OBJECTIVES: To compare the safety and effectiveness of two different thromboprophylactic protocols in the management of patients with spinal cord injury - one using heparin/warfarin and the other using enoxaparin. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective. SETTING: Princess Royal Spinal Injuries Unit, Sheffield, UK. METHODS: Retrospective review of two cohorts of patients with acute spinal injury admitted to a supra-regional spinal injuries centre and treated with different pharmacological agents. One group received heparin/warfarin in combination with antiembolism stockings and mechanical measures for thromboprophylaxis whereas the second group received enoxaparin in combination with the other measures. Patients who developed clinical symptoms suggestive of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism were investigated as appropriate. RESULTS: Four of the 101 patients on heparin/warfarin developed symptoms of venous thromboembolism compared to 13 of the 72 who were on enoxaparin. Of the 13, three had been on 40 mg of enoxaparin daily and 10 on 20 mg enoxaparin daily. Six patients on enoxaparin and one patient on warfarin developed thromboembolic complications after they had been mobilised and the anticoagulant discontinued. Eight patients on warfarin prophylaxis and three patients on enoxaparin developed haemorrhagic complications necessitating cessation of therapy. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the traditional protocol of warfarin/heparin for thromboprophylaxis in spinal cord injury patients remains a safer option than enoxaparin.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the safety and effectiveness of two different thromboprophylactic protocols in the management of patients with spinal cord injury - one using heparin/warfarin and the other using enoxaparin. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective. SETTING: Princess Royal Spinal Injuries Unit, Sheffield, UK. METHODS: Retrospective review of two cohorts of patients with acute spinal injury admitted to a supra-regional spinal injuries centre and treated with different pharmacological agents. One group received heparin/warfarin in combination with antiembolism stockings and mechanical measures for thromboprophylaxis whereas the second group received enoxaparin in combination with the other measures. Patients who developed clinical symptoms suggestive of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism were investigated as appropriate. RESULTS: Four of the 101 patients on heparin/warfarin developed symptoms of venous thromboembolism compared to 13 of the 72 who were on enoxaparin. Of the 13, three had been on 40 mg of enoxaparin daily and 10 on 20 mg enoxaparin daily. Six patients on enoxaparin and one patient on warfarin developed thromboembolic complications after they had been mobilised and the anticoagulant discontinued. Eight patients on warfarin prophylaxis and three patients on enoxaparin developed haemorrhagic complications necessitating cessation of therapy. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the traditional protocol of warfarin/heparin for thromboprophylaxis in spinal cord injurypatients remains a safer option than enoxaparin.
Authors: Robert W Teasell; Jane T Hsieh; Jo-Anne L Aubut; Janice J Eng; Andrei Krassioukov; Linh Tu Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Ze Lin; Yun Sun; Hang Xue; Lang Chen; Chenchen Yan; Adriana C Panayi; Bobin Mi; Guohui Liu Journal: J Orthop Surg Res Date: 2021-04-14 Impact factor: 2.359