Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Efficacy of intermittent compression devices for thromboembolic prophylaxis in major abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Lott, Natalie; Robb, Felicity; Nolan, Erin; Attia, John; Reeves, Penny; Gani, Jon; Smith, Stephen.
Afiliação
  • Lott N; Surgical Services, John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Robb F; Hunter Surgical Clinical Research Unit, John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Nolan E; School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Attia J; School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Reeves P; Hunter Medical Research Institute, Kookaburra Circuit, New Lambton Heights, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Gani J; School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Smith S; Hunter Medical Research Institute, Kookaburra Circuit, New Lambton Heights, New South Wales, Australia.
ANZ J Surg ; 92(11): 2926-2934, 2022 11.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36259216
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

The benefits of mechanical prophylaxis for the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in abdominal and pelvic surgery are uncertain, with different guidelines stating that graduated compression stockings (GCS) and intermittent pneumatic compression devices (IPCDs) can be used either alone or in combination. To review the efficacy of IPCDs in preventing VTE following abdominal and pelvic surgery.

METHODS:

A systematic review was conducted, identifying relevant literature reporting clinical trials conducted in abdominopelvic surgery, comparing the effect of IPCDs alone or in combination with no prophylaxis, GCS and chemical prophylaxis. The review identified studies reported from 1966 to 2022 in Medline, Embase, PubMed and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials.

RESULTS:

Thirteen RCTs involving 1914 participants were identified. IPCDs were superior to placebo (OR VTE 0.39; 95% CI 0.20-0.76) but not superior to other forms of prophylaxis (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.30-2.27) or to GCS alone (OR 0.9; 95% CI 0.24-3.36). The addition of IPCDs to GCS compared with GCS alone was beneficial (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.23-0.91) as was the addition of IPCDs to standard perioperative chemoprophylaxis (OR 0.25; 95% CI 0.09-0.74). The overall quality and reliability of trials were low, with high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS:

IPCDs are more effective than placebo in reducing VTE rates but are not more effective than other forms of thrombo-prophylaxis (chemical or mechanical) following abdominal and pelvic surgery. There is poor quality evidence to suggest that they might have a role as additional prophylaxis when combined with GCS and chemical prophylaxis.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Tromboembolia Venosa Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Etiology_studies / Guideline / Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: ANZ J Surg Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Austrália

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Tromboembolia Venosa Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Etiology_studies / Guideline / Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: ANZ J Surg Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Austrália