Deep vein thrombosis and venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in traumatic brain injury: Current treatment options and controversies

Timothy J. Kovanda, Richard Rodgers

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

Fear of hemorrhage has historically led neurosurgeons to avoid the use of anticoagulants, and thus chemical deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis, in patients undergoing both elective and nonelective procedures. This trepidation is exacerbated in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) due to the possible need for emergent surgical intervention and concern for worsening intracranial hemorrhage. These concerns are justified. In a retrospective cohort study performed by Kwiatt et al., TBI patients treated prophylactically with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) were more likely to demonstrate progression of intracranial hemorrhage on repeat imaging than those who were not given this medication [1]. Patients receiving LMWH in this study were also more likely to require neurosurgical intervention for hemorrhage progression.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationControversies in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Management
PublisherSpringer International Publishing
Pages107-116
Number of pages10
ISBN (Electronic)9783319894775
ISBN (Print)9783319894768
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

Venous Thromboembolism
Venous Thrombosis
Intracranial Hemorrhages
Low Molecular Weight Heparin
Hemorrhage
Therapeutics
Anticoagulants
Fear
Cohort Studies
Retrospective Studies
Traumatic Brain Injury

Keywords

  • Deep vein thrombosis
  • Enoxaparin
  • Fondaparinux
  • Intermittent pneumatic compression
  • Prophylaxis
  • Treatment protocol
  • Unfractionated heparin
  • Venous thromboembolism

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Kovanda, T. J., & Rodgers, R. (2018). Deep vein thrombosis and venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in traumatic brain injury: Current treatment options and controversies. In Controversies in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Management (pp. 107-116). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89477-5_11

Deep vein thrombosis and venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in traumatic brain injury : Current treatment options and controversies. / Kovanda, Timothy J.; Rodgers, Richard.

Controversies in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Management. Springer International Publishing, 2018. p. 107-116.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Kovanda, TJ & Rodgers, R 2018, Deep vein thrombosis and venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in traumatic brain injury: Current treatment options and controversies. in Controversies in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Management. Springer International Publishing, pp. 107-116. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89477-5_11
Kovanda TJ, Rodgers R. Deep vein thrombosis and venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in traumatic brain injury: Current treatment options and controversies. In Controversies in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Management. Springer International Publishing. 2018. p. 107-116 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89477-5_11
Kovanda, Timothy J. ; Rodgers, Richard. / Deep vein thrombosis and venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in traumatic brain injury : Current treatment options and controversies. Controversies in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Management. Springer International Publishing, 2018. pp. 107-116
@inbook{fc4dfbacc6fa42e8908e66b12afe3131,
title = "Deep vein thrombosis and venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in traumatic brain injury: Current treatment options and controversies",
abstract = "Fear of hemorrhage has historically led neurosurgeons to avoid the use of anticoagulants, and thus chemical deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis, in patients undergoing both elective and nonelective procedures. This trepidation is exacerbated in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) due to the possible need for emergent surgical intervention and concern for worsening intracranial hemorrhage. These concerns are justified. In a retrospective cohort study performed by Kwiatt et al., TBI patients treated prophylactically with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) were more likely to demonstrate progression of intracranial hemorrhage on repeat imaging than those who were not given this medication [1]. Patients receiving LMWH in this study were also more likely to require neurosurgical intervention for hemorrhage progression.",
keywords = "Deep vein thrombosis, Enoxaparin, Fondaparinux, Intermittent pneumatic compression, Prophylaxis, Treatment protocol, Unfractionated heparin, Venous thromboembolism",
author = "Kovanda, {Timothy J.} and Richard Rodgers",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/978-3-319-89477-5_11",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9783319894768",
pages = "107--116",
booktitle = "Controversies in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Management",
publisher = "Springer International Publishing",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Deep vein thrombosis and venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in traumatic brain injury

T2 - Current treatment options and controversies

AU - Kovanda, Timothy J.

AU - Rodgers, Richard

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Fear of hemorrhage has historically led neurosurgeons to avoid the use of anticoagulants, and thus chemical deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis, in patients undergoing both elective and nonelective procedures. This trepidation is exacerbated in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) due to the possible need for emergent surgical intervention and concern for worsening intracranial hemorrhage. These concerns are justified. In a retrospective cohort study performed by Kwiatt et al., TBI patients treated prophylactically with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) were more likely to demonstrate progression of intracranial hemorrhage on repeat imaging than those who were not given this medication [1]. Patients receiving LMWH in this study were also more likely to require neurosurgical intervention for hemorrhage progression.

AB - Fear of hemorrhage has historically led neurosurgeons to avoid the use of anticoagulants, and thus chemical deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis, in patients undergoing both elective and nonelective procedures. This trepidation is exacerbated in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) due to the possible need for emergent surgical intervention and concern for worsening intracranial hemorrhage. These concerns are justified. In a retrospective cohort study performed by Kwiatt et al., TBI patients treated prophylactically with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) were more likely to demonstrate progression of intracranial hemorrhage on repeat imaging than those who were not given this medication [1]. Patients receiving LMWH in this study were also more likely to require neurosurgical intervention for hemorrhage progression.

KW - Deep vein thrombosis

KW - Enoxaparin

KW - Fondaparinux

KW - Intermittent pneumatic compression

KW - Prophylaxis

KW - Treatment protocol

KW - Unfractionated heparin

KW - Venous thromboembolism

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85064554055&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85064554055&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/978-3-319-89477-5_11

DO - 10.1007/978-3-319-89477-5_11

M3 - Chapter

AN - SCOPUS:85064554055

SN - 9783319894768

SP - 107

EP - 116

BT - Controversies in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Management

PB - Springer International Publishing

ER -