Abstract
Introduction
Hospitalized burn patients meet the criteria for Virchow’s triad (endothelial damage, hypercoagulability, and stasis), predisposing them to venous thromboembolism (VTE). While the cost, morbidity, and mortality of VTE suggest a need for prevention in this population, unreliable reported VTE rates, variable and complicated prophylaxis regimens, and risks associated with chemoprophylaxis have prevented the establishment of a universal protocol. This paper reviews the thromboprophylaxis practices both in the literature and at our own institution.
Methods
A systematic review was conducted according to Preferred Reported Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines identifying studies pertaining to VTE chemoprophylaxis in burn patients. Additionally, medical records of patients admitted to an American Burn Association-verified burn center between June 2015 and June 2019 were retrospectively reviewed for patient demographics, chemoprophylaxis, and presence of VTE defined as either deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE).
Results
35 studies met inclusion criteria. In the 11 studies that reported VTE incidence, rates ranged widely from 0.27 to 23.3%. The two largest retrospective studies (n = 33,637 and 36,638) reported a VTE incidence of 0.61% and a DVT incidence of 0.8% in populations with unknown or inconsistently recorded chemoprophylaxis. Throughout the literature, prevention protocols were mixed, though a trend toward using dose-adjusted subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin based on serum anti-factor Xa level was noted.
At our institution, 1440 patients were admitted over four years. At-risk patients received a simple chemoprophylaxis regimen of 5000U of subcutaneous unfractionated heparin every eight hours. No routine monitoring tests were performed to limit cost. Ten cases of DVT and two cases of PE were identified with an incidence of 0.69% and 0.14%, respectively, and a total VTE incidence of 0.83%. One patient developed heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (0.07%). There were no other heparin-associated complications.
Conclusions
VTE incidence rates reported in the literature are wide-ranging and poorly capture the effect of any one chemoprophylaxis regimen in the burn population. Our center uses a single, safe, and cost-effective protocol with a VTE rate comparable to that of large national retrospective studies.
Applicability of Research to Practice
VTE continues to represent a threat to the burn population. While simple and safe chemoprophylaxis regimens exist, the optimal prevention protocol remains elusive.
