A systematic review of venous thromboembolism mechanical prophylaxis devices during surgery

Purpose Hospitalisation and surgery are major risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) and graduated compression stockings (GCS) are common mechanical prophylaxis devices used to prevent VTE. This review compares the safety and efficacy of IPC and GCS used singularly and in combination for surgical patients.Methods Ovid Medline and Pubmed were searched in a systematic review of the literature, and relevant articles were assessed against eligibility criteria for inclusion along PRISMA guidelines.Results This review is a narrative description and critical analysis of available evidence. Fourteen articles were included in this review after meeting the criteria. Results of seven studies comparing the efficacy of IPC versus GCS had high heterogeneity but overall suggested IPC was superior to GCS. A further seven studies compared the combination of IPC and GCS versus GCS alone, the results of which suggest that combination mechanical prophylaxis may be superior to GCS alone in high-risk patients. No studies compared combination therapy to IPC alone. IPC appeared to have a superior safety profile, although it had a worse compliance rate and the quality of evidence was poor. The addition of pharmacological prophylaxis may make mechanical prophylaxis superfluous in the post-operative setting.Conclusion IPC may be superior to GCS when used as a single prophylactic device. A combination of IPC and GCS may be more efficacious than GCS alone for high-risk patients. Further high-quality research is needed focusing on clinical relevance, safety and comparing combination mechanical prophylaxis to IPC alone, particularly in high-risk surgical settings when pharmacological prophylaxis is contraindicated.

Automated summary

This study compares the safety and efficacy of intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) and graduated compression stockings (GCS) for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention. The results suggest that IPC may be superior to GCS as a single prophylactic device. Combination mechanical prophylaxis of IPC and GCS may be more effective than GCS alone for high-risk patients. However, more high-quality research is needed in this field.