Kwok M Ho1, Jen Aik Tan. 1. Department of Intensive Care, Royal Perth Hospital, University of Western Australia, Wellington Street, Perth, WA 6000, Australia. kwok.ho@health.wa.gov.au
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Optimal thromboprophylaxis for patients at risk of bleeding remains uncertain. This meta-analysis assessed whether intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) of the lower limbs was effective in reducing venous thromboembolism and whether combining pharmacological thromboprophylaxis with IPC would enhance its effectiveness. METHODS AND RESULTS: Two reviewers searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane controlled trial register (1966-February 2013) for randomized, controlled trials and assessed the outcomes and quality of the trials independently. Trials comparing IPC with pharmacological thromboprophylaxis, thromboembolic deterrent stockings, no prophylaxis, and a combination of IPC and pharmacological thromboprophylaxis were considered. Trials that used IPC <24 hours or compared different types of IPC were excluded. A total of 16 164 hospitalized patients from 70 trials met the inclusion criteria and were subjected to meta-analysis. IPC was more effective than no IPC prophylaxis in reducing deep vein thrombosis (7.3% versus 16.7%; absolute risk reduction, 9.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.9-10.9; relative risk, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.36-0.52; P<0.01; I(2)=34%) and pulmonary embolism (1.2% versus 2.8%; absolute risk reduction, 1.6%; 95% CI, 0.9-2.3; relative risk, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.33-0.69; P<0.01; I(2)=0%). IPC was also more effective than thromboembolic deterrent stockings in reducing deep vein thrombosis and appeared to be as effective as pharmacological thromboprophylaxis but with a reduced risk of bleeding (relative risk, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.25-0.65; P<0.01; I(2)=0%). Adding pharmacological thromboprophylaxis to IPC further reduced the risk of deep vein thrombosis (relative risk, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32-0.91; P=0.02; I(2)=0%) compared with IPC alone. CONCLUSIONS: IPC was effective in reducing venous thromboembolism, and combining pharmacological thromboprophylaxis with IPC was more effective than using IPC alone.
BACKGROUND: Optimal thromboprophylaxis for patients at risk of bleeding remains uncertain. This meta-analysis assessed whether intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) of the lower limbs was effective in reducing venous thromboembolism and whether combining pharmacological thromboprophylaxis with IPC would enhance its effectiveness. METHODS AND RESULTS: Two reviewers searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane controlled trial register (1966-February 2013) for randomized, controlled trials and assessed the outcomes and quality of the trials independently. Trials comparing IPC with pharmacological thromboprophylaxis, thromboembolic deterrent stockings, no prophylaxis, and a combination of IPC and pharmacological thromboprophylaxis were considered. Trials that used IPC <24 hours or compared different types of IPC were excluded. A total of 16 164 hospitalized patients from 70 trials met the inclusion criteria and were subjected to meta-analysis. IPC was more effective than no IPC prophylaxis in reducing deep vein thrombosis (7.3% versus 16.7%; absolute risk reduction, 9.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.9-10.9; relative risk, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.36-0.52; P<0.01; I(2)=34%) and pulmonary embolism (1.2% versus 2.8%; absolute risk reduction, 1.6%; 95% CI, 0.9-2.3; relative risk, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.33-0.69; P<0.01; I(2)=0%). IPC was also more effective than thromboembolic deterrent stockings in reducing deep vein thrombosis and appeared to be as effective as pharmacological thromboprophylaxis but with a reduced risk of bleeding (relative risk, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.25-0.65; P<0.01; I(2)=0%). Adding pharmacological thromboprophylaxis to IPC further reduced the risk of deep vein thrombosis (relative risk, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32-0.91; P=0.02; I(2)=0%) compared with IPC alone. CONCLUSIONS:IPC was effective in reducing venous thromboembolism, and combining pharmacological thromboprophylaxis with IPC was more effective than using IPC alone.
Authors: Thomas A Aloia; William H Geerts; Bryan M Clary; Ryan W Day; Alan W Hemming; Luiz Carneiro D'Albuquerque; Charles M Vollmer; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Giles J Toogood Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Pablo García-Olivares; Jose Eugenio Guerrero; Pedro Galdos; Demetrio Carriedo; Francisco Murillo; Antonio Rivera Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2014-08-20 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Belinda De Simone; Elie Chouillard; Massimo Sartelli; Walter L Biffl; Salomone Di Saverio; Ernest E Moore; Yoram Kluger; Fikri M Abu-Zidan; Luca Ansaloni; Federico Coccolini; Ari Leppänemi; Andrew B Peitzmann; Leonardo Pagani; Gustavo P Fraga; Ciro Paolillo; Edoardo Picetti; Massimo Valentino; Emmanouil Pikoulis; Gian Luca Baiocchi; Fausto Catena Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2021-03-22 Impact factor: 5.469
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