Advertisement

World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 10–19 | Cite as

Mechanical Compression Versus Subcutaneous Heparin Therapy in Postoperative and Posttrauma Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

  • Robert W. Eppsteiner
  • Jennifer J. Shin
  • Jonas Johnson
  • Rob M. van Dam
Article

Abstract

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

Keywords

Heparin Pulmonary Embolism Deep Vein Thrombosis Risk Ratio Unfractionated Heparin 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Jennifer J. Shin thanks Mr. Thomas Y. Lin for his assistance during the preparation of this manuscript.

Supplementary material

268_2009_284_MOESM1_ESM.doc (28 kb)
(DOC 28 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Qadan M, Tyson M, McCafferty MH, Hohmann SF, Polk HC Jr (2008) Venous thromboembolism in elective operations: balancing the choices. Surgery 144:654–661CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hitos K, Cannon M, Cannon S, Garth S, Fletcher JP (2007) Effect of leg exercises on popliteal venous blood flow during prolonged immobility of seated subjects: implications for prevention of travel-related deep vein thrombosis. J Thromb Haemost 5:1890–1895CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bajzar L, Chan AK, Massicotte MP, Mitchell LG (2006) Thrombosis in children with malignancy. Curr Opin Pediatr 18:1–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barrett J, Hamilton W (2006) Malignancy and deep vein thrombosis. Br J Gen Pract 56:886PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Spain DA, Bergamini TM, Hoffmann JF, Carrillo EH, Richardson JD (1998) Comparison of sequential compression devices and foot pumps for prophylaxis of deep venous thrombosis in high-risk trauma patients. Am Surg 64:522–526PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Freedman KB, Brookenthal KR, Fitzgerald RH Jr, Williams S, Lonner JH (2000) A meta-analysis of thromboembolic prophylaxis following elective total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82-A:929–938PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cook D, McMullin J, Hodder R, Heule M, Pinilla J, Dodek P, Stewart T (2001) Prevention and diagnosis of venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients: a Canadian survey. Crit Care 5:336–342CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wu EC, Barba CA (2000) Current practices in the prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in bariatric surgery. Obes Surg 10:7–14CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kurtoglu M, Yanar H, Bilsel Y, Guloglu R, Kizilirmak S, Buyukkurt D, Granit V (2004) Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after head and spinal trauma: intermittent pneumatic compression devices versus low molecular weight heparin. World J Surg 28:807–811CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ginzburg E, Cohn SM, Lopez J, Jackowski J, Brown M, Hameed SM (2003) Randomized clinical trial of intermittent pneumatic compression and low molecular weight heparin in trauma. Br J Surg 90:1338–1344CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 12.
    Nicolaides AN, Fernandes e Fernandes J, Pollock AV (1980) Intermittent sequential pneumatic compression of the legs in the prevention of venous stasis and postoperative deep venous thrombosis. Surgery 87:69–76PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nicolaides AN, Miles C, Hoare M, Jury P, Helmis E, Venniker R (1983) Intermittent sequential pneumatic compression of the legs and thromboembolism-deterrent stockings in the prevention of postoperative deep venous thrombosis. Surgery 94:21–25PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maxwell GL, Synan I, Dodge R, Carroll B, Clarke-Pearson DL (2001) Pneumatic compression versus low molecular weight heparin in gynecologic oncology surgery: a randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol 98:989–995CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Clarke-Pearson DL, Synan IS, Dodge R, Soper JT, Berchuck A, Coleman RE (1993) A randomized trial of low-dose heparin and intermittent pneumatic calf compression for the prevention of deep venous thrombosis after gynecologic oncology surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 168:1146–1154PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pitto RP, Hamer H, Heiss-Dunlop W, Kuehle J (2004) Mechanical prophylaxis of deep-vein thrombosis after total hip replacement a randomised clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86:639–642CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kosir MA, Schmittinger L, Barno-Winarski L, Duddella P, Pone M, Perales A, Lange P, Brish LK, McGee K, Beleski K, Pawlak J, Mammen E, Sajahan NP, Kozol RA (1998) Prospective double-arm study of fibrinolysis in surgical patients. J Surg Res 74:96–101CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rasmussen A, Hansen PT, Lindholt J, Poulsen TD, Toftdahl DB, Gram J, Toftgaard C, Jespersen J (1988) Venous thrombosis after abdominal surgery A comparison between subcutaneous heparin and antithrombotic stockings, or both. J Med 19(3–4):193–201PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 20.
