces VTE. METHODS: The trauma registry was queried over a 12-month period for patients admitted greater than 1 day for traumatic injury. The study spanned 6 months on either side of instituting aggressive chemoprophylaxis. Patients were risk adjusted on demographics, Injury Severity Score, transfusions, procedure type, length of stay, and mortality. Pre-intervention patients were then compared to patients in the aggressive cohort with the primary outcome of VTE. Secondary outcomes included transfusions, mortality, and length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: 1597 patients were identified over the study period with 754 (47%) patients in the aggressive period. There were no differences in age, sex, Injury Severity Score, transfusions, procedures, or LOS between cohorts. Pre-algorithm patients were more likely to have penetrating mechanism (9.3% vs 6.6%; P = .009) and longer time to VTE prophylaxis (23.3 vs 13.9 hours; P < .001). No differences were noted in anticoagulant, VTE rate (2.0% vs 1.2%; P = .195), or mortality. Linear regression analysis identified time to chemical prophylaxis as significant predictor of VTE (ß = 43.9, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Early aggressive chemical VTE prophylaxis is safe without increasing transfusions. Venous thromboembolism rates were decreased, but did not reach statistical significance.
Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Time-to-Treatment , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & control , Wounds and Injuries/complications , Adult , Aged , Algorithms , Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , Blood Transfusion , Colorado/epidemiology , Enoxaparin/administration & dosage , Enoxaparin/therapeutic use , Female , Humans , Injury Severity Score , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Registries , Regression Analysis , Retrospective Studies , Venous Thromboembolism/mortality , Wounds and Injuries/epidemiology , Wounds and Injuries/mortality , Wounds, Nonpenetrating/complications , Wounds, Nonpenetrating/epidemiology , Wounds, Nonpenetrating/mortality , Wounds, Penetrating/complications , Wounds, Penetrating/epidemiology , Wounds, Penetrating/mortality
BACKGROUND: Beta-blockers have been proven in multiple studies to be beneficial in patients with traumatic brain injury. Few prospective studies have verified this and no randomized controlled trials. Additionally, most studies do not titrate the dose of beta-blockers to therapeutic effect. We hypothesize that propranolol titrated to effect will confer a survival benefit in patients with traumatic brain injury. METHODS: A randomized controlled pilot trial was performed during a 24-month period. Patients with traumatic brain injury were randomized to propranolol or control group for a 14-day study period. Variables collected included demographics, injury severity, physiologic parameters, urinary catecholamines, and outcomes. Patients receiving propranolol were compared with the control group. RESULTS: Over the study period, 525 patients were screened, 26 were randomized, and 25 were analyzed. Overall, the mean age was 51.3 years and the majority were male with blunt mechanism. The mean Injury Severity Score was 21.8 and median head Abbreviated Injury Scale score was 4. Overall mortality was 20.0%. Mean arterial pressure was higher in the treatment arm as compared with control (p=0.021), but no other differences were found between the groups in demographics, severity of injury, severity of illness, physiologic parameters, or mortality (7.7% vs. 33%; p=0.109). No difference was detected over time in any variables with respect to treatment, urinary catecholamines, or physiologic parameters. Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation scores all improved over time. GCS at study end was significantly higher in the treatment arm (11.7 vs. 8.9; p=0.044). Finally, no difference was detected with survival analysis over time between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Despite not being powered to show statistical differences between groups, GCS at study end was significantly improved in the treatment arm and mortality was improved although not at a traditional level of significance. The study protocol was safe and feasible to apply to an appropriately powered larger multicenter study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2-therapeutic.
