Search

BACKGROUND Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is widely used for venous thromboembolism chemoprophylaxis following injury. However, unfractionated heparin (UFH) is a less expensive option. We compared LMWH and UFH for prevention of posttraumatic deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). METHODS Trauma patients 15 years or older with at least one administration of venous thromboembolism chemoprophylaxis at two level I trauma centers with similar DVT-screening protocols were identified. Center 1 administered UFH every 8 hours for chemoprophylaxis, and center 2 used twice-daily antifactor Xa-adjusted LMWH. Clinical characteristics and primary chemoprophylaxis agent were evaluated in a two-level logistic regression model. Primary outcome was incidence of DVT and PE. RESULTS There were 3,654 patients: 1,155 at center 1 and 2,499 at center 2. The unadjusted DVT rate at center 1 was lower than at center 2 (3.5% vs. 5.0%; p = 0.04); PE rates did not significantly differ (0.4% vs. 0.6%; p = 0.64). Patients at center 2 were older (mean, 50.3 vs. 47.3 years; p < 0.001) and had higher Injury Severity Scores (median, 10 vs. 9; p < 0.001), longer stays in the hospital (mean, 9.4 vs. 7.0 days; p < 0.001) and intensive care unit (mean, 3.0 vs. 1.3 days; p < 0.001), and a higher mortality rate (1.6% vs. 0.6%, p = 0.02) than patients at center 1. Center 1's patients received their first dose of chemoprophylaxis earlier than patients at center 2 (median, 1.0 vs. 1.7 days; p < 0.001). After risk adjustment and accounting for center effects, primary chemoprophylaxis agent was not associated with risk of DVT (odds ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-1.48; p = 0.949). Cost calculations showed that UFH was less expensive than LMWH. CONCLUSION Primary utilization of UFH is not inferior to LMWH for posttraumatic DVT chemoprophylaxis and rates of PE are similar. Given that UFH is lower in cost, the choice of this chemoprophylaxis agent may have major economic implications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Prognostic and epidemiological, level II; Therapeutic, level III.

Background Extremity vascular injuries in children are rare events that present unique therapeutic challenges. The absence of a pediatric-specific protocol for definitive care of these injuries risks variability in treatment practices and outcomes. Using a nationwide data set, we investigated variations in the management and outcomes of pediatric patients with peripheral vascular trauma and characterized differences based on hospital category. Methods Retrospective cohort study using the American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Trauma Data Bank to identify patients 16 years or younger with extremity vascular trauma admitted in calendar year 2016. Hospitals were categorized as ACS-verified pediatric trauma centers (Level I or II), ACS-verified adult trauma centers (Level I or II), or other hospitals (all other trauma centers and nondesignated hospitals). Patient data were evaluated by hospital category. Results Among 164,882 pediatric admissions, 702 patients were identified for analysis. There were 430 (61.3%) patients with upper-extremity injuries, 270 (38.5%) with lower-extremity injuries, and 2 (0.2%) had both. Mean age was 11.5 years, and 51.6% were blunt-injured. Overall, 40.2% were admitted to pediatric trauma centers, 28.9% to adult trauma centers, and 30.9% to other hospitals. Hospitals without ACS trauma center verification had a significantly higher amputation rate than any ACS-verified adult or pediatric center (p = 0.013). Conclusion The incidence of pediatric extremity vascular injury is low. Hospitals with ACS trauma center verification have greater pediatric limb salvage rates than those without verification. Future study should seek to identify specific regional or resource-related factors that contribute to this disparity. Level of evidence Epidemiological, level III.