OBJECTIVE: To compare low molecular weight heparin and external pneumatic compression in terms of patient preference and compliance to determine if either of these two methods is superior in postoperative thromboembolism prophylaxis of gynecologic oncology patients. METHODS: A total of 211 patients undergoing major surgery for a suspected gynecologic malignancy were randomized to receive thromboembolism prophylaxis with either external pneumatic compression or low molecular weight heparin. Surveys regarding thromboembolism prophylaxis were completed by patients before surgery and approximately 7 days postoperatively. Patient preferences as well as reasons for patient dissatisfaction with prophylactic methods were elicited in the questionnaires. In addition, patient compliance with prophylaxis was recorded twice a day during hospitalization. Patients were not considered to be compliant with prophylaxis if the external pneumatic compression device was not functioning properly or if the administration of low molecular weight heparin was not given in a timely manner. RESULTS: The majority of patients were satisfied with the prophylactic method that they received to the extent that they would prefer the treatment they received to one they had not necessarily experienced. The postoperative preferences of 78% of patients receiving low molecular weight heparin and 74% of those wearing external pneumatic compression corresponded to what the patients actually received as a method of thromboembolism prevention. Patient compliance with prophylaxis was noted to be inadequate in ten of 104 (9.6%) patients receiving external pneumatic compression and seven of 103 (6.8%) patients receiving low molecular weight heparin. CONCLUSION:Pneumatic compression and low molecular weight heparin are similar both in terms of patient preference and compliance among gynecologic oncology patients receiving postoperative thromboembolism prophylaxis.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare low molecular weight heparin and external pneumatic compression in terms of patient preference and compliance to determine if either of these two methods is superior in postoperative thromboembolism prophylaxis of gynecologic oncology patients. METHODS: A total of 211 patients undergoing major surgery for a suspected gynecologic malignancy were randomized to receive thromboembolism prophylaxis with either external pneumatic compression or low molecular weight heparin. Surveys regarding thromboembolism prophylaxis were completed by patients before surgery and approximately 7 days postoperatively. Patient preferences as well as reasons for patient dissatisfaction with prophylactic methods were elicited in the questionnaires. In addition, patient compliance with prophylaxis was recorded twice a day during hospitalization. Patients were not considered to be compliant with prophylaxis if the external pneumatic compression device was not functioning properly or if the administration of low molecular weight heparin was not given in a timely manner. RESULTS: The majority of patients were satisfied with the prophylactic method that they received to the extent that they would prefer the treatment they received to one they had not necessarily experienced. The postoperative preferences of 78% of patients receiving low molecular weight heparin and 74% of those wearing external pneumatic compression corresponded to what the patients actually received as a method of thromboembolism prevention. Patient compliance with prophylaxis was noted to be inadequate in ten of 104 (9.6%) patients receiving external pneumatic compression and seven of 103 (6.8%) patients receiving low molecular weight heparin. CONCLUSION: Pneumatic compression and low molecular weight heparin are similar both in terms of patient preference and compliance among gynecologic oncology patients receiving postoperative thromboembolism prophylaxis.
Authors: Robby Nieuwlaat; Nancy Wilczynski; Tamara Navarro; Nicholas Hobson; Rebecca Jeffery; Arun Keepanasseril; Thomas Agoritsas; Niraj Mistry; Alfonso Iorio; Susan Jack; Bhairavi Sivaramalingam; Emma Iserman; Reem A Mustafa; Dawn Jedraszewski; Chris Cotoi; R Brian Haynes Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2014-11-20