scholarly journals P.090 A systematic review of the risks and benefits of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in traumatic brain injury

2016 ◽  
Vol 43 (S2) ◽  
pp. S41-S41
Author(s):  
C Dandurand ◽  
J Margolick ◽  
D Evans ◽  
M Sekhon ◽  
N Garraway ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Hematoma Expansion ◽  
Time Interval ◽  
Thromboembolism Prophylaxis ◽  
Post Injury ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Hemorrhagic Risk

Background: Patients suffering from traumatic brain injury (TBI) are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, initiation of chemoprophylaxis (VTEp) may cause further intracranial hemorrhage. We reviewed the literature to determine the post-injury time interval at which VTEp can be administered without risk of TBI evolution and hematoma expansion. Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched. Inclusion criteria were: studies investigating timing and safety of VTEp in TBI patients not previously on oral anticoagulation. Two investigators extracted data and graded the papers based on levels of evidence. Results: A total of 408 studies were screened. Forty-five studies were reviewed in-entirety and 21 were included in the systematic review. There were 2 prospective randomized trials and 19 comparative studies. Eighteen total studies demonstrated that VTEp post injury in patients with stable head computed tomography scan does not lead to TBI progression. Fourteen studies demonstrated that VTEp administration specifically 24–72 hours post injury is safe in patients with stable injury. Four studies suggested that administering VTEp within 24 hours of injury in patients with stable TBI does not lead to progressive ICH. Conclusions: Literature suggests that administering VTEp 48 hours post-injury may be safe for patients with low-hemorrhagic risk TBIs and stable injury on repeat imaging.

scholarly journals A Systematic Review of the Risks and Benefits of Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Traumatic Brain Injury

2018 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 432-444 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Margolick ◽  
Charlotte Dandurand ◽  
Katrina Duncan ◽  
Wenjia Chen ◽  
David C. Evans ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Regression Analysis ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Intracranial Hemorrhage ◽  
Hematoma Expansion ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Meta Regression ◽  
Meta Regression Analysis

AbstractBackground:Patients suffering from traumatic brain injury (TBI) are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, initiation of pharmacological venous thromboprophylaxis (VTEp) may cause further intracranial hemorrhage. We reviewed the literature to determine the postinjury time interval at which VTEp can be administered without risk of TBI evolution and hematoma expansion.Methods:MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched. Inclusion criteria were studies investigating timing and safety of VTEp in TBI patients not previously on oral anticoagulation. Two investigators extracted data and graded the papers’ levels of evidence. Randomized controlled trials were assessed for bias according to the Cochrane Collaboration Tool and Cohort studies were evaluated for bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We performed univariate meta-regression analysis in an attempt to identify a relationship between VTEp timing and hemorrhagic progression and assess study heterogeneity using anI2statistic.Results:Twenty-one studies were included in the systematic review. Eighteen total studies demonstrated that VTEp postinjury in patients with stable head computed tomography scan does not lead to TBI progression. Fourteen studies demonstrated that VTEp administration 24 to 72 hours postinjury is safe in patients with stable injury. Four studies suggested that administering VTEp within 24 hours of injury in patients with stable TBI does not lead to progressive intracranial hemorrhage. Overall, meta-regression analysis demonstrated that there was no relationship between rate of hemorrhagic progression and VTEp timing.Conclusions:Literature suggests that administering VTEp 24 to 48 hours postinjury may be safe for patients with low-hemorrhagic-risk TBIs and stable injury on repeat imaging.

scholarly journals Comparing pharmacological venous thromboembolism prophylaxis to intermittent pneumatic compression in acute intracerebral haemorrhage: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. e024405 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vignan Yogendrakumar ◽  
Ronda Lun ◽  
Brian Hutton ◽  
Dean A Fergusson ◽  
Dar Dowlatshahi
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Intracerebral Haemorrhage ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Indirect Evidence ◽  
Intermittent Pneumatic Compression ◽  
Qualitative Assessment ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Thromboembolism Prophylaxis ◽  
Increased Risk

IntroductionPatients with an intracerebral haemorrhage are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism. Pharmacotherapy and pneumatic compression devices are capable of preventing venous thromboembolism, however both interventions have limitations. There are no head-to-head comparisons between these two interventions. To address this knowledge gap, we plan to perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis to examine the comparative effectiveness of pharmacological prophylaxis and mechanical compression devices in the context of intracerebral haemorrhage.Methods and analysisMEDLINE, PUBMED, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Internet Stroke Trials Registry will be searched with assistance from an experienced information specialist. Eligible studies will include those that have enrolled adults presenting with spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage and compared one or more of the respective interventions against each other and/or a control. Primary outcomes to be assessed are occurrence of new venous thromboembolism (deep vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism) and haematoma expansion, defined as a significant enlargement of baseline haemorrhage or new haemorrhage occurrence. Both randomised and non-randomised comparative studies will be included. Data on participant characteristics, study design, intervention details and outcomes will be extracted. Study quality will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the Robins-I tool. Bayesian network meta-analyses will be performed to compare interventions based on all available direct and indirect evidence. If the transitivity assumption for network meta-analysis cannot be met, we will perform a qualitative assessment.Ethics and disseminationFormal ethics is not required as primary data will not be collected. The findings of this study will be disseminated through conference presentations, and peer-reviewed publications. In an area of clinical practice where equipoise exists, the findings of this study may assist in determining which treatment intervention is most effective in venous thromboembolism prevention.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018090960.

