BACKGROUND: Thromboprophylaxis after injury is a controversial issue. Practices and outcomes vary widely. METHODS: Review of selected trauma literature on venous thromboprophylaxis after injury. RESULTS: Multiple trauma articles suggest that the efficacy of different methods of thromboprophylaxis is unproven. Most of the practices on this issue are extrapolated from studies which were performed in non-trauma patients and therefore, may not be applicable in the unique trauma population. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of undisputable evidence, none of the current methods of venous thromboprophylaxis after injury should be considered as standard of care. There is a need to discover new methods of thromboprophylaxis for the Trauma patient.
BACKGROUND: Thromboprophylaxis after injury is a controversial issue. Practices and outcomes vary widely. METHODS: Review of selected trauma literature on venous thromboprophylaxis after injury. RESULTS: Multiple trauma articles suggest that the efficacy of different methods of thromboprophylaxis is unproven. Most of the practices on this issue are extrapolated from studies which were performed in non-trauma patients and therefore, may not be applicable in the unique trauma population. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of undisputable evidence, none of the current methods of venous thromboprophylaxis after injury should be considered as standard of care. There is a need to discover new methods of thromboprophylaxis for the Trauma patient.
Authors: Robert A Maxwell; Marco Chavarria-Aguilar; William T Cockerham; Patricia L Lewis; Donald E Barker; Rodney M Durham; David L Ciraulo; Charles M Richart Journal: J Trauma Date: 2002-05
Authors: Robert C Gosselin; William E Dager; Jeffrey H King; Kim Janatpour; Kathleen Mahackian; Edward C Larkin; John T Owings Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 2.493