Retrospective Evaluation of Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Elderly, High-Risk Trauma Patients.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk increases with age. Scarce data exist for patients age ≥65 y. This study evaluated VTE incidence in elderly, high-risk trauma patients receiving unfractionated heparin (UFH) or enoxaparin chemoprophylaxis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective, single-center, cohort study included trauma patients age ≥ 65 y with risk assessment profile (RAP) ≥ 5 who received UFH or enoxaparin chemoprophylaxis. The primary outcome was VTE incidence requiring therapeutic anticoagulation. An age-modified RAP (RAP-AM) was calculated as RAP without age distribution points. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify independent predictors for VTE development and chemoprophylactic agent selection. Bleeding incidence compared packed red blood cells utilized. RESULTS: A total of 1090 patients were included (UFH, n = 655; enoxaparin, n = 435). VTE occurred in 39 (3.6%) patients with no difference between groups in proximal deep vein thrombosis (2.1% versus 3.0%, P = 0.52) or pulmonary embolism (1.2% versus 1.4%, P = 0.96). Weight ≥125 kg (OR 4.12, 95% CI 1.06-16.11) and RAP-AM ≥ 5 (OR 6.52, 95% CI 2.65-16.03) were independently associated with VTE development. Increasing age (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.03-1.06), initiation ≤ 24 h (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.66-2.84) and creatinine clearance ≤ 30 mL/min (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.17-2.21) were independent predictors of receiving UFH whereas increasing ISS (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.95-0.99) was associated with receiving enoxaparin. CONCLUSIONS: VTE incidence may be similar for high-risk, elderly trauma patients receiving UFH and enoxaparin chemoprophylaxis. Further research is necessary to determine noninferiority of UFH to enoxaparin in this patient population.

An Appraisal of Pharmacotherapy-Pertinent Literature Published in 2021 and 2022 for Clinicians Caring for Patients With Thermal or Inhalation Injury.

Studies focusing on pharmacotherapy interventions to aid patients after thermal injury are a minor focus in burn injury-centered studies and published across a wide array of journals, which challenges those with limited resources to keep their knowledge current. This review is a renewal of previous years' work to facilitate extraction and review of the most recent pharmacotherapy-centric studies in patients with thermal and inhalation injury. Twenty-three geographically dispersed, board-certified pharmacists participated in the review. A Medical Subject Heading-based, filtered search returned 2336 manuscripts over the previous 2-year period. After manual review, 98 (4%) manuscripts were determined to have a potential impact on current pharmacotherapy practice. The top 10 scored manuscripts are discussed. Only 17% of those reviewed were assessed to likely have little effect on current practice. The overall impact of the current cohort was higher than previous editions of this review, which is encouraging. There remains a need for investment in well-designed, high-impact, pharmacotherapy-pertinent research for patients sustaining thermal or inhalation injuries.