Methodological Issues in Longitudinal Research on Cognitive Recovery after Traumatic Brain Injury: Evidence from a Systematic Review

2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 450-474 ◽  
Author(s):  
Regina Schultz ◽  
Robyn L. Tate
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Longitudinal Research ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Methodological Issues ◽  
Post Injury ◽  
Cognitive Recovery ◽  
Cognitive Domains ◽  
Severe Tbi

Background: Previous research addressing cognitive recovery after traumatic brain injury (TBI) in adults has predominately used cross-sectional methods. This systematic review examines longitudinal research into cognitive recovery in the first 2 years following moderate-to-severe TBI in adults and aims to identify apparent methodological issues with the existing literature.Design: Systematic review of the first 2 years post-trauma.Setting: Data were extracted from three electronic databases and manual searches of published articles until October 2012.Participants: Two hundred and forty-two participants with severe TBI and 281 comparison participants were used to calculate effect sizes.Results: Twenty papers met the selection criteria, with effect sizes computed from four studies. Moderate-to-large effect sizes were initially observed between the TBI and comparison groups on most measures (range: d = 0.2–2.8). Recovery continued in all five cognitive domains over the 2 years post-injury.Conclusions: Results demonstrated that cognitive recovery was continuous throughout the first 2 years following moderate-to-severe TBI. Findings also indicated different rates of recovery for the specific cognitive domains, highlighting the heterogeneous nature of cognitive recovery after TBI. The review highlighted several methodological issues within the limited existing literature; recommendations were developed to improve the evidence base.

Chemoprophylaxis and Venous Thromboembolism in Traumatic Brain Injury at Different Trauma Centers

2020 ◽  
Vol 86 (4) ◽  
pp. 362-368
Author(s):  
Eric O. Yeates ◽  
Areg Grigorian ◽  
Sebastian D. Schubl ◽  
Catherine M. Kuza ◽  
Victor Joe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Trauma Centers ◽  
Improvement Program ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Scale Scores ◽  
Severe Tbi ◽  
Level I

Patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) are at an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Because of concerns of worsening intracranial hemorrhage, clinicians are hesitant to start VTE chemoprophylaxis in this population. We hypothesized that ACS Level I trauma centers would be more aggressive with VTE chemoprophylaxis in adults with severe TBI than Level II centers. We also predicted that Level I centers would have a lower risk of VTE. We queried the Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2010–2016) database for patients with Abbreviated Injury Scale scores of 4 and 5 of the head and compared them based on treating the hospital trauma level. Of 204,895 patients with severe TBI, 143,818 (70.2%) were treated at Level I centers and 61,077 (29.8%) at Level II centers. The Level I cohort had a higher rate of VTE chemoprophylaxis use (43.2% vs 23.3%, P < 0.001) and a shorter median time to chemoprophylaxis (61.9 vs 85.9 hours, P < 0.001). Although Level I trauma centers started VTE chemoprophylaxis more often and earlier than Level II centers, there was no difference in the risk of VTE ( P = 0.414) after controlling for covariates. Future prospective studies are warranted to evaluate the timing, safety, and efficacy of early VTE chemoprophylaxis in severe TBI patients.

scholarly journals Systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical studies testing mesenchymal stromal cells for traumatic brain injury

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesca Pischiutta ◽  
Enrico Caruso ◽  
Alessandra Lugo ◽  
Helena Cavaleiro ◽  
Nino Stocchetti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Mesenchymal Stromal Cells ◽  
Effect Size ◽  
Stromal Cells ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Similar Efficacy ◽  
Post Injury ◽  
Neurological Improvement

AbstractMesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) are widely used in preclinical models of traumatic brain injury (TBI). Results are promising in terms of neurological improvement but are hampered by wide variability in treatment responses. We made a systematic review and meta-analysis: (1) to assess the quality of evidence for MSC treatment in TBI rodent models; (2) to determine the effect size of MSCs on sensorimotor function, cognitive function, and anatomical damage; (3) to identify MSC-related and protocol-related variables associated with greater efficacy; (4) to understand whether MSC manipulations boost therapeutic efficacy. The meta-analysis included 80 studies. After TBI, MSCs improved sensorimotor and cognitive deficits and reduced anatomical damage. Stratified meta-analysis on sensorimotor outcome showed similar efficacy for different MSC sources and for syngeneic or xenogenic transplants. Efficacy was greater when MSCs were delivered in the first-week post-injury, and when implanted directly into the lesion cavity. The greatest effect size was for cells embedded in matrices or for MSC-derivatives. MSC therapy is effective in preclinical TBI models, improving sensorimotor, cognitive, and anatomical outcomes, with large effect sizes. These findings support clinical studies in TBI.

