BACKGROUND: The risk of postoperative venous thromboembolic disease is as high as 30%, with an associated fatality risk of 1%. Therefore, prophylaxis is essential, but the optimal regimen remains controversial. This study was designed to systematically review and quantitatively summarize the impact of mechanical compression versus subcutaneous heparin on venous thromboembolic disease and posttreatment bleeding in postsurgical and posttrauma patients. METHODS: Computerized searches of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases through November 2008 were performed and supplemented with manual searches. We included studies that had: (1) a patient population undergoing surgery or admitted immediately posttrauma, (2) a randomized comparison of prophylaxis with mechanical compression versus subcutaneous heparin, (3) outcome measured in terms of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), or bleeding. RESULTS: Two reviewers independently extracted data from the original articles, which represented 16 studies, including a total of 3,887 subjects. Meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model. The pooled relative risk for mechanical compression compared with subcutaneous heparin was 1.07 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72, 1.61) for DVT and 1.03 (95% CI 0.48, 2.22) for PE. Mechanical compression was associated with a significantly reduced risk of postoperative bleeding compared with subcutaneous heparin (risk ratio 0.47; 95% CI 0.31, 0.70). Subgroup analyses by heparin type suggested that low molecular weight heparin may reduce risk of DVT compared with compression (relative risk 1.80; 95% CI 1.16, 2.79) but remains similarly associated with an increased risk of bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the overall bleeding risk profile favors the use of compression over heparin, with the benefits in term of venous thromboembolic disease prophylaxis being similar between groups. Subgroup analyses suggest that low molecular weight heparin may have a differential effect; this observation should be further evaluated in future studies.
BACKGROUND: The risk of postoperative venous thromboembolic disease is as high as 30%, with an associated fatality risk of 1%. Therefore, prophylaxis is essential, but the optimal regimen remains controversial. This study was designed to systematically review and quantitatively summarize the impact of mechanical compression versus subcutaneous heparin on venous thromboembolic disease and posttreatment bleeding in postsurgical and posttrauma patients. METHODS: Computerized searches of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases through November 2008 were performed and supplemented with manual searches. We included studies that had: (1) a patient population undergoing surgery or admitted immediately posttrauma, (2) a randomized comparison of prophylaxis with mechanical compression versus subcutaneous heparin, (3) outcome measured in terms of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), or bleeding. RESULTS: Two reviewers independently extracted data from the original articles, which represented 16 studies, including a total of 3,887 subjects. Meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model. The pooled relative risk for mechanical compression compared with subcutaneous heparin was 1.07 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72, 1.61) for DVT and 1.03 (95% CI 0.48, 2.22) for PE. Mechanical compression was associated with a significantly reduced risk of postoperative bleeding compared with subcutaneous heparin (risk ratio 0.47; 95% CI 0.31, 0.70). Subgroup analyses by heparin type suggested that low molecular weight heparin may reduce risk of DVT compared with compression (relative risk 1.80; 95% CI 1.16, 2.79) but remains similarly associated with an increased risk of bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the overall bleeding risk profile favors the use of compression over heparin, with the benefits in term of venous thromboembolic disease prophylaxis being similar between groups. Subgroup analyses suggest that low molecular weight heparin may have a differential effect; this observation should be further evaluated in future studies.
Authors: M A Kosir; L Schmittinger; L Barno-Winarski; P Duddella; M Pone; A Perales; P Lange; L K Brish; K McGee; K Beleski; J Pawlak; E Mammen; N P Sajahan; R A Kozol Journal: J Surg Res Date: 1998-01 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: M T Nurmohamed; F R Rosendaal; H R Büller; E Dekker; D W Hommes; J P Vandenbroucke; E Briët Journal: Lancet Date: 1992-07-18 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Susan R Kahn; Wendy Lim; Andrew S Dunn; Mary Cushman; Francesco Dentali; Elie A Akl; Deborah J Cook; Alex A Balekian; Russell C Klein; Hoang Le; Sam Schulman; M Hassan Murad Journal: Chest Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Michael K Gould; David A Garcia; Sherry M Wren; Paul J Karanicolas; Juan I Arcelus; John A Heit; Charles M Samama Journal: Chest Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Gordon H Guyatt; John W Eikelboom; Michael K Gould; David A Garcia; Mark Crowther; M Hassan Murad; Susan R Kahn; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Charles W Francis; Maarten G Lansberg; Elie A Akl; Jack Hirsh Journal: Chest Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Gregg Stashenko; Renato D Lopes; David Garcia; John H Alexander; Victor F Tapson Journal: J Thromb Thrombolysis Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 2.300
Authors: Herbert I Fried; Barnett R Nathan; A Shaun Rowe; Joseph M Zabramski; Norberto Andaluz; Adarsh Bhimraj; Mary McKenna Guanci; David B Seder; Jeffrey M Singh Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: David R Anderson; Gian Paolo Morgano; Carole Bennett; Francesco Dentali; Charles W Francis; David A Garcia; Susan R Kahn; Maryam Rahman; Anita Rajasekhar; Frederick B Rogers; Maureen A Smythe; Kari A O Tikkinen; Adolph J Yates; Tejan Baldeh; Sara Balduzzi; Jan L Brożek; Itziar Etxeandia- Ikobaltzeta; Herman Johal; Ignacio Neumann; Wojtek Wiercioch; Juan José Yepes-Nuñez; Holger J Schünemann; Philipp Dahm Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2019-12-10