    Coe NP, Collins RE, Klein LA, Bettmann MA, Skillman JJ, Shapiro RM, Salzman EW (1978) Prevention of deep vein thrombosis in urological patients: a controlled, randomized trial of low-dose heparin and external pneumatic compression boots. Surgery 83:230–234PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Santori FS, Vitullo A, Stopponi M, Santori N, Ghera S (1994) Prophylaxis against deep-vein thrombosis in total hip replacement. Comparison of heparin and foot impulse pump. J Bone Joint Surg Br 76:579–583PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 23.
    Knudson MM, Collins JA, Goodman SB, McCrory DW (1992) Thromboembolism following multiple trauma. J Trauma 32:2–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Norgren L, Toksvig-Larsen S, Magyar G, Lindstrand A, Albrechtsson U (1998) Prevention of deep vein thrombosis in knee arthroplasty. Preliminary results from a randomized controlled study of low molecular weight heparin vs. foot pump compression. Int Angiol 17:93–96PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    DerSimonian R, Kacker R (2007) Random-effects model for meta-analysis of clinical trials: an update. Contemp Clin Trials 28:105–114CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7:177–188CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327(7414):557–560CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Begg CB, Mazumdar M (1994) Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 50:1088–1101CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sterne JA, Gavaghan D, Egger M (2000) Publication and related bias in meta-analysis: power of statistical tests and prevalence in the literature. J Clin Epidemiol 53:1119–1129CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Koch A, Bouges S, Ziegler S, Dinkel H, Daures JP, Victor N (1997) Low molecular weight heparin and unfractionated heparin in thrombosis prophylaxis after major surgical intervention: update of previous meta-analyses. Br J Surg 84:750–759CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Howard AW, Aaron SD (1998) Low molecular weight heparin decreases proximal and distal deep venous thrombosis following total knee arthroplasty. A meta-analysis of randomized trials. Thromb Haemost 79:902–906PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nurmohamed MT, Rosendaal FR, Buller HR, Dekker E, Hommes DW, Vandenbroucke JP, Briet E (1992) Low-molecular-weight heparin versus standard heparin in general and orthopaedic surgery: a meta-analysis. Lancet 340(8812):152–156CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Handoll HH, Farrar MJ, McBirnie J, Tytherleigh-Strong G, Milne AA, Gillespie WJ (2002) Heparin, low molecular weight heparin and physical methods for preventing deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism following surgery for hip fractures. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD000305PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cornwell EE III, Chang D, Velmahos G, Jindal A, Baker D, Phillips J, Bonar J, Campbell K (2002) Compliance with sequential compression device prophylaxis in at-risk trauma patients: a prospective analysis. Am Surg 68:470–473PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Velmahos GC, Kern J, Chan LS, Oder D, Murray JA, Shekelle P (2000) Prevention of venous thromboembolism after injury: an evidence-based report–part I: analysis of risk factors and evaluation of the role of vena caval filters. J Trauma 49:132–139CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert W. Eppsteiner
    • 1
  • Jennifer J. Shin
    • 2
  • Jonas Johnson
    • 3
  • Rob M. van Dam
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck SurgeryUniversity of IowaIowaUSA
  2. 2.Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts Eye and Ear InfirmaryBostonUSA
  3. 3.Department of OtolaryngologyUniversity of Pittsburgh School of MedicinePittsburghUSA
  4. 4.Harvard School of Public HealthBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations