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., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Emergency department thoracotomy (EDT) for pediatric patients is uncommon, and practice patterns have not been evaluated. We examined the indications and outcomes for EDT by trauma center designation using a nationwide database., Methods: Patients 16 years or younger who underwent EDT within 30 minutes of arrival from 2013 to 2016 were identified in the American College of Surgeons National Trauma Data Bank. Patient demographic information, indications for EDT, and outcomes were analyzed. Outcomes were compared between centers with and without pediatric trauma center designation., Results: A total of 114 patients were identified for analysis with a mean ± SD age of 10.3 ± 4.7 years. Patients were predominantly male (69%) with a median Injury Severity Score of 26 (interquartile range, 18-42). Penetrating trauma occurred in 56%. Overall, mortality was 90% and was similar in penetrating and blunt trauma (88% vs. 94%; p = 0.34). There were no survivors among the 53 patients (46%) who arrived with no signs of life. Among the 11 patients (10%) who survived, median length of stay was 26 days (interquartile range, 6-28 days). Overall, 8% of EDT was performed at free-standing pediatric trauma centers, 45% at adult centers, and 47% at combined trauma centers. Mortality rates and indications were similar among trauma centers regardless of designation status., Conclusion: In a national population-based data set, the mortality after pediatric EDT is high, and many of these procedures are performed at nonpediatric trauma centers. Regardless of injury mechanism, EDT is not appropriate in children without signs of life on arrival. Pediatric guidelines are needed to increase awareness of the poor outcomes and limited indications for EDT., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic, level IV.