Does preperitoneal packing increase venous thromboembolim risk among trauma patients? A prospective multicenter analysis across 17 level I trauma centers.

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-26 DOI:10.1097/TA.0000000000004416
Lisa Marie Knowlton, Angela Sauaia, Ernest E Moore, M Margaret Knudson
{"title":"Does preperitoneal packing increase venous thromboembolim risk among trauma patients? A prospective multicenter analysis across 17 level I trauma centers.","authors":"Lisa Marie Knowlton, Angela Sauaia, Ernest E Moore, M Margaret Knudson","doi":"10.1097/TA.0000000000004416","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Pelvic fractures are associated with a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Among treatment options, including pelvic angioembolization (PA), preperitoneal pelvic packing (PPP), and pelvic open reduction internal fixation (ORIF), PPP has been postulated as a VTE risk factor. We aimed to characterize the risk of VTE among pelvic fracture patients receiving PPP, PA or ORIF.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used observational data from a 17-site Consortium of Leaders in the Study of Traumatic Thromboembolism (CLOTT) study group, a US level I trauma center collaborative working to identify factors associated with posttraumatic VTE, deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or pulmonary thrombosis. The CLOTT criteria included age 18 to 40 years with at least one independent VTE risk factor. We compared outcomes of PPP, PA, and pelvic ORIF to reference of no pelvic intervention. Our primary outcome was VTE. A competing risk analysis was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 1,387 pelvic fracture patients, VTE incidence was 5.6%. The ORIF patients were most likely to develop VTE (24.7%), while VTE incidence for PPP was 9.0% and 2.6% for PA. After multivariate, risk-competing analysis, none of the three treatment interventions for pelvic fractures were significantly associated with VTE. Initiation of VTE prophylaxis in the first 24 hours of admission independently halved VTE incidence (hazard ratio, 0.55; confidence interval, 0.33-0.91).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Pelvic fracture interventions do not appear to be independent risk factors for VTE in our study. Initiation of VTE pharmacoprophylaxis within the first 24 hours of admission remains critical to significantly decreasing VTE formation in this high-risk population.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Therapeutic Study; Level III.</p>","PeriodicalId":17453,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000004416","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Pelvic fractures are associated with a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Among treatment options, including pelvic angioembolization (PA), preperitoneal pelvic packing (PPP), and pelvic open reduction internal fixation (ORIF), PPP has been postulated as a VTE risk factor. We aimed to characterize the risk of VTE among pelvic fracture patients receiving PPP, PA or ORIF.

Methods: We used observational data from a 17-site Consortium of Leaders in the Study of Traumatic Thromboembolism (CLOTT) study group, a US level I trauma center collaborative working to identify factors associated with posttraumatic VTE, deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or pulmonary thrombosis. The CLOTT criteria included age 18 to 40 years with at least one independent VTE risk factor. We compared outcomes of PPP, PA, and pelvic ORIF to reference of no pelvic intervention. Our primary outcome was VTE. A competing risk analysis was performed.

Results: Among 1,387 pelvic fracture patients, VTE incidence was 5.6%. The ORIF patients were most likely to develop VTE (24.7%), while VTE incidence for PPP was 9.0% and 2.6% for PA. After multivariate, risk-competing analysis, none of the three treatment interventions for pelvic fractures were significantly associated with VTE. Initiation of VTE prophylaxis in the first 24 hours of admission independently halved VTE incidence (hazard ratio, 0.55; confidence interval, 0.33-0.91).

Conclusion: Pelvic fracture interventions do not appear to be independent risk factors for VTE in our study. Initiation of VTE pharmacoprophylaxis within the first 24 hours of admission remains critical to significantly decreasing VTE formation in this high-risk population.

Level of evidence: Therapeutic Study; Level III.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
腹膜前包扎是否会增加创伤患者的静脉血栓栓塞风险?17家一级创伤中心的前瞻性多中心分析。
简介:骨盆骨折与静脉血栓栓塞(VTE)的高风险相关。在骨盆血管栓塞术(PA)、腹膜前骨盆填塞术(PPP)和骨盆切开复位内固定术(ORIF)等治疗方案中,PPP 被认为是 VTE 风险因素之一。我们的目的是描述接受 PPP、PA 或 ORIF 的骨盆骨折患者发生 VTE 的风险:我们使用了来自 17 个创伤血栓栓塞研究领导者联盟(CLOTT)研究小组的观察数据,该研究小组是美国一级创伤中心合作组织,致力于确定与创伤后 VTE、深静脉血栓形成、肺栓塞或肺血栓形成相关的因素。CLOTT 标准包括年龄在 18-40 岁之间,至少有一个独立的 VTE 危险因素。我们将 PPP、PA 和骨盆 ORIF 的结果与不进行骨盆干预的结果进行了比较。我们的主要结果是 VTE。我们进行了竞争风险分析:在 1,387 名骨盆骨折患者中,VTE 发生率为 5.6%。ORIF患者最有可能发生VTE(24.7%),而PPP的VTE发生率为9.0%,PA的VTE发生率为2.6%。经过多变量风险竞争分析,骨盆骨折的三种治疗干预均与 VTE 无明显关联。入院后24小时内开始预防VTE可使VTE发生率独立减半(危险比为0.55;置信区间为0.33-0.91):结论:在我们的研究中,骨盆骨折干预似乎不是VTE的独立风险因素。结论:在我们的研究中,骨盆骨折干预似乎不是VTE的独立风险因素。在入院后的24小时内开始VTE药物预防仍是显著减少这一高风险人群VTE形成的关键:证据级别:治疗研究;III级。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
11.80%
发文量
637
审稿时长
2.7 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery® is designed to provide the scientific basis to optimize care of the severely injured and critically ill surgical patient. Thus, the Journal has a high priority for basic and translation research to fulfill this objectives. Additionally, the Journal is enthusiastic to publish randomized prospective clinical studies to establish care predicated on a mechanistic foundation. Finally, the Journal is seeking systematic reviews, guidelines and algorithms that incorporate the best evidence available.
期刊最新文献
The always evolving diagnosis and management of Clostridioides difficile colitis: What you need to know. The MangLE score: A novel simple tool to identify patients who are unlikely to require amputation following severe lower extremity injury. Thoracic irrigation for traumatic hemothorax: A systematic review and meta-analysis. What you need to know: Current management of acute appendicitis in adults. Pregnancy and trauma: What you need to know.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1