Late Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis after Craniotomy in Acute Traumatic Brain Injury

2015 ◽  
Vol 81 (2) ◽  
pp. 207-211 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mitchell J. Daley ◽  
Sadia Ali ◽  
Carlos V. R. Brown
Keyword(s):  
Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Thromboembolism Prophylaxis ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Pharmacologic Prophylaxis ◽  
Level I

The objective of this study is to compare rates of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients who receive enoxaparin prophylaxis compared with no enoxaparin prophylaxis after craniotomy for traumatic brain injury (TBI). This retrospective cohort evaluated all trauma patients admitted to a Level I trauma center from January 2006 to December 2011 who received craniotomy after acute TBI. Patients were excluded if developed VTE before administration of enoxaparin or they died within the first 72 hours of hospital admission. A total of 271 patients were included (enoxaparin prophylaxis, n = 45; no enoxaparin prophylaxis, n = 225). The median time until enoxaparin initiation was 11 ± 1 days. There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients who developed a VTE when using enoxaparin prophylaxis compared with no enoxaparin prophylaxis (2 vs 4%; P = 0.65). Rates of deep vein thrombosis (2 vs 3%; P = 0.87) and pulmonary embolism (0 vs 1%; P = 0.99) were similar between treatment groups, respectively. Late enoxaparin prophylaxis did not demonstrate a protective effect for VTE. Given the overall low event rate, the administration of pharmacologic prophylaxis against VTE late in the treatment course may not be routinely warranted after craniotomy for acute TBI. Further investigation with early administration of enoxaparin is needed.

scholarly journals Progressive hemorrhagic injury after severe traumatic brain injury: effect of hemoglobin transfusion thresholds

2016 ◽  
Vol 125 (5) ◽  
pp. 1229-1234 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aditya Vedantam ◽  
Jose-Miguel Yamal ◽  
Maria Laura Rubin ◽  
Claudia S. Robertson ◽  
Shankar P. Gopinath
Keyword(s):  
Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Severe Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Time Interval ◽  
Transfusion Threshold ◽  
Cox Regression Analysis ◽  
Diffuse Brain Injury ◽  
Progressive Hemorrhagic Injury ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Severe Tbi

OBJECT There is limited literature available to guide transfusion practices for patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). Recent studies have shown that maintaining a higher hemoglobin threshold after severe TBI offers no clinical benefit. The present study aimed to determine if a higher transfusion threshold was independently associated with an increased risk of progressive hemorrhagic injury (PHI), thereby contributing to higher rates of morbidity and mortality. METHODS The authors performed a secondary analysis of data obtained from a recently performed randomized clinical trial studying the effects of erythropoietin and blood transfusions on neurological recovery after severe TBI. Assigned hemoglobin thresholds (10 g/dl vs 7 g/dl) were maintained with packed red blood cell transfusions during the acute phase after injury. PHI was defined as the presence of new or enlarging intracranial hematomas on CT as long as 10 days after injury. A severe PHI was defined as an event that required an escalation of medical management or surgical intervention. Clinical and imaging parameters and transfusion thresholds were used in a multivariate Cox regression analysis to identify independent risk factors for PHI. RESULTS Among 200 patients enrolled in the trial, PHI was detected in 61 patients (30.5%). The majority of patients with PHI had a new, delayed contusion (n = 29) or an increase in contusion size (n = 15). The mean time interval between injury and identification of PHI was 17.2 ± 15.8 hours. The adjusted risk of severe PHI was 2.3 times higher for patients with a transfusion threshold of 10 g/dl (95% confidence interval 1.1–4.7; p = 0.02). Diffuse brain injury was associated with a lower risk of PHI events, whereas higher initial intracranial pressure increased the risk of PHI (p < 0.001). PHI was associated with a longer median length of stay in the intensive care unit (18.3 vs 14.4 days, respectively; p = 0.04) and poorer Glasgow Outcome Scale scores (42.9% vs 25.5%, respectively; p = 0.02) at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS A higher transfusion threshold of 10 g/dl after severe TBI increased the risk of severe PHI events. These results indicate the potential adverse effect of using a higher hemoglobin transfusion threshold after severe TBI.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document