• Pieter V Vermaak, Federica D'Asta, Jake Provins, Matthew Farr, and Yvonne T Wilson.
• Birmingham Children's Hospital, Steelhouse Lane, Birmingham, B4 6NH, UK. Electronic address: pvermaak@nhs.net.
• Burns. 2019 Sep 1; 45 (6): 1379-1385.

IntroductionPatients with burn injuries are at an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). This predisposition is secondary to the endothelial injury, hyper-coagulable state and stasis (Virchow's triad) associated with burn injury. Although the true incidence of VTE in burn patients has not been adequately quantified, symptomatic VTE occurs in 0.2-7% of this population. VTE prophylaxis has proven clinical effectiveness and affords a reduction in the morbidity associated with such events, but the benefits and risk of complications need to be balanced in order to provide the best quality of care. Owing to the lack of prospective data on VTE in burns, practice varies greatly, not only internationally, but also between local burns services. Our aim was to better understand current VTE practice within United Kingdom (UK) burn care services by performing a comprehensive survey.MethodsWe contacted all the inpatient burn care services in the UK and collected data on current VTE practice via a standardised questionnaire. Services were given the choice to complete the survey by telephone or email and a follow-up plan was formulated.ResultsTwenty-five burn care services were contacted and 23 agreed to participate (92% response rate). Responding services treated adults, children or both and lead burn nurses or senior medical staff familiar with current VTE practice were interviewed. Routine VTE prophylaxis was provided in 84% of burn services and the majority utilised a combination of chemoprophylaxis and thromboembolic deterrent stockings (TEDS). All used low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) as their choice of chemoprophylaxis. Of those treating adults, all used a VTE prophylaxis protocol, but none of these applied to children. Only 56% of services treating children had such a protocol. The majority discontinued prophylaxis once patients were mobile.Discussion And ConclusionAlthough the true burden of VTE in burn patients is unknown, we recognise that they are a population at risk. In addition to changes in the inflammatory and clotting pathways associated with thermal injury, prolonged hospital stay, ventilatory support, multiple surgeries, numerous central venous cannulations and reduced mobility all multiply this risk. The risk associated with the administration of heparin (bleeding complications and heparin-induced thrombocytopaenia) is low and can be reduced even further to 0.1% by the use of LMWH. The risk of symptomatic VTE is far greater, therefore the benefits of VTE prophylaxis would seem to outweigh the risks of not undertaking prophylactic measures. A higher LMWH dose and routine monitoring of anti-factor Xa levels are useful for acute burn patients. Two previous surveys, performed in Canada and the United States of America (USA), found routine administration of VTE prophylaxis to be 50% and 76% respectively. Of the 71 centres in the USA participating in the survey, 30% used a combination of sequential compression devices (SCD) and heparin and 24% did not provide VTE prophylaxis at all. A lack of prospective data on VTE in burn patients appears to be associated with diverse practice, and consensus on this topic could ensure that the potential morbidity caused by VTE is reduced. A clinical tool for identifying patients at risk and guidelines for management will standardise practice, which in turn should allow us to improve and maintain high quality care for burn patients.Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd and ISBI. All rights reserved.

26 keywords...

hide…