An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Graduated Compression Stockings in Addition to Pharmacological Thromboprophylaxis for Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Surgical Inpatients.
Journal
Annals of surgery
ISSN: 1528-1140
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0372354
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 Sep 2023
27 Sep 2023
Historique:
medline:
27
9
2023
pubmed:
27
9
2023
entrez:
27
9
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the rate of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in surgical inpatients with pharmacological thromboprophylaxis and additional graduated compression stockings (GCS) versus pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alone. Surgical inpatients have elevated VTE risk; recent studies cast doubt whether GCS confer additional protection against VTE, compared to pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alone. The review followed PRISMA guidelines using a registered protocol (CRD42017062655). The MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched to November 2022. Randomised trials reporting VTE rate after surgical procedures, utilising pharmacological thromboprophylaxis, with or without GCS, were included. The rates of deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), VTE-related mortality were pooled via fixed and random effects. In head-to-head meta-analysis, the risk of DVT for GCS and pharmacological thromboprophylaxis was 0.85 (95% CI 0.54-1.36) versus for pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alone (2 studies, 70 events, 2653 participants). The risk of DVT in pooled trial arms for GCS and pharmacological thromboprophylaxis was 0.54 (95% CI 0.23-1.25) versus pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alone (33 trial arms, 1228 events, 14,108 participants). The risk of PE for GCS and pharmacological prophylaxis versus pharmacological prophylaxis alone was 0.71 (95% CI 0.0-30.0) (27 trial arms, 32 events, 11,472 participants). There were no between-group differences in VTE-related mortality (27 trial arms, 3 events, 12,982 participants). Evidence from head-to-head meta-analysis and pooled trial arms demonstrates no additional benefit for GCS in preventing VTE and VTE-related mortality. GCS confer a risk of skin complications and an economic burden; current evidence does not support their use for surgical inpatients.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the rate of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in surgical inpatients with pharmacological thromboprophylaxis and additional graduated compression stockings (GCS) versus pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alone.
SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA
BACKGROUND
Surgical inpatients have elevated VTE risk; recent studies cast doubt whether GCS confer additional protection against VTE, compared to pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alone.
METHODS
METHODS
The review followed PRISMA guidelines using a registered protocol (CRD42017062655). The MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched to November 2022. Randomised trials reporting VTE rate after surgical procedures, utilising pharmacological thromboprophylaxis, with or without GCS, were included. The rates of deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), VTE-related mortality were pooled via fixed and random effects.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In head-to-head meta-analysis, the risk of DVT for GCS and pharmacological thromboprophylaxis was 0.85 (95% CI 0.54-1.36) versus for pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alone (2 studies, 70 events, 2653 participants). The risk of DVT in pooled trial arms for GCS and pharmacological thromboprophylaxis was 0.54 (95% CI 0.23-1.25) versus pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alone (33 trial arms, 1228 events, 14,108 participants). The risk of PE for GCS and pharmacological prophylaxis versus pharmacological prophylaxis alone was 0.71 (95% CI 0.0-30.0) (27 trial arms, 32 events, 11,472 participants). There were no between-group differences in VTE-related mortality (27 trial arms, 3 events, 12,982 participants).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence from head-to-head meta-analysis and pooled trial arms demonstrates no additional benefit for GCS in preventing VTE and VTE-related mortality. GCS confer a risk of skin complications and an economic burden; current evidence does not support their use for surgical inpatients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37753655
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000006096
pii: 00000658-990000000-00648
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of interest: none