Thromboprophylaxis does not protect severely injured patients against pulmonary embolism

George C. Velmahos, Konstantinos G. Toutouzas, Carlos Brown, Pantelis Vassiliu, George Gkiokas, Peter Rhee

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The existing evidence on the effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis after trauma is conflicting. Although prophylaxis with heparin and/or sequential compression devices is practiced widely, many studies failed to document a clear benefit. A recent meta-analysis suggests that prophylaxis does not reduce posttraumatic deep venous thrombosis rates compared to no prophylaxis. The objective of this prospective study is to examine if the use of thromboprophylaxis prevents posttraumatic pulmonary embolism (PE). Sixty-four critically injured patients with clinical evidence of PE were studied by computed tomographic pulmonary angiography and/or conventional pulmonary angiography. PE was diagnosed in 24 (37.5%) patients. Patients with PE were similar to patients without PE with regard to demographics, injury type and severity, operations, and mortality. Thromboprophylaxis was used with equal frequency between PE and no-PE patients (71% vs 80%, P = 0.4). The type of prophylaxis used was similar between patients with PE (17% heparin, 71% sequential compression devices, 17% combination) and patients without PE (32%, 57%, and 10%, respectively; P = 0.16, 0.28, 0.69, respectively). Current methods of posttraumatic thromboprophylaxis may be inadequate. Practices from nontrauma populations have been erroneously extrapolated to the unique trauma population. To reduce the rate of PE after trauma, new methods of thromboprophylaxis should be considered.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)893-896
Number of pages4
JournalAmerican Surgeon
Volume70
Issue number10
StatePublished - 2004

Fingerprint

Pulmonary Embolism
Wounds and Injuries
Heparin
Angiography
Equipment and Supplies
Lung
Venous Thrombosis
Population
Meta-Analysis
Demography
Prospective Studies
Mortality

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Velmahos, G. C., Toutouzas, K. G., Brown, C., Vassiliu, P., Gkiokas, G., & Rhee, P. (2004). Thromboprophylaxis does not protect severely injured patients against pulmonary embolism. American Surgeon, 70(10), 893-896.

Thromboprophylaxis does not protect severely injured patients against pulmonary embolism. / Velmahos, George C.; Toutouzas, Konstantinos G.; Brown, Carlos; Vassiliu, Pantelis; Gkiokas, George; Rhee, Peter.

In: American Surgeon, Vol. 70, No. 10, 2004, p. 893-896.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Velmahos, GC, Toutouzas, KG, Brown, C, Vassiliu, P, Gkiokas, G & Rhee, P 2004, 'Thromboprophylaxis does not protect severely injured patients against pulmonary embolism', American Surgeon, vol. 70, no. 10, pp. 893-896.
Velmahos GC, Toutouzas KG, Brown C, Vassiliu P, Gkiokas G, Rhee P. Thromboprophylaxis does not protect severely injured patients against pulmonary embolism. American Surgeon. 2004;70(10):893-896.
Velmahos, George C. ; Toutouzas, Konstantinos G. ; Brown, Carlos ; Vassiliu, Pantelis ; Gkiokas, George ; Rhee, Peter. / Thromboprophylaxis does not protect severely injured patients against pulmonary embolism. In: American Surgeon. 2004 ; Vol. 70, No. 10. pp. 893-896.
@article{43015b985f4045e49e96b9fa75bcf889,
title = "Thromboprophylaxis does not protect severely injured patients against pulmonary embolism",
abstract = "The existing evidence on the effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis after trauma is conflicting. Although prophylaxis with heparin and/or sequential compression devices is practiced widely, many studies failed to document a clear benefit. A recent meta-analysis suggests that prophylaxis does not reduce posttraumatic deep venous thrombosis rates compared to no prophylaxis. The objective of this prospective study is to examine if the use of thromboprophylaxis prevents posttraumatic pulmonary embolism (PE). Sixty-four critically injured patients with clinical evidence of PE were studied by computed tomographic pulmonary angiography and/or conventional pulmonary angiography. PE was diagnosed in 24 (37.5{\%}) patients. Patients with PE were similar to patients without PE with regard to demographics, injury type and severity, operations, and mortality. Thromboprophylaxis was used with equal frequency between PE and no-PE patients (71{\%} vs 80{\%}, P = 0.4). The type of prophylaxis used was similar between patients with PE (17{\%} heparin, 71{\%} sequential compression devices, 17{\%} combination) and patients without PE (32{\%}, 57{\%}, and 10{\%}, respectively; P = 0.16, 0.28, 0.69, respectively). Current methods of posttraumatic thromboprophylaxis may be inadequate. Practices from nontrauma populations have been erroneously extrapolated to the unique trauma population. To reduce the rate of PE after trauma, new methods of thromboprophylaxis should be considered.",
author = "Velmahos, {George C.} and Toutouzas, {Konstantinos G.} and Carlos Brown and Pantelis Vassiliu and George Gkiokas and Peter Rhee",
year = "2004",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "70",
pages = "893--896",
journal = "American Surgeon",
issn = "0003-1348",
publisher = "Southeastern Surgical Congress",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Thromboprophylaxis does not protect severely injured patients against pulmonary embolism

AU - Velmahos, George C.

AU - Toutouzas, Konstantinos G.

AU - Brown, Carlos

AU - Vassiliu, Pantelis

AU - Gkiokas, George

AU - Rhee, Peter

PY - 2004

Y1 - 2004

N2 - The existing evidence on the effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis after trauma is conflicting. Although prophylaxis with heparin and/or sequential compression devices is practiced widely, many studies failed to document a clear benefit. A recent meta-analysis suggests that prophylaxis does not reduce posttraumatic deep venous thrombosis rates compared to no prophylaxis. The objective of this prospective study is to examine if the use of thromboprophylaxis prevents posttraumatic pulmonary embolism (PE). Sixty-four critically injured patients with clinical evidence of PE were studied by computed tomographic pulmonary angiography and/or conventional pulmonary angiography. PE was diagnosed in 24 (37.5%) patients. Patients with PE were similar to patients without PE with regard to demographics, injury type and severity, operations, and mortality. Thromboprophylaxis was used with equal frequency between PE and no-PE patients (71% vs 80%, P = 0.4). The type of prophylaxis used was similar between patients with PE (17% heparin, 71% sequential compression devices, 17% combination) and patients without PE (32%, 57%, and 10%, respectively; P = 0.16, 0.28, 0.69, respectively). Current methods of posttraumatic thromboprophylaxis may be inadequate. Practices from nontrauma populations have been erroneously extrapolated to the unique trauma population. To reduce the rate of PE after trauma, new methods of thromboprophylaxis should be considered.

AB - The existing evidence on the effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis after trauma is conflicting. Although prophylaxis with heparin and/or sequential compression devices is practiced widely, many studies failed to document a clear benefit. A recent meta-analysis suggests that prophylaxis does not reduce posttraumatic deep venous thrombosis rates compared to no prophylaxis. The objective of this prospective study is to examine if the use of thromboprophylaxis prevents posttraumatic pulmonary embolism (PE). Sixty-four critically injured patients with clinical evidence of PE were studied by computed tomographic pulmonary angiography and/or conventional pulmonary angiography. PE was diagnosed in 24 (37.5%) patients. Patients with PE were similar to patients without PE with regard to demographics, injury type and severity, operations, and mortality. Thromboprophylaxis was used with equal frequency between PE and no-PE patients (71% vs 80%, P = 0.4). The type of prophylaxis used was similar between patients with PE (17% heparin, 71% sequential compression devices, 17% combination) and patients without PE (32%, 57%, and 10%, respectively; P = 0.16, 0.28, 0.69, respectively). Current methods of posttraumatic thromboprophylaxis may be inadequate. Practices from nontrauma populations have been erroneously extrapolated to the unique trauma population. To reduce the rate of PE after trauma, new methods of thromboprophylaxis should be considered.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=16644368587&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=16644368587&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 70

SP - 893

EP - 896

JO - American Surgeon

JF - American Surgeon

SN - 0003-1348

IS - 10

ER -