Effectiveness of low-molecular-weight heparin versus unfractionated heparin to prevent pulmonary embolism following major trauma: A propensity-matched analysis.

James P Byrne William Geerts Stephanie A Mason David Gomez Christopher Hoeft Ryan Murphy Melanie Neal Avery B Nathens

J Trauma Acute Care Surg

From the Sunnybrook Research Institute, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center (J.P.B., W.G., S.A.M., A.B.N.); and Clinical Epidemiology Program, Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (J.P.B., S.A.M., A.B.N.); Division of General Surgery (J.P.B., S.A.M., D.G., A.B.N.); and Department of Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center (W.G., A.B.N.), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; and Trauma Quality Improvement Program, American College of Surgeons, Chicago, Illinois (C.H., R.M., M.N., A.B.N.).

Published: February 2017

LMWH is more effective than UH in reducing the incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients with severe injuries, according to recent research.
The study analyzed data from over 153,000 trauma patients and found a lower PE rate of 1.4% in those receiving LMWH compared to 2.4% for those on UH.
Hospitals that predominantly used LMWH for thromboprophylaxis had significantly reduced PE rates, indicating that choice of anticoagulant may influence patient outcomes.

Background: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a leading cause of delayed mortality in patients with severe injury. While low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is often favored over unfractionated heparin (UH) for thromboprophylaxis, evidence is lacking to demonstrate an effect on the occurrence of PE. This study compared the effectiveness of LMWH versus UH to prevent PE in patients following major trauma.

Methods: Data for adults with severe injury who received thromboprophylaxis with LMWH or UH were derived from the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2012-2015). Patients who died or were discharged within 5 days were excluded. Rates of PE were compared between propensity-matched LMWH and UH groups. Subgroup analyses included patients with blunt multisystem injury, penetrating truncal injury, shock, severe traumatic brain injury, and isolated orthopedic injury. A center-level analysis was performed to determine if practices with respect to choice of prophylaxis type influence hospital PE rates.

Results: We identified 153,474 patients at 217 trauma centers who received thromboprophylaxis with LMWH or UH. Low-molecular-weight heparin was given in 74% of patients. Pulmonary embolism occurred in 1.8%. Propensity score matching yielded a well-balanced cohort of 75,920 patients. After matching, LMWH was associated with a significantly lower rate of PE compared with UH (1.4% vs. 2.4%; odds ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.63). This finding was consistent across injury subgroups. Trauma centers in the highest quartile of LMWH utilization (median LMWH use, 95%) reported significantly fewer PE compared with centers in the lowest quartile (median LMWH use, 39%; 1.2% vs. 2.0%; odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.74).

Conclusions: Thromboprophylaxis with LMWH (vs. UH) was associated with significantly lower risk of PE. Trauma centers favoring LMWH-based prophylaxis strategies reported lower rates of PE. Low-molecular-weight heparin should be the anticoagulant agent of choice for prevention of PE in patients with major trauma.

Level Of Evidence: Therapeutic study, level III.

Download full-text PDF	Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000001321	DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

low-molecular-weight heparin

pulmonary embolism

thromboprophylaxis lmwh

trauma centers

lmwh

unfractionated heparin

patients

severe injury

patients major

received thromboprophylaxis

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!