Enoxaparin may be associated with lower rates of mortality than unfractionated heparin in neurocritical and surgical patients.

Unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) are often administered to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) in critically ill patients. However, the preferred prophylactic agent (UFH or LMWH) is not known. We compared the all-cause mortality rate in patients receiving UFH to LMWH for VTE prophylaxis. We conducted a retrospective propensity score adjusted analysis of patients admitted to neuro-critical, surgical, or medical intensive care units. Patients were included if they were screened with venous duplex ultrasonography or computed tomography angiography for detection of VTE. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included the prevalence of VTE, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), and hospital length of stay (LOS). Initially 2228 patients in the cohort were included for analysis, 1836 (82%) patients received UFH, and 392 (18%) patients received enoxaparin. After propensity score matching, a well-balanced cohort of 618 patients remained in the study (309 patients receiving UFH; 309 patients receiving enoxaparin). The use of UFH for VTE prophylaxis in ICU patients was associated with similar rates of all-cause mortality compared with enoxaparin [RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.43-1.24, p = 0.310]. There were no differences in the prevalence of DVT, prevalence of PE or hospital LOS between the two groups, DVT [RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.56-1.53, p = 0.889], PE [RR 1.50; 95% CI 0.78-2.90, p = 0.296] and LOS [9 ± 9 days vs 9 ± 8; p = 0.857]. A trend toward mortality benefit was observed in NICU [RR 0.37; 95% CI 0.13-1.07, p = 0.062] and surgical patients [RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.17-1.02, p = 0.075] favoring the enoxaparin group. The use of UFH for VTE prophylaxis in ICU patients was associated with similar rates of VTE, all-cause mortality and LOS compared to enoxaparin. In subgroup analysis, neuro-critical and surgical patients who received UFH had a higher rate of mortality than those who received enoxaparin.

Samuel S ，To C ，Ling Y ，Zhang K ，Jiang X ，Bernstam EV ... -  《-》

Unfractionated heparin versus enoxaparin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in intensive care units: a propensity score adjusted analysis.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication in hospitalized patients. Pharmacologic prophylaxis is used in order to reduce the risk of VTE events. The main purpose of this study is to compare the prevalence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) who received unfractionated heparin (UFH) versus enoxaparin as VTE prophylaxis. Mortality was evaluated as a secondary outcome. This was a Propensity Score Adjusted Analysis. Patients admitted to neurology, surgical, or medical ICUs and screened with venous doppler ultrasonography or computed tomography angiography for detection of VTE were included in the analysis. We identified 2228 patients in the cohort, 1836 (82.4%) patients received UFH and 392 (17.6%) patients received enoxaparin. Propensity score matching yielded a well-balanced cohort of 950 (74% UFH, 26% enoxaparin) patients. After matching, there was no difference in prevalence of DVT (RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.67-1.64, p = 0.85) and PE (RR 0.76; 95% CI, 0.44-1.30, p = 0.31). No significant differences in location and severity of DVT and PE between the two groups were detected. Hospital and intensive care unit stay was similar between the two groups. Unfractionated heparin was associated with a higher rate of mortality, (HR 2.04; 95% CI, 1.13-3.70; p = 0.019). The use of UFH as VTE prophylaxis in ICU patients was associated with a similar prevalence of DVT and PE compared with enoxaparin, and the site and degree of occlusion were similar. However, a higher mortality rate was seen in the UFH group.

Samuel S ，Li W ，Dunn K ，Cortes J ，Nguyen T ，Moussa D ，Kumar A ，Dao T ，Beeson J ，Choi HA ，McCullough LD ... -  《-》

