Pharmacologic Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Patients with Nontraumatic Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Requiring an External Ventricular Drain

Background Optimal pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis dosing is not well described in patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) with an external ventricular drain (EVD). Our patients with SAH with an EVD who receive prophylactic enoxaparin are routinely monitored using timed anti-Xa levels. Our prim...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Neurocritical care 2024-12, Vol.41 (3), p.779-787
Hauptverfasser: Ukpabi, Chidozie, Sadan, Ofer, Shi, Yuyang, Greene, Kristy N., Samuels, Owen, Mathew, Subin, Joy, Justin, Mei, Yajun, Asbury, William
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Optimal pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis dosing is not well described in patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) with an external ventricular drain (EVD). Our patients with SAH with an EVD who receive prophylactic enoxaparin are routinely monitored using timed anti-Xa levels. Our primary study goal was to determine the frequency of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and secondary intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) for this population of patients who received pharmacologic prophylaxis with enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin (UFH). Methods A retrospective chart review was performed for all patients with SAH admitted to the neurocritical care unit at Emory University Hospital between 2012 and 2017. All patients with SAH who required an EVD were included. Results Of 1,351 patients screened, 868 required an EVD. Of these 868 patients, 627 received enoxaparin, 114 received UFH, and 127 did not receive pharmacologic prophylaxis. VTE occurred in 7.5% of patients in the enoxaparin group, 4.4% in the UFH group ( p  = 0.32), and 3.2% in the no VTE prophylaxis group ( p  = 0.08). Secondary ICH occurred in 3.83% of patients in the enoxaparin group, 3.51% in the UFH group ( p  = 1), and 3.94% in the no VTE prophylaxis group ( p  = 0.53). As steady-state anti-Xa levels increased from 0.1 units/mL to > 0.3 units/mL, there was a trend toward a lower incidence of VTE. However, no correlation was noted between rising anti-Xa levels and an increased incidence of secondary ICH. When compared, neither enoxaparin nor UFH use was associated with a significantly reduced incidence of VTE or an increased incidence of ICH. Conclusions In this retrospective study of patients with nontraumatic SAH with an EVD who received enoxaparin or UFH VTE prophylaxis or no VTE prophylaxis, there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of VTE or secondary ICH. For patients receiving prophylactic enoxaparin, achieving higher steady-state target anti-Xa levels may be associated with a lower incidence of VTE without increasing the risk of secondary ICH.
ISSN:1541-6933
1556-0961
1556-0961
DOI:10.1007/s12028-024-01993-5