Key result
Sequential compression devices did not significantly reduce the incidence of venous thromboembolism compared to no prophylaxis in medically ill hospitalized patients (OR 0.99).
Why the study?
The effectiveness of sequential compression devices for venous thromboembolism prevention in medically ill hospitalized patients required evaluation.
Do sequential compression devices prevent venous thromboembolism in medically ill hospitalized adult patients?
Cohort (n=30,824)
No
Do sequential compression devices prevent venous thromboembolism in medically ill hospitalized adult patients?
Odds Ratio: 0.99 (95% CI 0.57–1.73)
Absolute Event Rate: 0.23% vs 0.18%
p-value: p=0.74
Sequential compression devices are not associated with a decreased incidence of venous thromboembolism during hospital stays in medically ill patients compared to no thromboprophylaxis.
Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of sequential compression devices (SCDs) for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention in medically ill hospitalized patients. Materials and Methods: Adult patients admitted to a teaching hospital from April 2015 to March 2016 were included. Patients on anticoagulants with or without SCDs were excluded. We analyzed VTE risk, length of hospital stay, and other comorbidities among propensity score-matched patients on SCDs and those without thromboprophylaxis (NONE). Results: Among 30,824 patients, 67 patients (0.22%) developed VTE during their hospital stays, with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in 55 cases and pulmonary embolism (PE) in 12. VTE was seen in 47 out of 20,018 patients on SCDs (41 DVT, 6 PE) and 20 out of 10,819 patients without SCDs (14 DVT, 6 PE). Risk-adjusted analysis showed no significant difference in VTE incidence in the SCD group compared to NONE (odds ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.57-1.73, p=0.74). Conclusion: Compared to the NONE group, SCDs are not associated with decreased VTE incidence during hospital stay.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dhakal et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in Medically ill hospitalized patients at risk for venous thromboembolism (n=30,824). Sequential compression devices vs. No VTE prophylaxis was evaluated on New diagnosis of symptomatic venous thromboembolism during hospital stay (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.57-1.73, p=0.74). Sequential compression devices did not significantly reduce the incidence of venous thromboembolism compared to no prophylaxis in medically ill hospitalized patients (OR 0.99).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: