4.7 Article

Use of Intermittent Pneumatic Compression and Not Graduated Compression Stockings Is Associated With Lower Incident VTE in Critically III Patients A Multiple Propensity Scores Adjusted Analysis

期刊

CHEST
卷 144, 期 1, 页码 152-159

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1378/chest.12-2028

关键词

-

资金

  1. sanofi-aventis, Saudi Arabia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: A limited amount of data exist regarding the effect of intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) and graduated compression stockings (GCS) on the incidence of VTE in the ICU setting. The objective of this study was to examine the association of mechanical thromboprophylaxis with IPC or GCS with the risk of VTE and hospital mortality among critically ill medical-surgical patients. Methods: In this prospective cohort study of patients admitted to the ICU of a tertiary-care medical center between July 2006 and January 2008, we used multiple propensity scores adjustment to examine the association of IPC and GCS with VTE. The primary outcome was incident VTE, including DVT and pulmonary embolism. The following data were collected: patient demographics, admission physiologic data, VTE risk factors, pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, and mechanical thromboprophylaxis. Results: Among 798 patients enrolled in the study, incident VTE occurred in 57 (7.1%). The use of IPC was associated with a significantly lower VTE incidence compared with no mechanical thromboprophylaxis (propensity scores adjusted hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.22-0.95; P = .04). GCS were not associated with decreased VTE incidence. No significant interaction was found between the mechanical thromboprophylaxis group and the type of prophylactic heparin used (P = .99), recent trauma (P = .66), or recent surgery (P = .07) on VTE risk. Conclusions: The use of IPC, but not GCS, was associated with a significantly lower VTE risk. This association was consistent regardless of the type of prophylactic heparin used and was not modified by trauma or surgical admission.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据