PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Amer, Marwa
AU  - Bawazeer, Mohammed
AU  - Maghrabi, Khalid
AU  - Amin, Rashid
AU  - De Vol, Edward
AU  - Hijazi, Mohammed
TI  - Timing and Dose of Pharmacological Thromboprophylaxis in Adult Trauma Patients: Perceptions, Barriers, and Experience of Saudi Arabia Practicing Physicians
AID  - 10.1101/2021.01.26.21250366
DP  - 2021 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2021.01.26.21250366
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/01/29/2021.01.26.21250366.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/01/29/2021.01.26.21250366.full
AB  - Background Pharmacological venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (PVTE-Px) in trauma care is challenging and frequently delayed until post injury bleeding risk is perceived to be sufficiently low; yet data for optimal initiation time is lacking. This study assessed practice pattern of PVTE-Px initiation time and dose in traumatic brain injury (TBI), spinal cord injury (SCI), and non-operative (NOR) solid organ injuries.Methods Multicenter, cross sectional, observational, survey-based study involving intensivists, trauma surgeons, general surgeons, spine orthopedics, and neurosurgeons practicing in trauma centers. The data of demographics, PVTE-Px timing and dose, and five clinical case scenarios were obtained. Analyses were stratified by early initiators vs. late initiators and logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with early initiation of PVTE-Px.Results Of 102 physicians (29 % response rate), most respondents were intensivists (63.7%) and surgeons (who are general and trauma surgeons) (22.5%); majority were consultants (58%), practicing at level 1 trauma centers (40.6%) or academic teaching hospitals (45.1%). A third of respondents (34.2%) indicated that decision to initiate PVTE-Px in TBI and SCI was made by a consensus between surgical, critical care, and neurosurgical services. For patients with NOR solid organ injuries, 34.2% of respondents indicated trauma surgeons initiated the decision on PVTE-Px timing. About 53.7% of the respondents considered their PVTE-Px practice as appropriate, half used combined mechanical and PVTE-Px (57.1%), 52% preferred enoxaparin (40 mg once daily), and only 6.5% used anti-Xa level to guide enoxaparin prophylactic dose. Responses to clinical cases varied. For TBI and TBI with intracranial pressure monitor, 40.3% and 45.6% of the respondents were early initiators with stable repeated head computed tomography [CT], respectively. For SCI, most respondents were early initiators without repeated CT spine (36.8%). With regards to NOR solid organ injuries [gunshot wound to the liver and grade IV splenic injuries], 49.1% and 36.4% of respondents were early initiators without a repeat CT abdomen.Conclusions Variations were observed in PVTE-Px initiation time influenced by trauma type. Our findings suggested enoxaparin is preferred in a standard prophylactic dose. More robust data from randomized trials are needed and the use of clinicians’ judgment is recommended.Key MessagesIdeal time to initiate therapy, agent selection, dosing, and monitoring of pharmacological venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (PVTE-Px) for trauma patients is challenging.Variations were observed in PVTE-Px initiation time influenced by trauma type.Our study results are relatively in line with the recent evidence-based clinical literatureOur findings suggested limited awareness of augmented renal clearance (ARC) and utilization of serum anti-factor-Xa (anti-Xa) level.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNoneAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board prior to initiation of the study Full Name: King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center (KFSHRC) Research Ethics Committee (RAC) approval number 2191136 Decision made: The study protocol was approved with waiver of consent because no intervention was made and there were no expected risks or direct benefits for patients participating in this study. The introduction part of the survey explained the purpose of the study confidentiality statement and whom to contact for questions. Participants (involving intensivists, trauma surgeons, general surgeons, spine orthopedics, and neurosurgeons) were asked at the beginning of the survey to acknowledge reading this information and voluntarily agree to participate in this research, with the knowledge that participants are free to withdraw their participation at any time. All information was recorded anonymously and no personal identifiable information was mandatory from the participants in the survey and no patients related information were collected [approval letter of ethics committee available with corresponding author upon request]All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.Yesavailable with corresponding author upon request(AIS)Abbreviated Injury Scale1(APACHE II)Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II(ACCP)American College of Chest Physicians(ACS)American College of Surgeons(TQIP)Trauma Quality Improvement Program(AAST)American Association for the Surgery of Trauma(ARC)Augmented renal clearance(CRC)Clinical Research Committee(CI)Confidence Interval(DVT)Deep venous thrombosis(ED)Emergency department(EAST)Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma(RAP)Greenfield Risk Assessment Profile(GSW)Gunshot Wound(GCS)Glasgow Coma Score(ICH)Intracranial Hemorrhage(ICU)Intensive care unit(ICP)Intracranial pressure(ISS)Injury Severity Score(INR)International Normalized Ratio(IRB)Institutional review board(LMWH)Low molecular weight heparin(NOR) solid organ injuriesNon-operative(OR)Odds Ratio(PVTE-Px)Pharmacological venous thromboembolism prophylaxis(PRBCs)Packed red blood cells(REC)Research Ethics Committee(RAC)Research Advisory Council(REDCap)Research Electronic Data Capture(anti-Xa)Serum anti-factor-Xa concentrations(SCI)Spinal cord injury(TBI)Traumatic brain injury(UFH)Unfractionated heparin(VTE)Venous thromboembolism(WTA)Western Trauma Association