Mechanical Compression Versus Subcutaneous Heparin Therapy in Postoperative and Posttrauma Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- 1.8k Downloads
The risk of postoperative venous thromboembolic disease is as high as 30%, with an associated fatality risk of 1%. Therefore, prophylaxis is essential, but the optimal regimen remains controversial. This study was designed to systematically review and quantitatively summarize the impact of mechanical compression versus subcutaneous heparin on venous thromboembolic disease and posttreatment bleeding in postsurgical and posttrauma patients.
Computerized searches of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases through November 2008 were performed and supplemented with manual searches. We included studies that had: (1) a patient population undergoing surgery or admitted immediately posttrauma, (2) a randomized comparison of prophylaxis with mechanical compression versus subcutaneous heparin, (3) outcome measured in terms of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), or bleeding.
Two reviewers independently extracted data from the original articles, which represented 16 studies, including a total of 3,887 subjects. Meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model. The pooled relative risk for mechanical compression compared with subcutaneous heparin was 1.07 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72, 1.61) for DVT and 1.03 (95% CI 0.48, 2.22) for PE. Mechanical compression was associated with a significantly reduced risk of postoperative bleeding compared with subcutaneous heparin (risk ratio 0.47; 95% CI 0.31, 0.70). Subgroup analyses by heparin type suggested that low molecular weight heparin may reduce risk of DVT compared with compression (relative risk 1.80; 95% CI 1.16, 2.79) but remains similarly associated with an increased risk of bleeding.
These results suggest that the overall bleeding risk profile favors the use of compression over heparin, with the benefits in term of venous thromboembolic disease prophylaxis being similar between groups. Subgroup analyses suggest that low molecular weight heparin may have a differential effect; this observation should be further evaluated in future studies.
KeywordsHeparin Pulmonary Embolism Deep Vein Thrombosis Risk Ratio Unfractionated Heparin
Jennifer J. Shin thanks Mr. Thomas Y. Lin for his assistance during the preparation of this manuscript.
- 11.Warwick D, Harrison J, Glew D, Mitchelmore A, Peters TJ, Donovan J (1998) Comparison of the use of a foot pump with the use of low-molecular-weight heparin for the prevention of deep-vein thrombosis after total hip replacement. A prospective, randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 80:1158–1166PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Blanchard J, Meuwly JY, Leyvraz PF, Miron MJ, Bounameaux H, Hoffmeyer P, Didier D, Schneider PA (1999) Prevention of deep-vein thrombosis after total knee replacement. Randomised comparison between a low-molecular-weight heparin (nadroparin) and mechanical prophylaxis with a foot-pump system. J Bone Joint Surg Br 81:654–659CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Camporese G, Bernardi E, Prandoni P, Noventa F, Verlato F, Simioni P, Ntita K, Salmistraro G, Frangos C, Rossi F, Cordova R, Franz F, Zucchetta P, Kontothanassis D, Andreozzi GM (2008) Low-molecular-weight heparin versus compression stockings for thromboprophylaxis after knee arthroscopy: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 149:73–82PubMedGoogle Scholar