Dataset Information

Comparing pharmacological venous thromboembolism prophylaxis to intermittent pneumatic compression in acute intracerebral haemorrhage: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Patients with an intracerebral haemorrhage are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism. Pharmacotherapy and pneumatic compression devices are capable of preventing venous thromboembolism, however both interventions have limitations. There are no head-to-head comparisons between these two interventions. To address this knowledge gap, we plan to perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis to examine the comparative effectiveness of pharmacological prophylaxis and mechanical compression devices in the context of intracerebral haemorrhage.

Methods and analysis

MEDLINE, PUBMED, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Internet Stroke Trials Registry will be searched with assistance from an experienced information specialist. Eligible studies will include those that have enrolled adults presenting with spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage and compared one or more of the respective interventions against each other and/or a control. Primary outcomes to be assessed are occurrence of new venous thromboembolism (deep vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism) and haematoma expansion, defined as a significant enlargement of baseline haemorrhage or new haemorrhage occurrence. Both randomised and non-randomised comparative studies will be included. Data on participant characteristics, study design, intervention details and outcomes will be extracted. Study quality will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the Robins-I tool. Bayesian network meta-analyses will be performed to compare interventions based on all available direct and indirect evidence. If the transitivity assumption for network meta-analysis cannot be met, we will perform a qualitative assessment.

Ethics and dissemination

Formal ethics is not required as primary data will not be collected. The findings of this study will be disseminated through conference presentations, and peer-reviewed publications. In an area of clinical practice where equipoise exists, the findings of this study may assist in determining which treatment intervention is most effective in venous thromboembolism prevention.

Prospero registration number

CRD42018090960.

SUBMITTER: Yogendrakumar V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6231584 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparing pharmacological venous thromboembolism prophylaxis to intermittent pneumatic compression in acute intracerebral haemorrhage: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Yogendrakumar Vignan V Lun Ronda R Hutton Brian B Fergusson Dean A DA Dowlatshahi Dar D

BMJ open 20181105 11

<h4>Introduction</h4>Patients with an intracerebral haemorrhage are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism. Pharmacotherapy and pneumatic compression devices are capable of preventing venous thromboembolism, however both interventions have limitations. There are no head-to-head comparisons between these two interventions. To address this knowledge gap, we plan to perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis to examine the comparative effectiveness of pharmacological prophylaxis and ...[more]

PMID: 30397010

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionVenous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, is a common and potentially fatal post-surgery complication. Research has shown that 50% of VTE causes are intraoperative, with the risk of occurrence highest during and immediately post-surgery. Therefore, strategies for early assessment and prevention should be established.ObjectiveTo identify optimal equipment selection, compression protocols, and strategies for complication prevention and management during intraoperative intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC), this study aims to synthesize the best available evidence. The objective is to inform accurate risk assessment and facilitate early mechanical prophylaxis against venous thrombosis.MethodsThe Practical Application to Clinical Evidence model proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute was utilized. Indicators were identified using the available best evidence from January 2023 to October 2023, and a baseline review was conducted. Negative factors were identified based on clinical evidence-based practice. The implementation rates of different indicators before (n = 372) and after (n = 405) evidence-based practice, the incidence rates of intraoperative IPC-related adverse events and VTE, and the risk of venous thrombosis before (n = 50) and after (n = 50) practice were identified and compared. Furthermore, medical staff's knowledge of best practices for intraoperative IPC was assessed through pre- and post-intervention surveys involving 109 operating room personnel.ResultsAll review indicators significantly improved (P < 0.01) after the evidence-based practice, and 9 reached 100%. Two intraoperative venous thrombosis events occurred before the evidence-based practice, with an incidence rate of 0.53%; no intraoperative venous thrombosis event occurred after the evidence-based practice, with no significant difference (X2 = 2.171, P = 0.141 > 0.05). However, there were significant differences in intraoperative venous blood hemodynamics before and after the practice (P < 0.05). Moreover, 9 IPC-related adverse events, including 4 cases of skin pressure, 3 cases of skin allergy, and 2 cases of lower limb circulation disorders, were reported before the evidence-based practice, with an incidence rate of 2.4%. Notably, no intraoperative IPC-associated adverse events occurred after the evidence-based practice(X2 = 9.913, P < 0.01). Meanwhile, the score of comprehension of the standard utilization of IPC for preventing venous thrombosis by medical staff in the operating room was 93.34 ± 3.64 after the evidence-based practice, which was higher than that (67.55 ± 5.45) before the evidence-based practice. Overall, the clinical practice was significantly improved the evidence-based practice.ConclusionsApplying intraoperative IPC utilization standards based on the best evidence in clinical practice effectively reduces the intraoperative IPC-associated adverse event rate and the risks of intraoperative venous thrombosis. It also improves the execution rates and compliance with mechanical prevention standards in the operating room by medical staff. Future research should prioritize the development and refinement of best clinical practices for intraoperative venous thrombosis prevention, with a particular emphasis on the integration of mechanical prophylaxis strategies.

Dataset Information

Comparing pharmacological venous thromboembolism prophylaxis to intermittent pneumatic compression in acute intracerebral haemorrhage: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Prospero registration number

Publications

Comparing pharmacological venous thromboembolism prophylaxis to intermittent pneumatic compression in acute intracerebral haemorrhage: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets