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

Abstract

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: Surgical inpatients have elevated VTE risk; recent studies cast doubt whether GCS confer additional protection against VTE, compared to pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alone. 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: 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: 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.

Thromboprophylaxis to prevent venous thromboembolism in postoperative patients

“…En un metanálisis comparativo el riesgo de desarrollar TVP con tromboprofilaxis química y medias de compresión gradual demostró tener mayor efectividad al comparar los resultados de solo usar tromboprofilaxis. (9) En el ámbito hospitalario, la profilaxis trombótica de los pacientes con historia de trauma reciente depende de la guía de manejo local en la mayoría de casos, ya que existen pocas recomendaciones validadas a nivel internacional. Además, las lesiones de origen traumático se pueden clasificar de acuerdo a si presentan fractura o no, ya que también se pueden incluir las lesiones de órganos internos.…”

Spotlight in Plastic Surgery: July 2024

“…2024;279:29-36. 3 surgical patients receiving pharmacologic prophylaxis and graduated compression stockings (GCS) versus pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis alone. Thirty-one articles, including 14,108 patients and published between 2005 and 2022, were included; 2205 patients received GCS and pharmacologic prophylaxis and 11,903 received pharmacologic prophylaxis alone.…”

Research into New Molecular Mechanisms in Thrombotic Diseases Paves the Way for Innovative Therapeutic Approaches

“…Endothelial injury to the veins caused by trauma, surgery, inflammation or underlying vascular disease triggers reactions that promote blood clot formation [ 7 ]. Hypercoagulability, which increases the blood’s ability to clot and is caused by genetic predispositions, malignant diseases, autoimmune diseases or the use of hormonal contraceptives, contributes to an increased risk of thrombosis [ 8 ].…”