Venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains a significant and sometimes fatal complication for patients in neurocritical care units (NICUs). The challenge of managing VTE within this patient group is compounded by the high-risk nature of their conditions and the complex interplay of risk factors present in the critically ill. Recent research, as published in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine, undertakes a rigorous examination of the frequency, risk contributors, and clinical ramifications of VTE in neurocritical care settings, shedding light on the intricacies of this medical issue.
Keywords
1. Venous Thromboembolism
2. Neurocritical Care
3. Risk Factors
4. Immobilization
5. Central Venous Catheterization
Venous Thromboembolism in Neurocritical Care Patients
Venous thromboembolism, encompassing deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is a recognized hazard for patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs), particularly those within neurocritical care. Patients with neurological impairments are typically less mobile and therefore more susceptible to thrombotic complications. The inception of this study by Viarasilpa et al., stemming from 2015 through March 2018, involved an extensive data collection from an adult population admitted to the neurological intensive care unit (NICU) at Henry Ford Hospital. The purpose of the research was clear: to quantify the incidence of VTE and pinpoint potential risk factors and outcomes in neurocritical care patients.
Methodological Rigor for Accurate Data Collection
The meticulous methodology used by the researchers entailed an electronic medical records review of 2188 consecutive NICU patients. VTE was principally diagnosed through Doppler imaging, chest computed tomography (CT) angiography, or ventilation-perfusion scans conducted 24 hours or later post-admission. This timeframe was stipulated to focus on in-hospital VTE development. Crucially, patients with a stay of less than a day in the ICU or who had been on therapeutic anticoagulants or diagnosed with VTE within the first day were excluded to distill the influence of the neurocritical care environment on VTE incidence.
Incidence and Implications of VTE
The study yielded a VTE occurrence rate of 2.9% among NICU patients, suggesting prophylactic measures may not be entirely effective for this demographic. The researchers were diligent in noting the complexities surrounding the issue, recognizing that the nature of critical neurological states inherently carries with it prolonged immobilization and the potential for invasive vascular access through central venous catheterization—both identified as potentially modifiable VTE risk factors.
Risk Factors in the Spotlight
The research team’s analysis illustrated no significant difference in prophylactic anticoagulant use between patients who developed VTE and those who did not, suggesting that while prophylaxis is necessary, it might not be entirely sufficient. This finding advocates for additional protective strategies, putting the spotlight on meaningful risk factors—specifically, the length of immobilization and the duration of central venous catheterization—which emerged from the study as important correlations.
Clinical Impact and the Call for Adapted Strategies
The clinical implications of these findings are far-reaching. Clinicians are called to re-evaluate current preventive strategies for VTE in the NICU patient cohort. The study emphasizes the necessity of reducing immobilization periods and reassessing the need for and management of central venous catheters. Moreover, it reinforces the importance of individualized care, where risk factor modification could potentially minimize the incidence of VTE and improve patient outcomes.
Conclusions and Future Directions
Viarasilapa et al.’s study is instrumental in its contribution to a deeper understanding of VTE within the vulnerable NICU demographic, presenting healthcare professionals with advanced knowledge to optimize care. Although the retrospective nature of the study has its limitations, the findings signal essential inclinations that could inform future prospective research and lead to the development of refined preventive measures tailored to neurocritical patients.
References
1. Viarasilpa, T., Panyavachiraporn, N., Jordan, J., Marashi, S. M., van Harn, M., Akioyamen, N. O., Kowalski, R. G., & Mayer, S. A. (2020). Venous Thromboembolism in Neurocritical Care Patients. Journal of Intensive Care Medicine, 35(11), 1226–1234.
DOI: 10.1177/0885066619841547
2. Geerts, W. H., Pineo, G. F., Heit, J. A., Bergqvist, D., Lassen, M. R., Colwell, C. W., & Ray, J. G. (2004). Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism: The Seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy. Chest, 126(3_suppl), 338S–400S.
3. Nyquist, P., Bautista, C., Jichici, D., Burns, J., Chhangani, S., DeFilippis, M., Manno, E., Rabinstein, A., & Varelas, P. (2016). Prophylaxis of Venous Thrombosis in Neurocritical Care Patients: An Evidence-Based Guideline: A Statement for Healthcare Professionals from the Neurocritical Care Society. Neurocritical Care, 24(1), 47–60.
4. Stein, P. D., Hughes, M. J., & Rafferty, T. L. (1991). Occult Pulmonary Embolism in Intensive Care Unit Patients. Archives of Internal Medicine, 151(3), 692–695.
5. Mirski, M. A., Chang, C. W., & Cowan, R. (2011). Impact of a Neuroscience Intensive Care Unit on Neurosurgical Patient Outcomes and Cost of Care: Evidence-Based Support for an Intensive Care Unit Model of Care. The Journal of Neurosurgery, 114(3), 790–798.