Alice J Braga1, Amber E R Young. 1. Department of Anaesthesia, South West Paediatric Burns and Neuroscience Services, Frenchay Hospital, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The incidence of venous thromboembolic (VTE) events in children has increased in recent years (J Neurosurg, 101, 2004, 32; J Thromb Haemost, 1, 2003, 1443) yet there is currently no consensus as to what VTE prophylaxis, if any, should be applied to the pediatric population. OBJECTIVES/AIMS: Our aim was to audit current practice in pediatric VTE prophylaxis across England and Wales and to advocate simple measures for prevention. We illustrate the importance of the condition with a series of cases from the South West Paediatric Burns and Neurosurgical Services based in Bristol. METHODS: Every pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) and burns center admitting children in England and Wales was invited to participate in a structured telephone questionnaire designed to find out how VTE in children were being prevented. We performed a literature review of specific risk factors and management of these factors. RESULTS: Only one of the 24 units surveyed had written guidelines specific for children. Four other units used modified adult guidelines in older children. In the remaining 19 units that had no written guidelines, decisions regarding prophylaxis were based on individual cases and consultant-led. CONCLUSION: There is no consensus in England and Wales as to which VTE prophylactic measures should be applied in patients <18 years of age. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines apply to adults only. Given the rarity of VTE events in children, it is unlikely that randomized controlled trials will provide the answer. We therefore propose that simple empirical measures be formally implemented in critically ill children to reduce the risk of developing this important but under-recognized condition.
BACKGROUND: The incidence of venous thromboembolic (VTE) events in children has increased in recent years (J Neurosurg, 101, 2004, 32; J Thromb Haemost, 1, 2003, 1443) yet there is currently no consensus as to what VTE prophylaxis, if any, should be applied to the pediatric population. OBJECTIVES/AIMS: Our aim was to audit current practice in pediatric VTE prophylaxis across England and Wales and to advocate simple measures for prevention. We illustrate the importance of the condition with a series of cases from the South West Paediatric Burns and Neurosurgical Services based in Bristol. METHODS: Every pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) and burns center admitting children in England and Wales was invited to participate in a structured telephone questionnaire designed to find out how VTE in children were being prevented. We performed a literature review of specific risk factors and management of these factors. RESULTS: Only one of the 24 units surveyed had written guidelines specific for children. Four other units used modified adult guidelines in older children. In the remaining 19 units that had no written guidelines, decisions regarding prophylaxis were based on individual cases and consultant-led. CONCLUSION: There is no consensus in England and Wales as to which VTE prophylactic measures should be applied in patients <18 years of age. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines apply to adults only. Given the rarity of VTE events in children, it is unlikely that randomized controlled trials will provide the answer. We therefore propose that simple empirical measures be formally implemented in critically ill children to reduce the risk of developing this important but under-recognized condition.
Authors: Blake M Hauser; Samantha E Hoffman; Saksham Gupta; Mark M Zaki; Edward Xu; Melissa Chua; Joshua D Bernstock; Ayaz Khawaja; Timothy R Smith; Mark R Proctor; Hasan A Zaidi Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2021-09-17
Authors: Daniel P Kelly; Sigrid Bairdain; David Zurakowski; Brenda Dodson; Kathy M Harney; Russell W Jennings; Cameron C Trenor Journal: Pediatr Surg Int Date: 2016-06-04 Impact factor: 1.827