Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the fourth most common preventable hospital-acquired complication for hospitalized trauma patients. Mechanical prophylaxis, using sequential compression or intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) devices, is recommended alongside pharmacologic prophylaxis for VTE prevention. However, compliance with device use is a barrier that reduces the effectiveness of mechanical prophylaxis.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether using the Movement and Compressions (MAC) system compared with an IPC device impacts compliance with mechanical VTE prophylaxis in trauma patients.
METHODS: This study used a before-and-after design with historical control at a Level II trauma center with a convenience sample of adult trauma patients admitted to the intensive care unit or acute care floor for at least 24 h. We trialed the MAC device for 2 weeks in November and December 2022 with prospective data collection. Data collection for the historical control group occurred retrospectively using patients from a point-in-time audit of IPC device compliance from August and September of 2022.
RESULTS: A total of 51 patients met inclusion criteria, with 34 patients in the IPC group and 17 patients in the MAC group. The mean (SD) prophylaxis time was 17.2 h per day (4.0) in the MAC group and 7.5 h per day (8.8) in the IPC group, which was statistically significant (p < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the MAC device can improve compliance with mechanical prophylaxis.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether using the Movement and Compressions (MAC) system compared with an IPC device impacts compliance with mechanical VTE prophylaxis in trauma patients.
METHODS: This study used a before-and-after design with historical control at a Level II trauma center with a convenience sample of adult trauma patients admitted to the intensive care unit or acute care floor for at least 24 h. We trialed the MAC device for 2 weeks in November and December 2022 with prospective data collection. Data collection for the historical control group occurred retrospectively using patients from a point-in-time audit of IPC device compliance from August and September of 2022.
RESULTS: A total of 51 patients met inclusion criteria, with 34 patients in the IPC group and 17 patients in the MAC group. The mean (SD) prophylaxis time was 17.2 h per day (4.0) in the MAC group and 7.5 h per day (8.8) in the IPC group, which was statistically significant (p < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the MAC device can improve compliance with mechanical prophylaxis.
摘要：
背景：静脉血栓栓塞症（VTE）是住院创伤患者第四大可预防的医院获得性并发症。机械预防,使用顺序压缩或间歇气动压缩(IPC)装置，建议与药物预防一起预防VTE。然而,设备使用的依从性是降低机械预防有效性的障碍。
目的：本研究旨在确定与IPC设备相比，使用运动和压缩（MAC）系统是否会影响创伤患者机械预防VTE的依从性。
方法：本研究使用了在II级创伤中心进行的具有历史对照的前后设计，并对入住重症监护病房或急性护理层至少24小时的成年创伤患者进行了便利样本。我们于2022年11月和12月对MAC设备进行了为期2周的试验，并进行了前瞻性数据收集。历史对照组的数据收集是使用2022年8月和9月IPC设备依从性的时间点审核的患者进行的回顾性收集。
结果：共有51例患者符合纳入标准，IPC组34例，MAC组17例。MAC组的平均（SD）预防时间为每天17.2h（4.0），IPC组为每天7.5h（8.8），具有统计学意义（p<.001）。
结论：我们的研究结果表明，MAC设备可以提高机械预防的依从性。
目的：本研究旨在确定与IPC设备相比，使用运动和压缩（MAC）系统是否会影响创伤患者机械预防VTE的依从性。
方法：本研究使用了在II级创伤中心进行的具有历史对照的前后设计，并对入住重症监护病房或急性护理层至少24小时的成年创伤患者进行了便利样本。我们于2022年11月和12月对MAC设备进行了为期2周的试验，并进行了前瞻性数据收集。历史对照组的数据收集是使用2022年8月和9月IPC设备依从性的时间点审核的患者进行的回顾性收集。
结果：共有51例患者符合纳入标准，IPC组34例，MAC组17例。MAC组的平均（SD）预防时间为每天17.2h（4.0），IPC组为每天7.5h（8.8），具有统计学意义（p<.001）。
结论：我们的研究结果表明，MAC设备可以提高机械预防的依从性。
