Low Molecular Weight Heparin Is Superior for Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in High-Risk Geriatric Patients.

Autor:	Deusenberry CM; School of Pharmacy, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA., Bardsley C; School of Pharmacy, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA., Sharon M; Department of Surgery, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA., Hobbs GR; Department of Statistic, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA., Wilson AM; Department of Surgery, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA., Bardes JM; Department of Surgery, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	The American surgeon [Am Surg] 2023 Dec; Vol. 89 (12), pp. 5837-5841. Date of Electronic Publication: 2023 May 19.
DOI:	10.1177/00031348231177922
Abstrakt:	Introduction: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a source of preventable morbidity and mortality in critically ill trauma patients. Age is one independent risk factor. Geriatric patients embody a population at high thromboembolic and hemorrhagic risk. Currently, there is little guidance between low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin (UFH) for anticoagulant prophylaxis in the geriatric trauma patient. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted at an ACS verified, Level I Trauma center from 2014 to 2018. All patients 65 years or older, with high-risk injuries and admitted to the trauma service were included. Choice of agent was at provider discretion. Patients in renal failure, or those that received no chemoprophylaxis, were excluded. The primary outcomes were the diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism and bleeding associated complications (gastrointestinal bleed, TBI expansion, hematoma development). Results: This study evaluated 375 subjects, 245 (65%) received enoxaparin and 130 (35%) received heparin. DVT developed in 6.9% of UFH patients, compared to 3.3% with LMWH ( P = .1). PE was present in 3.8% of UFH group, but only .4% in the LMWH group ( P = .01). Combined rate of DVT/PE was significantly lower ( P = .006) with LMWH (3.7%) compared to UFH (10.8%). 10 patients had documented bleeding events, and there was no significant association between bleeding and the use of LMWH or UFH. Conclusions: VTE events are more common in geriatric patients treated with UFH compared to LMWH. There was no associated increase in bleeding complications when LMWH was utilized. LMWH should be considered the chemoprophylatic agent of choice in high risk geriatric trauma patients. Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu