Retrospective cohort study.
To compare the cost and incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding between two different VTE pharmacological prophylaxis strategies in individuals with spinal cord injury: one based on motor impairment (Protocol 1) and the other based on time from the lesion and presence of associated risk factors for VTE (Protocol 2).
A tertiary rehabilitation hospital in Brazil.
We retrospectively reviewed a total of 1475 charts of individual admissions: 814 individuals received pharmacological prophylaxis according to Protocol 1 and 661 according to protocol 2. These cohorts were compared with respect to age, time and level of injury, length of stay, AIS classification, type of injury, and occurrence of VTE and major bleeding. The number of prescribed doses of enoxaparin and expenditures associated with enoxaparin during each period were evaluated.
The median lesion time was 3 years. The risk-based strategy drastically reduced the average monthly use of enoxaparin by 75% and the 12-month enoxaparin expenditure by $119,930.33, without increasing the risk of VTE. The incidence density of thromboembolic events was 0.55/10,000 patient-days, and all events occurred in individuals receiving prophylaxis according to Protocol 1.
Time from injury and risk of VTE-based protocol for indication of pharmacological prophylaxis drastically reduced costs. No difference in occurrence of VTE was observed.
Access optionsAccess options
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $30.08 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Ackery A, Tator C, Krassioukov A. A global perspective on spinal cord injury epidemiology. J Neurotrauma. 2004;21:1355–70.
Sezer N, Akkuş S, Uğurlu FG. Chronic complications of spinal cord injury. World J Orthop. 2015;6:24–33.
Green D, Lee MY, Ito VY, Cohn T, Press J, Filbrandt PR, et al. Fixed- vs adjusted-dose heparin in the prophylaxis of thromboembolism in spinal cord injury. JAMA. 1988;260:1255–8.
Todd JW, Frisbie JH, Rossier AB, Adams DF, Als AV, Armenia RJ, et al. Deep venous thrombosis in acute spinal cord injury: a comparison of 125I fibrinogen leg scanning, impedance plethysmography and venography. Paraplegia. 1976;14:50–7.
Casas ER, Sánchez MP, Arias CR, Masip JP. Prophylaxis of venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in patients with acute traumatic spinal cord lesions. Paraplegia. 1977;15:209–14.
Perkash A, Perkash I. Deep vein thrombosis in patients with spinal cord injury. West J Med. 1990;153:436–7.
Agarwal NK, Mathur N. Deep vein thrombosis in acute spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2009;47:769–72.
Ploumis A, Ponnappan RK, Maltenfort MG, Patel RX, Bessey JT, Albert TJ, et al. Thromboprophylaxis in patients with acute spinal injuries: an evidence-based analysis. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2009;91:2568–76.
Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Individuals with Spinal Cord Injury: Clinical Practice Guidelines for Health Care Providers, 3rd edn.: Consortium for Spinal Cord Medicine. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil. 2016;22:209-40.
Gould MK, Garcia DA, Wren SM, Karanicolas PJ, Arcelus JI, Heit JA, et al. Prevention of VTE in nonorthopedic surgical patients: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention ofThrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest. 2012;141(2 Suppl):e227S–77S.
Godat LN, Kobayashi L, Chang DC, Coimbra R. Can we ever stop worrying about venous thromboembolism after trauma? J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2015;78:475–80. discussion80-1
Chung WS, Lin CL, Chang SN, Chung HA, Sung FC, Kao CH. Increased risk of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary thromboembolism in patients with spinal cord injury: a nationwide cohort prospective study. Thromb Res. 2014;133:579–84.
Mackiewicz-Milewska M, Jung S, Kroszczyński AC, Mackiewicz-Nartowicz H, Serafin Z, Cisowska-Adamiak M, et al. Deep venous thrombosis in patients with chronic spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord Med. 2016;39:400–4.
Rowland JW, Hawryluk GW, Kwon B, Fehlings MG. Current status of acute spinal cord injury pathophysiology and emerging therapies: promise on the horizon. Neurosurg Focus. 2008;25:E2.
Kearon C. Natural history of venous thromboembolism. Circulation. 2003;107(23Suppl 1):I22–30.
Kirshblum SC, Burns SP, Biering-Sorensen F, Donovan W, Graves DE, Jha A, et al. International standards for neurological classification of spinal cord injury (revised 2011). J Spinal Cord Med. 2011;34:535–46.
Schulman S, Angerås U, Bergqvist D, Eriksson B, Lassen MR, Fisher W, et al. Definition of major bleeding in clinical investigations of antihemostatic medicinal products in surgical patients. J Thromb Haemost. 2010;8:202–4.
Geerts WH. Prevention of venous thromboembolism in high-risk patients. Hematol Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2006:462–6.
Consortium for Spinal Cord Medicine. Prevention of thromboembolism in spinal cord injury guideline. 2nd edn. Washington, DC: Paralized Veterans of America. 1999;1–20.
Piran S, Schulman S. Thromboprophylaxis in patients with acute spinal cord injury: a narrative review. Semin Thromb Hemost. 2019;45:150–6.
Spinal Cord Injury Thromboprophylaxis Investigators. Prevention of venous thromboembolism in the acute treatment phase after spinal cord injury: a randomized, multicenter trial comparing low-dose heparin plus intermittent pneumatic compression with enoxaparin. J Trauma. 2003;54:1116–24. discussion 25–6
Spinal Cord Injury Thromboprophylaxis Investigators. Prevention of venous thromboembolism in the rehabilitation phase after spinal cord injury: prophylaxis with low-dose heparin or enoxaparin. J Trauma. 2003;54:1111–5.
Giorgi Pierfranceschi M, Donadini MP, Dentali F, Ageno W, Marazzi M, Bocchi R, et al. The short- and long-term risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with acute spinal cord injury: a prospective cohort study. Thromb Haemost. 2013;109:34–8.
Alabed S, Belci M, Van Middendorp JJ, Al Halabi A, Meagher TM. Thromboembolism in the sub-acute phase of spinal cord injury: a systematic review of the literature. Asian Spine J. 2016;10:972–81.
Eichinger S, Eischer L, Sinkovec H, Wittgruber G, Traby L, Kammer M, et al. Risk of venous thromboembolism during rehabilitation of patients with spinal cord injury. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0193735.
Clements R, Churilov L, Wahab AL, Ng LC. Exploratory analysis of factors associated with venous thromboembolism in Victorian acute traumatic spinal cord-injured patients 2010-2013. Spinal Cord. 2017;55:74–8.
Jorge A, White MD, Agarwal N. Outcomes in socioeconomically disadvantaged patients with spinal cord injury: a systematic review. J Neurosurg Spine. 2018;29:680–6.
Barbar S, Noventa F, Rossetto V, Ferrari A, Brandolin B, Perlati M, et al. A risk assessment model for the identification of hospitalized medical patients at risk for venous thromboembolism: the Padua Prediction Score. J Thromb Haemost. 2010;8:2450–7.
Benjamin A. Audit: how to do it in practice. BMJ. 2008;336:1241–5.
Middleton S, McElduff P, Ward J, Grimshaw JM, Dale S, D'Este C, et al. Implementation of evidence-based treatment protocols to manage fever, hyperglycaemia, and swallowing dysfunction in acute stroke (QASC): a cluster randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2011;378:1699–706.
Thumbikat P, Poonnoose PM, Balasubrahmaniam P, Ravichandran G, McClelland MR. A comparison of heparin/warfarin and enoxaparin thromboprophylaxis in spinal cord injury: the Sheffield experience. Spinal Cord. 2002;40:416–20.
Mason DJ. Choosing wisely: changing clinicians, patients, or policies? JAMA. 2015;313:657–8.
Kitzman P, Cecil D, Kolpek JH. The risks of polypharmacy following spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord Med. 2017;40:147–53.
The authors gratefully acknowledge Mr. Alexandre Vasconcelos Lima, Ms. Lore Martins Bueno, and Mr. Mauro Cardoso for their valuable statistical consulting.
RLA was responsible for designing the study protocol, writing the protocol, conducting the chart search, extracting and analyzing data, interpreting results, updating reference lists, and drafting the final report. CCR was responsible for conducting the chart search, extracting and analyzing data, reviewing datasets, and writing the report. PSSB was responsible for designing the study protocol, reviewing the protocol, analyzing data, interpreting results, and providing feedback on the final report. CAMS was responsible for analyzing data, providing feedback on statistical methods, interpreting results, and providing feedback on the final report. VMA was responsible for reviewing the study protocol, analyzing data, interpreting results, updating reference lists, and reviewing the final report.