Key result
Thromboprophylaxis plays a significant role in preventing venous thromboembolism in neurocritical care patients, with pharmacological prophylaxis generally safe when deferred until hemostasis is achieved.
Why the study?
Venous thromboembolism risk is high in neurocritical care, but applying routine thromboprophylaxis guidelines is limited by fear of bleeding in neurologically significant closed locations.
This review provides comprehensive, evidence-based guidance for implementing mechanical and pharmacological thromboprophylaxis safely across diverse neurocritical care populations to prevent venous thromboembolism.
May guide thromboprophylaxis timing after hemostasis in neurocritical care; leaves open optimal regimens for randomized trials.
The propensity for venous thromboembolism in patients admitted to neurocritical care setups is high because of predilection toward venous stasis as well as pathological processes favoring embolus formation and dissemination. The application of routine thromboprophylaxis guidelines in the various subsets of neurologically injured patients is limited by the fear of bleeding inside neurologically significant closed locations. The aim of this review is to lay out thromboprophylaxis guidelines in various subsets of patients admitted to neurocritical care setups according to recent evidence base, which is still an evolving process.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Swain et al. (2019) conducted a review in Neurological injury requiring neurocritical care. Thromboprophylaxis (mechanical and pharmacological) was evaluated. Thromboprophylaxis plays a significant role in preventing venous thromboembolism in neurocritical care patients, with pharmacological prophylaxis generally safe when deferred until hemostasis is achieved.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: