Dataset Information

Brief report: graduated compression stocking thromboprophylaxis for elderly inpatients: a propensity analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Graduated compression stockings (GCS) are often used for deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis in nonsurgical patients, although evidence on their effectiveness is lacking in this setting.

Objective

To determine whether prophylaxis with GCS is associated with a decrease in the rate of deep vein thrombosis in nonsurgical elderly patients.

Methods

Using original data from 2 multicenter nonrandomized studies, we performed multivariable and propensity score analyses to determine whether prophylaxis with GCS reduced the rate of deep vein thrombosis among 1,310 postacute care patients 65 years or older. The primary outcome was proximal deep vein thrombosis detected by routine compression ultrasonography performed by registered vascular physicians.

Results

Proximal deep vein thrombosis was found in 5.7% (21/371) of the GCS users and in 5.2% (49/939) of the GCS nonusers (odds ratio [OR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-1.84). Although adjusting for propensity score eliminated all differences in baseline characteristics between users and nonusers, the OR for proximal deep vein thrombosis associated with GCS remained nonsignificant in propensity-stratified (adjusted OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.59-2.10) and propensity-matched (conditional OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.42-2.02) analysis. Similar figures were observed for distal and any deep vein thrombosis. The rates of deep vein thrombosis did not differ according to the length of stockings.

Conclusions

Prophylaxis with GCS is not associated with a lower rate of deep vein thrombosis in nonsurgical elderly patients in routine practice. Randomized studies are needed to assess the efficacy of GCS when properly used in this setting.

SUBMITTER: Labarere J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1924758 | biostudies-literature | 2006 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Brief report: graduated compression stocking thromboprophylaxis for elderly inpatients: a propensity analysis.

Labarere Jose J Bosson Jean-Luc JL Sevestre Marie-Antoinette MA Delmas Anne-Sophie AS Dupas Stéphane S Thenault Marie-Hélène MH Legagneux Annie A Boge Gudrun G Terriat Béatrice B Pernod Gilles G

Journal of general internal medicine 20060925 12

<h4>Background</h4>Graduated compression stockings (GCS) are often used for deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis in nonsurgical patients, although evidence on their effectiveness is lacking in this setting.<h4>Objective</h4>To determine whether prophylaxis with GCS is associated with a decrease in the rate of deep vein thrombosis in nonsurgical elderly patients.<h4>Methods</h4>Using original data from 2 multicenter nonrandomized studies, we performed multivariable and propensity score analyses to de ...[more]

PMID: 16995891

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate whether the use of graduated compression stockings (GCS) offers any adjuvant benefit when pharmaco-thromboprophylaxis is used for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in patients undergoing elective surgery.DesignOpen, multicentre, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.SettingSeven National Health Service tertiary hospitals in the United Kingdom.Participants1905 elective surgical inpatients (?18 years) assessed as being at moderate or high risk of venous thromboembolism were eligible and consented to participate.InterventionParticipants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) pharmaco-thromboprophylaxis alone or LMWH pharmaco-thromboprophylaxis and GCS.Outcome measuresThe primary outcome was imaging confirmed lower limb deep vein thrombosis with or without symptoms, or pulmonary embolism with symptoms within 90 days of surgery. Secondary outcome measures were quality of life, compliance with stockings and LMWH, lower limb complications related to GCS, bleeding complications, adverse reactions to LMWH, and all cause mortality.ResultsBetween May 2016 and January 2019, 1905 participants were randomised. 1858 were included in the intention to treat analysis (17 were identified as ineligible after randomisation and 30 did not undergo surgery). A primary outcome event occurred in 16 of 937 (1.7%) patients in the LMWH alone group compared with 13 of 921 (1.4%) in the LMWH and GCS group. The risk difference between the two groups was 0.30% (95% confidence interval -0.65% to 1.26%). Because the 95% confidence interval did not cross the non-inferiority margin of 3.5% (P<0.001 for non-inferiority), LMWH alone was confirmed to be non-inferior.ConclusionsFor patients who have elective surgery and are at moderate or high risk of venous thromboembolism, administration of pharmaco-thromboprophylaxis alone is non-inferior to a combination of pharmaco-thromboprophylaxis and GCS. These findings indicate that GCS might be unnecessary in most patients undergoing elective surgery.Trial registrationISRCTN13911492.

Project description:IntroductionRecommendations for venous thromboembolism and deep venous thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis using graduated compression stockings (GCS) is historically based and has been critically examined in current publications. Existing guidelines are inconclusive as to recommend the general use of GCS.Patients/Methods: 24 273 in-patients (general surgery and orthopedic patients) undergoing surgery between 2006 and 2016 were included in a retrospectively analysis from a single center. From January 2006 to January 2011 perioperative GCS was employed additionally to drug prophylaxis and from February 2011 to March 2016 patients received drug prophylaxis alone. According to german guidelines all patients received venous thromboembolism prophylaxis with weight-adapted LMWH. Risk stratification (low risk, moderate risk, high risk) was based on the guideline of the American College of Chest Physicians. Data analysis was performed before and after propensity matching (PM). The defined primary endpoint was the incidence of symptomatic or fatal pulmonary embolism (PE). A secondary endpoint was the incidence of deep venous thromboembolism (DVT).ResultsAfter risk stratification (low risk n = 16 483; moderate risk n = 4464; high risk n = 3326) a total of 24 273 patient were analyzed. Before to PM the relative risk for the occurrence of a PE or DVT was not increased by abstaining from GCS. After PM two groups of 11 312 patients each, one with and one without GCS application, were formed. When comparing the two groups, the relative risk (RR) for the occurrence of a pulmonary embolism was: Low Risk 0.99 [CI95% 0.998-1.000]; Moderate Risk 0.999 [CI95% 0.95-1.003]; High Risk 0.996 [CI95% 0.992-1.000] (p > 0.05). The incidence of PE in the total group LMWH alone was 0.1% (n = 16). In the total group using LMWH + GCS, the incidence was 0.3% (n = 29). RR after PM was 0.999 [CI95% 0.998-1.00].ConclusionIn comparison to prior studies with only small numbers of patients our trial shows in a large group of patients with moderate and high risk developing VTE we can support the view that abstaining from GCS-use does not increase the incidence of symptomatic or fatal PE and symptomatic DVT.

Dataset Information

Brief report: graduated compression stocking thromboprophylaxis for elderly inpatients: a propensity analysis.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Brief report: graduated compression stocking thromboprophylaxis for elderly inpatients: a propensity analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets