Low-molecular-weight heparin versus unfractionated heparin in pediatric traumatic brain injury

Erp, I.A. van; Gaitanidis, A.; Moheb, M. el; Kaafarani, H.M.A.; Saillant, N.; Duhaime, A.C.; Mendoza, A.E.

doi:doi:10.3171/2020.9.PEDS20615

OBJECTIVE The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) has in-creased significantly. The Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma recommends using low-molecular-weight hepa- rin (LMWH) over unfractionated heparin (UH) in pediatric patients requiring VTE prophylaxis, although this strategy is unsupported by the literature. In this study, the authors compare the outcomes of pediatric TBI patients receiving LMWH versus UH.METHODS The authors performed a 4-year (2014 & ndash;2017) analysis of the pediatric American College of Surgeons Trau-ma Quality Improvement Program. All trauma patients (age <= 18 years) with TBI requiring thromboprophylaxis with UH or LMWH were potentially eligible for inclusion. Patients who had been transferred, had died in the emergency department, or had penetrating trauma were excluded. Patients were stratified into either the LMWH or the UH group on the basis of the prophylaxis they had received. Patients...Show moreOBJECTIVE The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) has in-creased significantly. The Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma recommends using low-molecular-weight hepa- rin (LMWH) over unfractionated heparin (UH) in pediatric patients requiring VTE prophylaxis, although this strategy is unsupported by the literature. In this study, the authors compare the outcomes of pediatric TBI patients receiving LMWH versus UH.METHODS The authors performed a 4-year (2014 & ndash;2017) analysis of the pediatric American College of Surgeons Trau-ma Quality Improvement Program. All trauma patients (age <= 18 years) with TBI requiring thromboprophylaxis with UH or LMWH were potentially eligible for inclusion. Patients who had been transferred, had died in the emergency department, or had penetrating trauma were excluded. Patients were stratified into either the LMWH or the UH group on the basis of the prophylaxis they had received. Patients were matched on the basis of demographics, injury characteristics, vital signs, and transfusion requirements using propensity score matching (PSM). The study endpoints were VTE, death, and craniotomy after initiation of prophylaxis. Univariate analysis was performed after PSM to compare outcomes.RESULTS A total of 2479 patients met the inclusion criteria (mean age 15.5 +/- 3.7 years and 32.0% female), of which 1570 (63.3%) had received LMWH and 909 (36.7%) had received UH. Before PSM, patients receiving UH were younger, had a lower Glasgow Coma Scale score, and had a higher Injury Severity Score. Patients treated in pediatric hospitals were more likely to receive UH (12.9% vs 9.0%, p < 0.001) than patients treated in adult hospitals. Matched patients re-ceiving UH had a higher incidence of VTE (5.1% vs 2.9%, p = 0.03).CONCLUSIONS LMWH prophylaxis in pediatric TBI appears to be more effective than UH in preventing VTE. Large, multicenter prospective studies are warranted to confirm the superiority of LMWH over UH in pediatric patients with TBI. Moreover, outcomes of VTE prophylaxis in the very young remain understudied; therefore, dedicated studies to evaluate this are needed.Show less

Leiden University Scholarly Publications

View statistics

In Collections

Low-molecular-weight heparin versus unfractionated heparin in pediatric traumatic brain injury