Incidence, risk factors, and treatment patterns for deep venous thrombosis in hospitalized children: An increasing population at risk
Article Outline
Objective
The optimal prophylactic strategy and treatment regimen for deep venous thrombosis (DVT) in hospitalized pediatric patients is not clearly established. This study assessed the incidence, risk factors, and treatment patterns for DVT among pediatric patients admitted to a hospital ward.
Methods
Children (aged <17 years) admitted to a single tertiary-care hospital during a 14-year period who developed or presented with DVT were retrospectively identified. Patient demographic and clinical data were analyzed retrospectively. Patients who developed DVT in the hospital were stratified according to the Wells clinical probability scoring system from criteria noted before the diagnosis. Treatment patterns and outcomes were evaluated between the two time intervals of 1992 to 2001 (group I) and 2002 to 2005 (group II).
Results
Between 1992 and 2005, 358 children were evaluated for DVT, and 99 (52 boys, 47 girls) were admitted to the hospital and were determined to have DVT by confirmatory imaging. A prior DVT (12 total) was present in eight of the 21 patients admitted for DVT treatment; of the remaining, only seven received DVT prophylaxis on admission. In those developing a DVT, the inpatient clinical probability score was 21% (low), 40% (moderate), and 39% (high). The most common risk factor in those with prehospital DVT was a prior DVT (38%) or thrombophilic condition (33%), whereas inpatients had a central catheter (45%), with nearly 50% in the femoral vein. Children acquiring an inpatient DVT had concomitant severe respiratory (17%), oncologic (14%), and/or infectious (15%) diseases and required a prolonged intensive care unit (12.7 days) stay. Prehospital DVT was lower extremity predominant (90%) and statistically different from inpatient-acquired DVT (62%, P = .01). Treatment patterns between periods I and II revealed a trend to more low-molecular-weight heparin and less unfractionated heparin use (P = .09). Three patients died (one fatal pulmonary embolism). The number of recognized cases per 10,000 admissions increased from 0.3 to 28.8 from 1992 to 2005.
Conclusion
The incidence of DVT in hospitalized children is increasing. Those presenting with DVT typically have prior DVT, thrombophilia, or lower extremity disease. Our study suggests that children admitted with severe medical conditions who require a prolonged intensive care unit stay in addition to central venous access (especially via the femoral vein) should be considered candidates for DVT prophylaxis. A clinical probability scoring system alone cannot stratify patients sufficiently to forgo prophylaxis in hopes of a rapid clinical diagnosis. Childhood-specific level 1 trials aimed at determining guidelines for DVT prophylaxis are urgently required.
Pediatric venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) are rare, only occurring in 0.07 to 0.14 per 10,000 children within the general population (5.3 per 10,000 child hospital admissions, 0.24 per 10,000 neonatal admissions, and 0.51 per 10,000 births).1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Despite the relatively low incidence in children, studies suggest that pediatric VTEs are an increasing concern in tertiary-care hospitals. Epidemiologic data indicate that the incidence of VTEs peaks in newborns/infants and adolescents as a result of diminutive blood vessels, a unique hemostatic system, and the use of central venous catheters in the former, and smoking, contraception, and obesity in the latter. Other etiologic triggers include exogenous (ie, congenital heart disease, cancer, prematurity, trauma, and sepsis) and endogenous (ie, congenital thrombophilias) factors, which cause physiologic alterations in hemostasis or fibrinolysis, or both, and consequently lead to VTEs.6, 7, 8
Because of these specific characteristics, some argue that pediatric venous thrombosis constitutes a different pathophysiologic process than that observed in adults. As a result, many support the concept that children should not be treated the same as adults.9, 10 Medical treatments for pediatric venous thrombosis have largely been extrapolated from adult guidelines. Regardless of these treatment guidelines, unresolved issues remain because of the lack of definitive studies on the optimal prevention and management of children with VTEs.11
The apparent increase in childhood VTEs noted in tertiary-care facilities underscores the need to define those at risk for deep venous thrombosis (DVT), to define the need for prophylaxis, and to determine the optimal antithrombotic therapy for this select group of patients with DVT. The aim of this study was to report the incidence, risk factors, and level of prophylaxis in those afflicted and treatment of DVT among hospitalized children within our tertiary-care referral system. In addition, we sought to evaluate DVT treatment patterns between two time periods (1992 to 2001 vs 2002 to 2005) to determine the practical effect of published guidelines on treatment.
Methods
Patients
The Indiana University/Purdue University Institutional Review Board reviewed and approved the study protocol. We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study using a computerized medical database covering a 14-year period from 1992 to 2005. We identified infants and children aged 0 to 17 years who were evaluated for DVT and restricted our sample to inpatients presenting with or developing DVT while hospitalized. We collected demographic data from these patient charts, including age, sex, race, year of diagnosis, admitting index diagnosis (circulatory, respiratory, acute infection, malignancy, trauma, or surgery), admitting service (medicine or surgery), length of hospitalization (days), intensive care unit (ICU) stay (days), morbidity, and mortality. Additional risk factors were obtained from a chart review.
A total of 358 children were evaluated as potentially having DVT by International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes (453.40, 453.41, 453.42, 453.80, and 453.90). We excluded 259 children from the analysis because they had outpatient records only and either did not have radiographic confirmation or we could not determine the treatment or outcomes from these records. Ninety-nine children were admitted to Riley Hospital for Children with a confirmed DVT. Diagnostic venous imaging included duplex ultrasonography (77 %), computed tomography (11 %), venography (8%), magnetic resonance imaging (5%), and echocardiography (4%). We further stratified these children into those who presented with a clinical diagnosis of DVT (prehospital, 21 patients) and those who developed DVT during their hospitalization (inpatient, 78 children).
Risk factor assessment
Several clinical conditions have been identified as potential risk factors for DVT. We searched for the following thrombophilic etiologies: central venous catheter, recent surgery, congenital heart disease, cancer, immobilization, trauma, nephrotic syndrome, use of oral contraceptives, congenital thrombophilia (sickle cell anemia), methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR-A1298C) mutation, factor V Leiden mutation, prothrombin 20210 (factor II) mutation, decreased antithrombin III, decreased protein C or protein S, and antiphospholipid antibodies (cardiolipin and systemic lupus erythematosus).11, 12
Patient stratification
If DVT prophylaxis measures are not routine practice for hospitalized children, we wanted to know if it was possible to recognize patients with DVT on clinical grounds, thereby allowing rapid and appropriate diagnostic evaluation and treatment before patient harm. We chose the validated DVT scoring system described by Wells et al13 to retrospectively categorize admitted children as having a low, moderate, or high probability of DVT (Table I) according to criteria observed before obtaining the confirmatory imaging study. The DVT risk score ranks specific signs, symptoms, and risk factors associated with venous thrombosis and assigns a point score for each. The summation of points along with the consideration of an alternate diagnosis provides a validated assessment of DVT risk, at least in adults. The numeric sum obtained categorizes the patient into a low-risk (≤0 points), moderate-risk (1 to 2 points), or high-risk (≥3) group in terms of the probability of harboring a DVT.
Table I. Wells Deep Venous Thrombosis Risk Score13
| 1 Point | Active cancer ≤6 months or palliation |
| 1 Point | Paralysis, paresis, or recent plaster immobilization |
| 1 Point | Bedridden >3 days and/or major surgery ≤12 weeks |
| 1 Point | Local tenderness along deep venous system |
| 1 Point | Entire leg swollen |
| 1 Point | Calf swelling ≥3 cm symptomless side |
| 1 Point | Pitting edema in symptomatic leg only |
| 1 Point | Collateral superficial veins |
| 2 Points | Alternate diagnosis at least as likely as DVT |
| Total score | |
 0 | Low risk for DVT |
| 1-2 | Moderate risk for DVT |
| >3 | High risk for DVT |
Thromboembolism prophylaxis
Inpatient records were queried for anticoagulants dispensed or mechanical forms of prophylaxis used for admitted children without a prehospital VTE. Pharmacologic and mechanical prophylaxis included subcutaneous heparin (heparin sodium and low-molecular-weight heparin [LMWH]), compression stockings, and intermittent pneumatic compression. Appropriate prophylaxis was considered if administered in the recommended dose and duration in the absence of contraindications. Patients who were ambulating or discharged ≤3 days were considered to have undergone appropriate prophylaxis.
Treatment pattern assessment
We evaluated treatment patterns between two time intervals, the first group was defined as from 1992 to 2001, and the second group from 2002 to 2005. The rationale in selecting these time intervals was such that before 2004, the last American College of Chest Physician (ACCP) conference on pediatric antithrombotic therapy was updated in 2001.14 We sought to determine whether significant treatment and outcome differences existed between the pre-2001 and post-2001 consensus recommendations.
Statistical analysis
Descriptive statistics were used in our clinical data to indicate distribution characteristics among inpatients, treatments, and outcomes. Differences in treatments and outcomes between groups were assessed with the χ2 test for categoric variables or the Mantel-Haenszel test for order categories. Values of P < .05 were considered significant.
Results
Our overall incidence of DVT was 9.7 per 10,000 hospital admissions (99 DVTs in 102,502 admissions). Fig 1 shows the annual number of DVTs per 10,000 child admissions during the 14-year study period. From 1992 to 1995, a prevalence of 0.3 per 10,000 admissions was observed; this trend increased to approximately 9 from 1996 to 2001, to 18 from 2002 to 2004, and precipitously escalated to 28 per 10,000 admissions in 2005.
Fig 1.
Cases of pediatric inpatients with deep venous thrombosis.
Patients presenting with a DVT and those with a DVT acquired as an inpatient were separate groups of interest. The children at highest risk for DVT in the prehospital group were those aged ≥11 years (85.6%; Fig 2). In contrast, hospital-acquired DVT was more common in the children aged 0 to 5 years (38.5%) and 11 to 15 years (34.6%). Hospitalized children had longer inpatient incumbency, ICU stay, and more deaths by an average of 16.2 days, 12.7 days, and three deaths, respectively (P < .05; Table II). A higher rate of hematologic admissions was observed in the prehospital group than in the hospitalized children (Fig 3). This most likely is attributed to an admitting diagnosis of a DVT. The hospitalized group had a major diagnoses involving respiratory, infection, or oncology, whereas other less common admissions included surgical, trauma, metabolic, or renal (Fig 3). Of note in our population of children admitted for the evaluation of fever, 23 children were identified who developed DVT; 11 children had central venous catheter infections, 4 had a urinary tract infection, 3 had documented pneumonia, and 1 had viral gastroenteritis.
Fig 2.
Age distribution of pediatric patients with deep venous thrombosis.
Table II. Patient demographics in prehospital and hospitalized children with deep venous thrombosis
| Variable | Prehospital | Inpatient |
|---|---|---|
| Age, mean (SD) years | 13.8 (3.7) | 9.2 (6.4) |
| Range, y | 4 y-17 y | 5 w-17 y |
| Male/female ratio | 0.75 | 1.2 |
| Race, % | ||
| White | 15 | 56 |
| Black | 6 | 15 |
| Hispanic | 0 | 5 |
| Other | 0 | 2 |
| Admitting service, % | ||
| Medicine | 20 | 65 |
| Surgery | 1 | 14 |
| LOS, mean (SD) days | ||
| Hospital | 6.6 (4.8) | 22.8 (23.5)a |
| Intensive care unit | 0 | 12.7 (22.1)a |
| Deaths, % | 0 | 3a |
aDenotes P < .05 |
Fig 3.
Principal diagnosis on admission.
A comparison of prehospital and inpatient DVTs by underlying risk factors present at the time of DVT diagnosis is summarized in Table III. In the prehospitalized group, most of the children who presented with DVT had a prior DVT (38%) or a thrombophilic condition (33%), or both. Central venous catheters were present in 24% and only in the upper body. This contrasts with the inpatient group, in which 45% of the children had DVT at the site of central venous catheterization, with nearly 50% of these placed in the femoral location. None of the prehospital DVT patients had a femoral catheter.
Table III. Underlying risk factors among prehospital and hospitalized children with deep venous thrombosis
| Risk factor | Incidence, % | P | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prehospital (n = 21)a | Inpatient (n = 78) | ||
| Central venous catheter | |||
| Femoral | 0 | 22 | .02 |
| Subclavian | 14 | 14 | .98 |
| Internal jugular | 10 | 9 | .94 |
| Prior DVT | 38 | 5 | .01 |
| Congenital thrombophilia | 33 | 18 | .13 |
| Malignancy | 14 | 13 | .86 |
| Immobility >72 hours | 5 | 4 | .85 |
| Trauma | 5 | 6 | .78 |
| Oral contraceptive | 10 | 5 | .45 |
| Congenital heart disease | 5 | 5 | .95 |
| Renal disease | 5 | 4 | .85 |
aDenotes children who presented with a diagnosis of DVT. |
Only 18% of children with inpatient-acquired DVT had an identified thrombophilia. Almost all of the prehospitalized children (90%) had lower extremity DVT with no cervical thrombosis noted, whereas hospitalized patients had 62% lower extremity, 27% upper extremity, and 13% cervical thromboses (Table IV). Statistically, these rates are significantly different. This difference in body location is again reflected in the actual veins affected. The prehospital children had 80% common femoral and 40% popliteal thromboses, but no internal jugular vein thromboses. Inpatients developed common femoral (59%) and iliac (18%) vein involvement but also internal jugular (18%), and subclavian (19%) DVTs. Moreover, a clear association existed between the presence of a central catheter and the location of the DVT in terms of vein, body location, and side in the inpatients. This was obviously not apparent in the patients who presented to the hospital with a DVT, because no neck vein thrombosis was noted yet 10% of these patients had a central catheter in that locale.
Table IV. Location and anatomic deep venous thrombosis differences between prehospital and hospitalized children
| Variable | Prehospital (n = 21), % | Inpatient (n = 78), % | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bilateral | 10 | 13 | .68 |
| Right | 75 | 50 | .03 |
| Left | 15 | 37 | .05 |
| Lower extremity | 90 | 62 | .01 |
| Upper extremity | 10 | 27 | .09 |
| Neck | 0 | 13 | .08 |
| Common femoral | 80 | 59 | .31 |
| Femoral deep/profunda | 5 | 9 | .51 |
| Iliac | 10 | 18 | .34 |
| Popliteal | 40 | 8 | <.01 |
| Internal jugular | 0 | 18 | .04 |
| Brachial | 5 | 4 | .88 |
| Axillary | 5 | 8 | .62 |
| Subclavian | 10 | 19 | .62 |
| Infrapopliteal | 9 | 1 | .22 |
| Vena cava | 0 | 10 | .05 |
| Intracranial sinuses | 0 | 5 | .04 |
Prehospitalized patients were immediately started on anticoagulation for DVT treatment and therefore were not included in the evaluation of thromboprophylaxis. Of 78 remaining children, only seven patients (9.2%) received pharmacologic or mechanical prophylaxis, of which three children were at moderate risk and four were high risk for DVT by the Wells criteria. We calculated that 21% were low-risk, 40% were moderate-risk, and 39% were in the high-risk category for DVT. On the sole basis of these clinical criteria, the clinician would not suspect the presence of DVT in at least 21% of these patients. It is interesting that the diagnosis of DVT in 12 patients was found serendipitously on a study obtained for an entirely different clinical indication.
Treatment patterns for DVT during two time intervals, from 1992 to 2001 (group I) and from 2002 to 2005 (group II), were separated for analysis (Table V). For short-term treatment, the initial treatment for both groups was most commonly LMWH, but there was a trend to provide this therapy more commonly in group II, with a concomitant decrease in the use of unfractionated heparin. All other therapies were used sporadically and with similar frequency during each time period. Discharge treatment demonstrated a trend in group II to treat all patients long-term with LMWH, but no difference can be demonstrated statistically. It is interesting that fewer patients in group II were treated for at least 3 months, but again, no statistical difference exists. Only three children with recurrent DVT as a result of an inherited thrombophilia were maintained on lifelong anticoagulation therapy, whereas those with central catheter–related thrombosis, trauma, and postoperative-related DVT were treated for shorter time periods.
Table V. Treatment patterns between groups I (n = 42) and II (n = 57)
| Treatment pattern | Group I, No (%) | Group II, No (%) | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Acute treatmenta | |||
| LMWH | 17(40.5) | 33(57.9) | .09 |
| UFH | 17(40.5) | 14(24.5) | .09 |
| ADH | 1(2.4) | 0 | .24 |
| DTI | 4(9.5) | 3(5.2) | .41 |
| IVC filter | 2(4.7) | 2(3.5) | .75 |
| CVL removal | 4(9.5) | 3(5.3) | .41 |
| None | 3(7.1) | 5(8.7) | .77 |
| Discharge treatment | |||
| LMWH | 16(38.1) | 26(45.6) | .41 |
| Warfarin | 13(30.9) | 21(36.8) | |
| None | 11(26.2) | 9(15.8) | |
| Duration | |||
| <3 mon | 23(54.8) | 44(77.1) | .41 |
| 3-6 mon | 12(28.7) | 8(14.0) | |
| 6 mon-1 y | 6(14.2) | 3(5.4) | |
| Lifetime | 1(2.3) | 2(3.5) |
aTotal exceeds 100% because some patients received more than one treatment. |
Analysis of short-term outcomes between groups I and II (Table VI) showed that most children went home without further incident. Of those with complications, we observed more pulmonary emboli in group II, with one death as an immediate result of the prothrombotic condition. Group I had more recurrent DVT and two deaths (1 sepsis and 1 toxic ingestion). No major bleeding events were noted in either group. None of these clinical effects were statistically different when one time period was compared with the other.
Table VI. Outcomes between groups I and II
| Outcome | Group I, No (%) | Group II, No (%) | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pulmonary embolism | 1(2.4) | 4(7.0) | .30 |
| Recurrent DVT | 8(19.0) | 9(15.8) | .67 |
| Major bleeding | 0 | 0 | 1.0 |
| Death | 2(4.8) | 1(1.8) | .39 |
Discussion
Venous thromboembolic events have emerged as an increased source of concern in hospitalized children. The absence of large, prospective, randomized clinical trials in pediatric VTE, attributable in part to its low incidence and difficulties in performing anticoagulation in this select population, results in a considerable dilemma about optimal prophylaxis and treatment.11, 15 The purpose of this retrospective analysis was to examine the incidence of DVT, risk factors, and treatment patterns at a single high-volume, tertiary-care, inpatient pediatric hospital.
Our data reveal that the incidence of pediatric DVTs increased during a 14-year period from 1992 to 2005. The incidence of childhood thromboembolic events in our population was higher (9.7 per 10,000 admissions) than other reports (4.9-8.0 per 10,000 admissions).3, 7, 16 This observation may be because Riley Hospital is Indiana’s only comprehensive pediatric medical center and one of the largest pediatric intensive care hospitals in the country. Rapid technologic improvements that have aided in the care of acutely ill children may have had a positive impact on this reported trend.17 Patient demographics from our study approximate pediatric VTE statistics reported from other comparable centers.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Collectively, these data corroborate national and international trends that have identified DVT as a growing concern among hospitalized children.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 16
Those children presenting with a DVT may well reflect an older population of patients with DVT, as demonstrated by a predominance of prior DVT and thrombophilic conditions. The femoropopliteal venous system is most commonly involved.11, 14, 18 These children are generally older and healthier at the time of admission than their counterparts with DVT acquired while in the hospital. These children are admitted and with treatment are rapidly discharged.
Those children with a DVT acquired while hospitalized demonstrated a bimodal distribution of age range, with sparing of group aged 6 to 10 years. This has been recognized by other investigators.11, 14 These patients are quite ill and are often in an ICU setting for days. The major risk factor associated with DVT in our patients was the presence of a central catheter. About 50% of the catheters in our series were in the upper extremity, which helps to explain the shift in DVT location to the upper extremity and neck. In some series, >50% of the reported VTEs were located in the upper extremities due to the presence of a central catheter.11, 19 Our series was not so heavily shifted to the upper extremity because the remaining 50% of central catheters were located in the femoral vein, with thrombosis occurring there. In toto, these patients are at high risk for DVT.
The patients who develop an inpatient DVT have serious health issues. Cancer and sepsis are well accepted risk factors for venous thromboses; a growing body of literature suggests that acute infection is a trigger for VTEs.20, 21, 22 Recently, Smeeth et al23 found the risk of DVT increased after acute respiratory and urinary tract infections in adults. Altered coagulation states and venous thromboses have been reported in children with meningococcal infections, osteomyelitis, and Mycoplasma pneumoniae.24, 25, 26 Our data support the observation that children with fever and an infectious source are at risk of developing a DVT.
It has been reported that catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) is the most frequent cause of pediatric DVT, and the incidence of CRT is increased in children with cancer compared with adults.27, 28 Vessel size in relation to catheter size has been implicated along with changes in the fibrinolytic system. Our data support this observation. Although we did not focus on patients with asymptomatic CRT, asymptomatic CRT appears to be even more common than symptomatic CRT.29 Central venous catheters are a prevalent risk factor for DVT in hospitalized children, but whether all inpatients with a central line should undergo prophylaxis is a lingering question and one not supported by current guidelines.11
Physical or pharmacologic DVT prophylaxis is infrequently used in pediatric patients due to a perceived low incidence of VTEs occurring in children. In our series, only 9.2% of patients were provided this care. Even in these patients, the treatment must not have been sufficient because the patients eventually experienced a DVT. Unfortunately, these findings are not unique to the pediatric population, because large registries indicate a high proportion of inpatient adults with significant DVT risk factors are likewise not properly considered for venous thrombosis prophylaxis.30, 31 Few studies have addressed the optimal age for considering DVT prophylaxis. Azu et al32 concluded it was safe to withhold VTE prophylaxis in pediatric trauma patients aged <13 years secondary to a paucity of clinically significant VTEs.32 Lack of data on DVT prevention makes it difficult to determine which at-risk children actually would benefit from thromboprophylaxis.
The alternative to prophylaxis would be a reliable clinical indicator that could predict the true absence or presence of DVT and thereby allow appropriate treatment. In our patients, the validated Wells criteria were not acceptable as a stand-alone tool to rule in or out DVT on clinical grounds alone. This is not surprising for two reasons. Children are not adults and likely would require a system validated specifically for children. Furthermore, the Wells criteria are not an acceptable stand-alone method even in adults, which explains the interest in the D-dimer test to improve accuracy.33 Clearly, if we are going to protect these children at risk for DVT, guidelines for pediatric DVT prophylaxis must be developed from level 1 data.
Our study suggests that children at highest risk for DVT are those who are admitted with severe respiratory, oncologic, and infectious diseases that require central catheter access for care and a prolonged ICU and hospital stay. These children should be considered candidates for DVT prophylaxis because they are the patients most likely to be affected. But this recommendation is based on the limited nature of this study and clearly lacks supporting level 1 evidence.
What is ultimately needed is a concerted effort to define the patients at risk. All children admitted to the hospital should be assessed for DVT risk coupled with a method of reassessment if the hospital stay extends beyond a few days. Several risk score tools are available, but none have been validated for children.12, 34 If DVT is suspected, appropriate diagnostic studies should be obtained. By using proactive protocols that identify children at risk coupled with an established process of re-evaluation, at the worst, early detection and treatment will be facilitated; at best, factors unique to children that define those at high risk will be recognized (a pediatric-specific risk stratification system) and lead to guidelines for prophylaxis.
Treatment management recommendations for pediatric DVT were initially proposed by the AACP in 1995, with revisions approximately every 3 years (1998, 2001, and 2004).11, 14, 35, 36 The change most notable in the 2001 ACCP consensus statement was the introduction of LMWH to the pediatric specialist both as a short-term treatment and for long-term treatment in some cases.14 Long-term treatment and for at least 3 months has been a constant recommendation. Our data demonstrate a deeper incorporation of LMWH into the care of children with DVT during both phases of treatment. A greater percentage of children were discharged with anticoagulation therapy in group II and according to guideline recommendations. Unfortunately, our long-term duration of treatment was shortened for unexplained reasons.
Conclusion
Our data suggest that the incidence of DVT in hospitalized children is increasing and therefore demands more clinical attention. Those presenting with DVT are typical of those afflicted with a spontaneous DVT: prior DVT, thrombophilia, and lower extremity disease. Hospitalized patients are quite ill, requiring central venous access often through the femoral vein. The presence of the central catheter predisposes to a local DVT. A clinical probability scoring system alone cannot stratify patients sufficiently to forego prophylaxis in hopes of a rapid clinical diagnosis and treatment. Therefore, pediatric-specific level 1 trials aimed at determining guidelines for DVT prophylaxis are urgently required. The results of this study indicate that the children most at risk to develop DVT while in the hospital are those admitted with severe respiratory, oncologic, and infectious diseases who require a prolonged ICU and hospital stay and who require central venous access during their management. These children should be considered candidates for DVT prophylaxis.
Author contributions
References
- . Venous thromboembolism in childhood: a prospective two-year registry in The Netherlands. J Pediatr. 2001;139:676–681
- . Thromboembolism in children. Curr Opin Hematol. 2002;9:448–453
- Venous thromboembolic complications (VTE) in children: first analyses of the Canadian Registry of VTE. Blood. 1994;83:1251–1257
- . Neonatal symptomatic thromboembolism in Germany: two year survey. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 1997;76:F163–F167
- . Neonatal thrombosis: report of a prospective Canadian and international registry. Pediatrics. 1995;96:939–943
- Systemic thromboembolism in children (Data from the 1-800-NO-CLOTS Consultation Service). Thromb Haemost. 2004;92:722–728
- . Incidence of venous thromboembolism in infants and children: data from the National Hospital Discharge Survey. J Pediatr. 2004;145:563–565
- . Epidemiology of venous thromboembolism in neonates and children. Thromb Res. 2006;118:3–12
- . Guidelines for antithrombotic therapy in pediatric patients. J Pediatr. 1998;132:575–588
- . Pediatric clinical research in benign hematology: a dilemma?. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2005;27:637–638
- . Antithrombotic therapy in children: the Seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy. Chest. 2004;126:645S–687S
- Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism: The Seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy. Chest. 2004;126:338S–400S
- Value of assessment of pretest probability of deep-vein thrombosis in clinical management. Lancet. 1997;350:1795–1798
- . Antithrombotic therapy in children. Chest. 2001;119:344S–370S
- . Difficulties in performing clinical trials of antithrombotic therapy in neonates and children. Thromb Res. 2006;118:153–163
- . Venous thromboembolic disease: a single-centre case series study. J Paediatr Child Health. 2006;42:803–807
- . Pediatric thrombosis. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2002;49:1257–1283
- . Incidence of deep venous thrombosis associated with femoral venous catheterization. Acad Emerg Med. 1997;4:1118–1121
- . Venous thromboembolic complications in children. J Pediatr. 1993;123:337–346
- . An epidemiologic study of risk factors for deep vein thrombosis in medical outpatients: the Sirius study. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:3415–3420
- Risk factors for venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients with acute medical illness: analysis of the MEDENOX Study. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:963–968
- . The influence of risk factors in promoting thrombosis during childhood: the role of acquired factors. Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2006;23:399–410
- . Risk of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism after acute infection in a community setting. Lancet. 2006;367:1075–1079
- Cellular origin and procoagulant properties of microparticles in meningococcal sepsis. Blood. 2000;95:930–935
- . Venous thrombosis and thromboembolism in children with osteomyelitis. J Pediatr. 2006;149:537–541
- Mycoplasma pneumoniae-induced cerebral venous thrombosis treated with urokinase. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 1992;31:501–504
- . Central venous catheter related thrombosis in children: analysis of the Canadian Registry of Venous Thromboembolic Complications. J Pediatr. 1998;133:770–776
- Comparison of venography and ultrasound for the diagnosis of asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis in the upper body in children: results of the PARKAA study. Prophylactic Antithrombin Replacement in Kids with ALL treated with Asparaginase. Thromb Haemost. 2002;87:593–598
- . Venous thromboembolism associated with long-term use of central venous catheters in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:3665–3675
- . A multinational observational cohort study in acutely ill medical patients in prevention of venous thromboembolism: findings of the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE). Blood. 2003;102(Suppl):321a
- . Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in medically ill patients and the development of strategies to improve prophylaxis rates. Am J Hematol. 2005;78:167–172
- . Venous thromboembolic events in pediatric trauma patients: is prophylaxis necessary?. J Trauma. 2005;59:1345–1349
- . Off hours vascular laboratory utilization. In: Pearce WH, Matsumura JS, Yao JST editor. Trends in vascular surgery. Chicago, IL: Precept Press; 2003;p. 47–60
- . Thrombosis risk assessment as a guide to quality patient care. Dis Mon. 2005;51:70–78
- . Antithrombotic therapy in children. Chest. 1995;108:506S–522S
- . Antithrombotic therapy in children. Chest. 1998;114:748S–769S
Competition of interest: none.
CME article
PII: S0741-5214(07)01902-7
doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2007.11.054
© 2008 The Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.