A multinational study of thromboprophylaxis practice in critically ill children

Edward Vincent S. Faustino, Sheila Hanson, Philip C. Spinella, Marisa Tucci, Sarah H. O'Brien, Antonio Rodriguez Nunez, Michael Yung, Edward Truemper, Li Qin, Simon Li, Kimberly Marohn, Adrienne G. Randolph

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

26 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: Although critically ill children are at increased risk for developing deep venous thrombosis, there are few pediatric studies establishing the prevalence of thrombosis or the efficacy of thromboprophylaxis. We tested the hypothesis that thromboprophylaxis is infrequently used in critically ill children even for those in whom it is indicated. Design: Prospective multinational cross-sectional study over four study dates in 2012. Setting: Fifty-nine PICUs in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, and the United States. Patients: All patients less than 18 years old in the PICU during the study dates and times were included in the study, unless the patients were 1) boarding in the unit waiting for a bed outside the PICU or 2) receiving therapeutic anticoagulation. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Of 2,484 children in the study, 2,159 (86.9%) had greater than or equal to 1 risk factor for thrombosis. Only 308 children (12.4%) were receiving pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis (e.g., aspirin, low-molecular-weight heparin, or unfractionated heparin). Of 430 children indicated to receive pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis based on consensus recommendations, only 149 (34.7%) were receiving it. Mechanical thromboprophylaxis was used in 156 of 655 children (23.8%) 8 years old or older, the youngest age for that device. Using nonlinear mixed effects model, presence of cyanotic congenital heart disease (odds ratio, 7.35; p < 0.001) and spinal cord injury (odds ratio, 8.85; p = 0.008) strongly predicted the use of pharmacologic and mechanical thromboprophylaxis, respectively. Conclusions: Thromboprophylaxis is infrequently used in critically ill children. This is true even for children at high risk of thrombosis where consensus guidelines recommend pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1232-1240
Number of pages9
JournalCritical care medicine
Volume42
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2014

Fingerprint

Critical Illness
Thrombosis
Cross-Sectional Studies
Odds Ratio
Portugal
Low Molecular Weight Heparin
Singapore
Spinal Cord Injuries
New Zealand
Venous Thrombosis
Spain
Aspirin
Canada
Heparin
Heart Diseases
Guidelines
Pediatrics
Equipment and Supplies

Keywords

  • anticoagulants
  • deep venous thrombosis
  • heparin
  • pediatric intensive care unit
  • pulmonary embolism
  • venous thromboembolism

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cite this

Faustino, E. V. S., Hanson, S., Spinella, P. C., Tucci, M., O'Brien, S. H., Nunez, A. R., ... Randolph, A. G. (2014). A multinational study of thromboprophylaxis practice in critically ill children. Critical care medicine, 42(5), 1232-1240. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000000147

A multinational study of thromboprophylaxis practice in critically ill children. / Faustino, Edward Vincent S.; Hanson, Sheila; Spinella, Philip C.; Tucci, Marisa; O'Brien, Sarah H.; Nunez, Antonio Rodriguez; Yung, Michael; Truemper, Edward; Qin, Li; Li, Simon; Marohn, Kimberly; Randolph, Adrienne G.

In: Critical care medicine, Vol. 42, No. 5, 05.2014, p. 1232-1240.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Faustino, EVS, Hanson, S, Spinella, PC, Tucci, M, O'Brien, SH, Nunez, AR, Yung, M, Truemper, E, Qin, L, Li, S, Marohn, K & Randolph, AG 2014, 'A multinational study of thromboprophylaxis practice in critically ill children', Critical care medicine, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 1232-1240. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000000147
Faustino EVS, Hanson S, Spinella PC, Tucci M, O'Brien SH, Nunez AR et al. A multinational study of thromboprophylaxis practice in critically ill children. Critical care medicine. 2014 May;42(5):1232-1240. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000000147
Faustino, Edward Vincent S. ; Hanson, Sheila ; Spinella, Philip C. ; Tucci, Marisa ; O'Brien, Sarah H. ; Nunez, Antonio Rodriguez ; Yung, Michael ; Truemper, Edward ; Qin, Li ; Li, Simon ; Marohn, Kimberly ; Randolph, Adrienne G. / A multinational study of thromboprophylaxis practice in critically ill children. In: Critical care medicine. 2014 ; Vol. 42, No. 5. pp. 1232-1240.
@article{e9fa9f49f65d480999a67bf084964a0e,
title = "A multinational study of thromboprophylaxis practice in critically ill children",
abstract = "Objectives: Although critically ill children are at increased risk for developing deep venous thrombosis, there are few pediatric studies establishing the prevalence of thrombosis or the efficacy of thromboprophylaxis. We tested the hypothesis that thromboprophylaxis is infrequently used in critically ill children even for those in whom it is indicated. Design: Prospective multinational cross-sectional study over four study dates in 2012. Setting: Fifty-nine PICUs in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, and the United States. Patients: All patients less than 18 years old in the PICU during the study dates and times were included in the study, unless the patients were 1) boarding in the unit waiting for a bed outside the PICU or 2) receiving therapeutic anticoagulation. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Of 2,484 children in the study, 2,159 (86.9{\%}) had greater than or equal to 1 risk factor for thrombosis. Only 308 children (12.4{\%}) were receiving pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis (e.g., aspirin, low-molecular-weight heparin, or unfractionated heparin). Of 430 children indicated to receive pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis based on consensus recommendations, only 149 (34.7{\%}) were receiving it. Mechanical thromboprophylaxis was used in 156 of 655 children (23.8{\%}) 8 years old or older, the youngest age for that device. Using nonlinear mixed effects model, presence of cyanotic congenital heart disease (odds ratio, 7.35; p < 0.001) and spinal cord injury (odds ratio, 8.85; p = 0.008) strongly predicted the use of pharmacologic and mechanical thromboprophylaxis, respectively. Conclusions: Thromboprophylaxis is infrequently used in critically ill children. This is true even for children at high risk of thrombosis where consensus guidelines recommend pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis.",
keywords = "anticoagulants, deep venous thrombosis, heparin, pediatric intensive care unit, pulmonary embolism, venous thromboembolism",
author = "Faustino, {Edward Vincent S.} and Sheila Hanson and Spinella, {Philip C.} and Marisa Tucci and O'Brien, {Sarah H.} and Nunez, {Antonio Rodriguez} and Michael Yung and Edward Truemper and Li Qin and Simon Li and Kimberly Marohn and Randolph, {Adrienne G.}",
year = "2014",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1097/CCM.0000000000000147",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "42",
pages = "1232--1240",
journal = "Critical Care Medicine",
issn = "0090-3493",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A multinational study of thromboprophylaxis practice in critically ill children

AU - Faustino, Edward Vincent S.

AU - Hanson, Sheila

AU - Spinella, Philip C.

AU - Tucci, Marisa

AU - O'Brien, Sarah H.

AU - Nunez, Antonio Rodriguez

AU - Yung, Michael

AU - Truemper, Edward

AU - Qin, Li

AU - Li, Simon

AU - Marohn, Kimberly

AU - Randolph, Adrienne G.

PY - 2014/5

Y1 - 2014/5

N2 - Objectives: Although critically ill children are at increased risk for developing deep venous thrombosis, there are few pediatric studies establishing the prevalence of thrombosis or the efficacy of thromboprophylaxis. We tested the hypothesis that thromboprophylaxis is infrequently used in critically ill children even for those in whom it is indicated. Design: Prospective multinational cross-sectional study over four study dates in 2012. Setting: Fifty-nine PICUs in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, and the United States. Patients: All patients less than 18 years old in the PICU during the study dates and times were included in the study, unless the patients were 1) boarding in the unit waiting for a bed outside the PICU or 2) receiving therapeutic anticoagulation. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Of 2,484 children in the study, 2,159 (86.9%) had greater than or equal to 1 risk factor for thrombosis. Only 308 children (12.4%) were receiving pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis (e.g., aspirin, low-molecular-weight heparin, or unfractionated heparin). Of 430 children indicated to receive pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis based on consensus recommendations, only 149 (34.7%) were receiving it. Mechanical thromboprophylaxis was used in 156 of 655 children (23.8%) 8 years old or older, the youngest age for that device. Using nonlinear mixed effects model, presence of cyanotic congenital heart disease (odds ratio, 7.35; p < 0.001) and spinal cord injury (odds ratio, 8.85; p = 0.008) strongly predicted the use of pharmacologic and mechanical thromboprophylaxis, respectively. Conclusions: Thromboprophylaxis is infrequently used in critically ill children. This is true even for children at high risk of thrombosis where consensus guidelines recommend pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis.

AB - Objectives: Although critically ill children are at increased risk for developing deep venous thrombosis, there are few pediatric studies establishing the prevalence of thrombosis or the efficacy of thromboprophylaxis. We tested the hypothesis that thromboprophylaxis is infrequently used in critically ill children even for those in whom it is indicated. Design: Prospective multinational cross-sectional study over four study dates in 2012. Setting: Fifty-nine PICUs in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, and the United States. Patients: All patients less than 18 years old in the PICU during the study dates and times were included in the study, unless the patients were 1) boarding in the unit waiting for a bed outside the PICU or 2) receiving therapeutic anticoagulation. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Of 2,484 children in the study, 2,159 (86.9%) had greater than or equal to 1 risk factor for thrombosis. Only 308 children (12.4%) were receiving pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis (e.g., aspirin, low-molecular-weight heparin, or unfractionated heparin). Of 430 children indicated to receive pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis based on consensus recommendations, only 149 (34.7%) were receiving it. Mechanical thromboprophylaxis was used in 156 of 655 children (23.8%) 8 years old or older, the youngest age for that device. Using nonlinear mixed effects model, presence of cyanotic congenital heart disease (odds ratio, 7.35; p < 0.001) and spinal cord injury (odds ratio, 8.85; p = 0.008) strongly predicted the use of pharmacologic and mechanical thromboprophylaxis, respectively. Conclusions: Thromboprophylaxis is infrequently used in critically ill children. This is true even for children at high risk of thrombosis where consensus guidelines recommend pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis.

KW - anticoagulants

KW - deep venous thrombosis

KW - heparin

KW - pediatric intensive care unit

KW - pulmonary embolism

KW - venous thromboembolism

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84899475519&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84899475519&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/CCM.0000000000000147

DO - 10.1097/CCM.0000000000000147

M3 - Article

C2 - 24351371

AN - SCOPUS:84899475519

VL - 42

SP - 1232

EP - 1240

JO - Critical Care Medicine

JF - Critical Care Medicine

SN - 0090-3493

IS - 5

ER -