Combined intermittent pneumatic leg compression and pharmacological prophylaxis for prevention of venous thromboembolism

Abstract

* The basis f or the assumed risk was the average risk in the single m odalities group (i.e. the num ber of participants with events divided by total num ber of participants of the single m odalities group included in the m eta-analysis). The corresponding risk (and its 95% conf idence interval) is based on the assum ed risk in the com parison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI) CI: conf idence interval;DVT: deep vein throm bosis;IPC: interm ittent pneum atic com pression; OR: odds ratio; PE: pulm onary em bolism ; VTE: venous throm boem bolism GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our conf idence in the estim ate of ef f ect. M oderate quality: Further research is likely to have an im portant im pact on our conf idence in the estim ate of ef f ect and m ay change the estim ate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an im portant im pact on our conf idence in the estim ate of ef f ect and is likely to change the estim ate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estim ate. 4 Combined intermittent pneumatic leg compression and pharmacological prophylaxis for prevention of venous thromboembolism (Review)

Adjunctive Intermittent Pneumatic Compression in Hospitalized Patients Receiving Pharmacologic Prophylaxis for Venous Thromboprophylaxis: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

“…Our results differed from those of a previous review (Kakkos et al, 2016), which found that compared with medication alone, combined IPC and medication did not reduce the incidence of DVT (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18–1.03, I 2 = 68%) and may reduce the incidence of PE (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.23–0.64, I 2 = 0%). Variations in meta‐analysis design can explain the difference between our study and the previous meta‐analysis.…”

Adjunctive Intermittent Pneumatic Compression in Hospitalized Patients Receiving Pharmacologic Prophylaxis for Venous Thromboprophylaxis: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

“…Our results differed from those of a previous review (Kakkos et al, 2016), which found that compared with medication alone, combined IPC and medication did not reduce the incidence of DVT (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18–1.03, I 2 = 68%) and may reduce the incidence of PE (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.23–0.64, I 2 = 0%). Variations in meta‐analysis design can explain the difference between our study and the previous meta‐analysis.…”

Which leg immobilized patient gains the most from Intermittent Pneumatic Compression in DVT-prevention?

“…The study established that most leg-immobilized patients exhibit around 40% relative risk reduction in the incidence of DVT while using adjuvant IPC. This DVT-preventive effect of IPC was also seen in the majority of the patient subgroups analyzed and is corroborated by conclusions of several Cochrane reviews of surgical patients receiving adjuvant IPC during bed immobilization (8,9). The findings of this article seem to extend the DVT protective indications of IPC from inpatient care to become true also for care of many outpatients, especially for leg immobilized patients after an ATR.…”

Effect of Intermittent Pneumatic Compression in Addition to Pharmacologic Prophylaxis for Thromboprophylaxis in Hospitalized Adult Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…Our results differ from previous systematic reviews. We confirmed the reduction of the risk of DVT associated with the addition of IPC to pharmacologic prophylaxis shown in one systematic review ( 18 ) but not in another ( 17 ). We did not confirm the reduced risk of PE observed in these two reviews.…”

Adjunctive Intermittent Pneumatic Compression in Hospitalized Patients Receiving Pharmacologic Prophylaxis for Venous Thromboprophylaxis: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

“…Our results differed from those of a previous review (Kakkos et al, 2016), which found that compared with medication alone, combined IPC and medication did not reduce the incidence of DVT (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18–1.03, I 2 = 68%) and may reduce the incidence of PE (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.23–0.64, I 2 = 0%). Variations in meta‐analysis design can explain the difference between our study and the previous meta‐analysis.…”

Which leg immobilized patient gains the most from Intermittent Pneumatic Compression in DVT-prevention?

“…The study established that most leg-immobilized patients exhibit around 40% relative risk reduction in the incidence of DVT while using adjuvant IPC. This DVT-preventive effect of IPC was also seen in the majority of the patient subgroups analyzed and is corroborated by conclusions of several Cochrane reviews of surgical patients receiving adjuvant IPC during bed immobilization (8,9). The findings of this article seem to extend the DVT protective indications of IPC from inpatient care to become true also for care of many outpatients, especially for leg immobilized patients after an ATR.…”

Effect of Intermittent Pneumatic Compression in Addition to Pharmacologic Prophylaxis for Thromboprophylaxis in Hospitalized Adult Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…Our results differ from previous systematic reviews. We confirmed the reduction of the risk of DVT associated with the addition of IPC to pharmacologic prophylaxis shown in one systematic review ( 18 ) but not in another ( 17 ). We did not confirm the reduced risk of PE observed in these two reviews.…”

Adjunctive Intermittent Pneumatic Compression in Hospitalized Patients Receiving Pharmacologic Prophylaxis for Venous Thromboprophylaxis: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

“…Our results differed from those of a previous review (Kakkos et al, 2016), which found that compared with medication alone, combined IPC and medication did not reduce the incidence of DVT (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18–1.03, I 2 = 68%) and may reduce the incidence of PE (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.23–0.64, I 2 = 0%). Variations in meta‐analysis design can explain the difference between our study and the previous meta‐analysis.…”

Which leg immobilized patient gains the most from Intermittent Pneumatic Compression in DVT-prevention?

“…The study established that most leg-immobilized patients exhibit around 40% relative risk reduction in the incidence of DVT while using adjuvant IPC. This DVT-preventive effect of IPC was also seen in the majority of the patient subgroups analyzed and is corroborated by conclusions of several Cochrane reviews of surgical patients receiving adjuvant IPC during bed immobilization (8,9). The findings of this article seem to extend the DVT protective indications of IPC from inpatient care to become true also for care of many outpatients, especially for leg immobilized patients after an ATR.…”

Effect of Intermittent Pneumatic Compression in Addition to Pharmacologic Prophylaxis for Thromboprophylaxis in Hospitalized Adult Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…Our results differ from previous systematic reviews. We confirmed the reduction of the risk of DVT associated with the addition of IPC to pharmacologic prophylaxis shown in one systematic review ( 18 ) but not in another ( 17 ). We did not confirm the reduced risk of PE observed in these two reviews.…”