Department of Surgery, Division of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, Kendall Regional Medical Center, Miami, FL, USA.
University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.
Am Surg. 2021 Feb;87(2):300-308. doi: 10.1177/0003134820950297. Epub 2020 Sep 16.
Patients with major trauma and contraindications to anticoagulation are often considered candidates for a prophylactic inferior vena cava filter (IVCF). Prophylactic IVCFs are controversial in trauma and backed by varying levels of evidence. This study aims to analyze outcomes in severely injured patients who receive IVCFs.
A retrospective review of trauma patients aged ≥ 16 years with ISS ≥ 15 admitted to our level 1 trauma center from years 2013 through 2018. Patients were divided into 2 groups: prophylactic IVCF versus VTE chemoprophylaxis. The analysis evaluated demographics, stratified by ISS (15-24, 25-34, ≥35), and subgrouped those with AIS-Head ≥3. Adjusted outcome measures included DVT, PE, mortality, and ICU length-of-stay (ICU-LOS).
The study sample included 413 patients with prophylactic IVCFs and 2487 on VTE chemoprophylaxis. IVCF placement was associated with higher severity injuries: ISS 28 versus 25 and lower GCS 10.0 versus 11.8, TBI prevalence 83% versus 68% ( < .001). Patients with IVCFs had increased ICU-LOS (23.2 days vs 12.2 days), DVT (14.8% vs 4.3%), and PE (5.8% vs 1.6%) for patients with ISS <35 ( < .001). ISS ≥35 was not associated with intergroup DVT or PE rate differences ( = .81 and .43). No intergroup mortality differences were observed, including after ISS stratification. Among patients with AIS-Head ≥3, prophylactic IVCF was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (8.4% vs 15.7%, = .001).
Prophylactic IVCF placement was associated with higher rates of DVT and nonfatal PE, and prolonged ICU-LOS. Prophylactic IVCF placement was not associated with increased in-hospital mortality for severely injured trauma patients. Among patients with concomitant critical head injuries (AIS-Head ≥3), prophylactic IVCF placement was associated with lower in-hospital mortality than VTE chemoprophylaxis.
对于存在重大创伤和抗凝禁忌的患者,通常会考虑预防性放置下腔静脉滤器(IVCF)。在创伤中,预防性 IVCF 的应用存在争议,其证据水平也存在差异。本研究旨在分析接受 IVCF 治疗的严重创伤患者的结局。
回顾性分析 2013 年至 2018 年期间在我们的 1 级创伤中心接受治疗、年龄≥16 岁、ISS≥15 的创伤患者。患者分为 2 组:预防性 IVCF 组与 VTE 化学预防组。分析评估了按 ISS(15-24、25-34、≥35)分层的患者的人口统计学特征,并对 AIS-Head≥3 的患者进行了亚组分析。调整后的结局评估指标包括 DVT、PE、死亡率和 ICU 住院时间(ICU-LOS)。
本研究样本包括 413 例接受预防性 IVCF 治疗的患者和 2487 例接受 VTE 化学预防的患者。IVCF 组的损伤严重程度更高:ISS 为 28 分,而 VTE 化学预防组为 25 分;GCS 为 10.0 分,而 VTE 化学预防组为 11.8 分;TBI 发生率为 83%,而 VTE 化学预防组为 68%(<0.001)。IVCF 组的 ICU-LOS(23.2 天比 12.2 天)、DVT(14.8%比 4.3%)和 PE(5.8%比 1.6%)发生率更高,ISS<35 的患者(<0.001)。ISS≥35 的患者两组间 DVT 或 PE 发生率无差异(=0.81 和=0.43)。两组间死亡率也无差异,包括 ISS 分层后。在 AIS-Head≥3 的患者中,预防性 IVCF 与较低的院内死亡率相关(8.4%比 15.7%,=0.001)。
预防性 IVCF 放置与更高的 DVT 和非致命性 PE 发生率以及 ICU-LOS 延长相关。在严重创伤患者中,预防性 IVCF 放置与院内死亡率增加无关。在伴有严重头部损伤的患者(AIS-Head≥3)中,预防性 IVCF 与较低的院内死亡率相关,而非化学预防。