HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Respond to This Article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Take the CE Test Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Limpus, A. Articles by Thalib, L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Limpus, A. Articles by Thalib, L.

CE Article and Journal Club Feature

Mechanical Thromboprophylaxis in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

• Objective To systematically review the randomized trials, observational studies, and survey evidence on compression and pneumatic devices for thromboprophylaxis in intensive care patients.

• Methods Published studies on the use of compression and pneumatic devices in intensive care patients were assessed. A meta-analysis was conducted by using the randomized controlled trials.

• Results A total of 21 relevant studies (5 randomized controlled trials, 13 observational studies, and 3 surveys) were found. A total of 811 patients were randomized in the 5 randomized controlled trials; 3421 patients participated in the observational studies. Trauma patients only were enrolled in 4 randomized controlled trials and 4 observational studies. Meta-analysis of 2 randomized controlled trials with similar populations and outcomes revealed that use of compression and pneumatic devices did not reduce the incidence of venous thromboembolism. The pooled risk ratio was 2.37, indicative of favoring the control over the intervention in reducing the deep venous thrombosis; however, the 95% CI of 0.57 to 9.90 indicated no significant differences between the intervention and the control. A range of methodological issues, including bias and confounding variables, make meaningful interpretation of the observational studies difficult.

• Conclusions The limited evidence suggests that use of compressive and pneumatic devices yields results not significantly different from results obtained with no treatment or use of low-molecular-weight heparin. Until large randomized controlled trials are conducted, the role of mechanical approaches to thromboprophylaxis for intensive care patients remains uncertain.

Journal Club Article Discussion Points

This article has been cited by other articles:

				W. H. Geerts, D. Bergqvist, G. F. Pineo, J. A. Heit, C. M. Samama, M. R. Lassen, and C. W. Colwell Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition) Chest, June 1, 2008; 133(6_suppl): 381S - 453S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Piazza, A. Seddighzadeh, and S. Z. Goldhaber Double Trouble for 2,609 Hospitalized Medical Patients Who Developed Deep Vein Thrombosis: Prophylaxis Omitted More Often and Pulmonary Embolism More Frequent Chest, August 1, 2007; 132(2): 554 - 561. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]