DVT Prophylaxis in ICU Patients
All critically ill ICU patients should receive pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis with either LMWH or LDUH (low-dose unfractionated heparin) unless they have active bleeding or high bleeding risk, in which case mechanical prophylaxis should be used. 1
Pharmacologic Prophylaxis (First-Line for Most ICU Patients)
Choice of Agent
- Either LMWH or LDUH is recommended for critically ill patients without contraindications 1
- The American College of Chest Physicians considered suggesting LMWH over LDUH but ultimately did not make this recommendation due to small magnitude of benefit (only 8 PEs per 1,000 patients prevented) and limited evidence 1
- LMWH and LDUH have equivalent efficacy in reducing symptomatic DVT (RR 0.86,95% CI 0.59-1.25) and pulmonary embolism (RR 0.73,95% CI 0.26-2.11) 1
- Both agents show similar rates of major bleeding and mortality in critically ill patients 1
Dosing Regimens
For LDUH:
- 5,000 units subcutaneously every 8-12 hours is the standard prophylactic dose 1, 2
- The most widely studied regimen is 5,000 units every 8 hours 2
For LMWH:
- Dalteparin 5,000 units subcutaneously once daily is a validated regimen in ICU patients 1
- Enoxaparin 40 mg subcutaneously once daily for patients with normal renal function 3, 4
- Dose adjustment required for renal impairment (CrCl <30 mL/min) - consider LDUH instead 3, 4
Duration of Prophylaxis
- Continue throughout the entire ICU stay and hospitalization 5, 4
- Do not extend prophylaxis beyond hospital discharge in most cases 5
- Prophylaxis typically ranges from 6-14 days or until the patient is fully ambulatory 2, 4
Mechanical Prophylaxis (For Bleeding or High Bleeding Risk)
When to Use Mechanical Prophylaxis
Use mechanical prophylaxis instead of pharmacologic prophylaxis when: 1
- Active bleeding is present
- High risk for major bleeding exists
- Platelet count <50,000/mcL 5
- Recent bleeding associated with CNS or spinal lesions 5
Bleeding Risk Factors in ICU Patients
Key predictors of major bleeding include: 1
- Prolonged aPTT (HR 1.2 per 10-second increase)
- Decreasing platelet count (HR 1.7 per 50×10⁹/L decrease)
- Renal insufficiency requiring dialysis
- Therapeutic anticoagulation use
- Elevated INR
Mechanical Prophylaxis Options
- Intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) is preferred over graduated compression stockings 1, 5
- Graduated compression stockings (15-30 mmHg) are an alternative 5
- When bleeding risk decreases, transition from mechanical to pharmacologic prophylaxis 1, 3, 5
Special Populations and Considerations
Renal Impairment
- LDUH is preferred over LMWH in patients with significant renal dysfunction (CrCl <30 mL/min) as it does not require dose adjustment 3, 4
- If LMWH is used, close monitoring of anti-Xa levels may be warranted 1
Obesity
Combined Prophylaxis
- Combined mechanical and pharmacologic prophylaxis appears more effective in surgical ICU patients, but evidence is lacking for medical ICU patients 1
- Consider combined prophylaxis for highest-risk patients once bleeding risk is acceptable 7
What NOT to Do
- Do not perform routine ultrasound screening for DVT in asymptomatic ICU patients (Grade 2C recommendation) 1
- Do not use graduated compression stockings alone as primary prophylaxis when pharmacologic prophylaxis is feasible 1
- Do not extend prophylaxis beyond hospital discharge without specific high-risk indications 5
Monitoring and Safety
- Daily assessment of both VTE risk and bleeding risk is recommended in critically ill patients 1
- Monitor platelet counts for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT occurs in 0.3-0.6% of patients) 1
- Most ICU patients experience minor bleeding (up to 90%), but major bleeding occurs in approximately 2.7-5.5% 1
- No routine coagulation monitoring is needed for standard prophylactic doses in patients with normal baseline parameters 2
Evidence Quality Note
The evidence supporting pharmacologic prophylaxis in ICU patients is moderate quality, with most trials showing trends toward benefit but with wide confidence intervals that include both benefit and harm 1. Despite this uncertainty, the consistent direction of effect across multiple trials and the high baseline VTE risk in critically ill patients (up to 29% without prophylaxis) supports routine prophylaxis use 1.