Pharmacological interventions for preventing venous thromboembolism in people undergoing bariatric surgery.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), which comprises deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is the leading cause of preventable death in hospitalised people and the third most common cause of mortality in surgical patients. People undergoing bariatric surgery have the additional risk factor of being overweight. Although VTE prophylaxis in surgical patients is well established, the best way to prevent VTE in those undergoing bariatric surgery is less clear. To evaluate the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions (alone or in combination) on venous thromboembolism and other health outcomes in people undergoing bariatric surgery compared to the same pharmacological intervention administered at a different dose or frequency, the same pharmacological intervention or started at a different time point, another pharmacological intervention, no intervention or placebo. We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 1 November 2021. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in males and females of any age undergoing bariatric surgery comparing pharmacological interventions for VTE (alone or in combination) with the same pharmacological intervention administered at a different dose or frequency, the same pharmacological intervention started at a different time point, a different pharmacological intervention, no treatment or placebo. We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. VTE and 2. major bleeding. Our secondary outcomes were 1. all-cause mortality, 2. VTE-related mortality, 3. PE, 4. DVT, 5. adverse effects and 6. quality of life. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. We included seven RCTs with 1045 participants. Data for meta-analysis were available from all participants. Four RCTs (597 participants) compared higher-dose heparin to standard-dose heparin: one of these studies (139 participants) used unfractionated heparin (UFH) and the other three (458 participants) used low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). One study compared heparin versus pentasaccharide (198 participants), and one study compared starting heparin before versus after bariatric surgery (100 participants). One study (150 participants) compared combined mechanical and pharmacological (enoxaparin) prophylaxis versus mechanical prophylaxis alone. The duration of the interventions ranged from seven to 15 days, and follow-up ranged from 10 to 180 days. Higher-dose heparin versus standard-dose heparin Compared to standard-dose heparin, higher-dose heparin may result in little or no difference in the risk of VTE (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.99; 4 studies, 597 participants) or major bleeding (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.96; I2 = 8%; 4 studies, 597 participants; low-certainty) in people undergoing bariatric surgery. The evidence on all-cause mortality, VTE-related mortality, PE, DVT and adverse events (thrombocytopenia) is uncertain (effect not estimable or very low-certainty evidence). Heparin versus pentasaccharide Heparin compared to a pentasaccharide after bariatric surgery may result in little or no difference in the risk of VTE (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.19 to 3.61; 1 study, 175 participants) or DVT (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.19 to 3.61; 1 study, 175 participants). The evidence on major bleeding, PE and mortality is uncertain (effect not estimable or very low-certainty evidence). Heparin started before versus after the surgical procedure Starting prophylaxis with heparin 12 hours before surgery versus after surgery may result in little or no difference in the risk of VTE (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.01; 1 study, 100 participants) or DVT (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.01; 1 study, 100 participants). The evidence on major bleeding, all-cause mortality and VTE-related mortality is uncertain (effect not estimable or very low-certainty evidence). We were unable to assess the effect of this intervention on PE or adverse effects, as the study did not measure these outcomes. Combined mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis versus mechanical prophylaxis alone Combining mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis (started 12 hours before surgery) may reduce VTE events in people undergoing bariatric surgery compared to mechanical prophylaxis alone (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.89; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 9; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty). We were unable to assess the effect of this intervention on major bleeding or morality (effect not estimable), or on PE or adverse events (not measured). No studies measured quality of life. Higher-dose heparin may make little or no difference to venous thromboembolism or major bleeding in people undergoing bariatric surgery when compared to standard-dose heparin. Heparin may make little or no difference to venous thromboembolism in people undergoing bariatric surgery when compared to pentasaccharide. There are inadequate data to draw conclusions about the effects of heparin compared to pentasaccharide on major bleeding. Starting prophylaxis with heparin 12 hours before bariatric surgery may make little or no difference to venous thromboembolism in people undergoing bariatric surgery when compared to starting heparin after bariatric surgery. There are inadequate data to draw conclusions about the effects of heparin started before versus after surgery on major bleeding. Combining mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis (started 12 hours before surgery) may reduce VTE events in people undergoing bariatric surgery when compared to mechanical prophylaxis alone. No data are available relating to major bleeding. The certainty of the evidence is limited by small sample sizes, few or no events, and risk of bias concerns. Future trials must be sufficiently large to enable analysis of relevant clinical outcomes, and should standardise the time of treatment and follow-up. They should also address the effect of direct oral anticoagulants and antiplatelets, preferably grouping them according to the type of intervention.

Amaral FC ，Baptista-Silva JC ，Nakano LC ，Flumignan RL ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

The survival benefit of low molecular weight heparin over unfractionated heparin in pediatric trauma patients.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in pediatric patients is controversial and is mainly dependent on protocols derived from adult practices. Our study aimed to compare outcomes among pediatric trauma patients who received low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) compared to those who received unfractionated heparin (UFH). We performed 2 years (2015-2016) retrospective analysis of the Pediatrics ACS-TQIP database. Pediatric trauma patients (age ≤17) who received thromboprophylaxis with either LMWH or UFH were included. Patients were stratified into three age groups. Analysis of each subgroup and the entire cohort was performed. Outcome measures included VTE events (deep vein thrombosis [DVT] and pulmonary embolism [PE]), hospital and ICU length of stay (LOS) among survivors, and mortality. Propensity score matching was used to match the two cohorts LMWH vs UFH. A matched cohort of 1,678 pediatric trauma patients was analyzed. A significant difference in survival, DVT events, and in-hospital LOS was seen in the age groups above 9 years. Overall, the patients who received LMWH had lower mortality (1.4% vs 3.6%, p<0.01), DVT (1.7% vs 3.7%, p<0.01), and hospital LOS among survivors (7 days vs 9 days, p<0.01) compared to those who received UFH. There was no significant difference in the ICU LOS among survivors and the incidence of PE between the two groups. LMWH is associated with increased survival, lower rates of DVT, and decreased hospital LOS compared to UFH among pediatric trauma patients age 10-17 years. Level III Prophylactic. Prophylactic.

Khurrum M ，Asmar S ，Henry M ，Ditillo M ，Chehab M ，Tang A ，Bible L ，Gries L ，Joseph B ... -  《-》

Incidence of Symptomatic Venous Thromboembolisms in Stroke Patients.

Al Turk M ，Abraham M 《-》