This review aimed to determine the effectiveness of Intermittent Pneumatic Compression (IPC) intervention on Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) in surgical patients. An electronic database search was conducted with PubMed, OVID-MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL, from September 22 to 28, 2023. Three researchers independently selected the studies, assessed their methodological quality, and extracted relevant data. We conducted a meta-analysis of the effect of IPC versus the control group and summarized the intervention results from the included studies. Of the 2,696 articles identified 16 randomized control trials met the inclusion criteria for review. IPC interventions significantly affected DVT prevention (OR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.59-1.11). In the subgroup analysis, there was a significant pooled effect (OR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.26-0.65]), when the comparison group was no prophylaxis group. However, when the comparison groups were the pharmacologic prophylaxis group ([OR = 1.32, 95% CI 0.78-2.21]) and IPC combined with the pharmacologic prophylaxis group (OR = 2.43, 95% CI: 0.99-5.96) did not affect DVT prevention. The pooled effects of Pulmonary Embolism (PE) (OR = 5.81, 95% CI: 1.25-26.91) were significant. IPC intervention showed a significant effect on bleeding prevention (OR = 0.17, 95% CI: 0.08-0.36) when compared to IPC combined with the pharmacologic groups. IPC intervention effectively prevented DVT, PE, and bleeding in surgical patients. Therefore, we propose that IPC intervention be applied to surgical patients to avoid DVT, pulmonary embolism, and bleeding in the surgical nursing field as scientific evidence suggests.

暂无摘要。

OBJECTIVE: Postoperative pulmonary embolism is a leading cause of mortality in patients undergoing major urologic surgeries, presenting a complex challenge in balancing the risks of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and perioperative bleeding. This study examines the current evidence on thromboprophylaxis in urological procedures, focusing on procedure-specific considerations.
METHODS: Literature on thromboprophylaxis in urological procedures was reviewed during the past decade.
RESULTS: Various mechanical thromboprophylaxis methods, such as compression stockings, pneumatic compression devices, foot pumps, mobilization, and exercises, are available preventive measures. Additionally, unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) are commonly used pharmacological agents for VTE prevention, with the choice between mechanical, pharmacological, or combined approaches tailored to individual patient characteristics and surgical requirements. Patient risk stratification into low, medium, and highrisk categories based on age, BMI, and VTE history guides the selection of thromboprophylaxis strategies. Surgical procedures are categorized as oncological or non-oncological, with uro-oncological surgeries posing a higher VTE risk than non-oncological procedures. Consequently, a combination of pharmacological and mechanical prophylaxis is typically recommended for uro-oncological patients, while pharmacological prophylaxis is reserved for high-risk individuals undergoing non-oncological surgeries. Mechanical prophylaxis is advised for high-risk patients undergoing procedures with elevated VTE risk.
CONCLUSIONS: This study summarized an optimal thromboprophylaxis protocol taking into account patient risk factors and the specific urological procedure.

OBJECTIVE: Hospitalisation and surgery are major risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) and graduated compression stockings (GCS) are common mechanical prophylaxis devices used to prevent VTE. This review compares the safety and efficacy of IPC and GCS used singularly and in combination for surgical patients.
METHODS: Ovid Medline and Pubmed were searched in a systematic review of the literature, and relevant articles were assessed against eligibility criteria for inclusion along PRISMA guidelines.
RESULTS: This review is a narrative description and critical analysis of available evidence. Fourteen articles were included in this review after meeting the criteria. Results of seven studies comparing the efficacy of IPC versus GCS had high heterogeneity but overall suggested IPC was superior to GCS. A further seven studies compared the combination of IPC and GCS versus GCS alone, the results of which suggest that combination mechanical prophylaxis may be superior to GCS alone in high-risk patients. No studies compared combination therapy to IPC alone. IPC appeared to have a superior safety profile, although it had a worse compliance rate and the quality of evidence was poor. The addition of pharmacological prophylaxis may make mechanical prophylaxis superfluous in the post-operative setting.
CONCLUSIONS: IPC may be superior to GCS when used as a single prophylactic device. A combination of IPC and GCS may be more efficacious than GCS alone for high-risk patients. Further high-quality research is needed focusing on clinical relevance, safety and comparing combination mechanical prophylaxis to IPC alone, particularly in high-risk surgical settings when pharmacological prophylaxis is contraindicated.

UNASSIGNED: Our objective is to examine the pathophysiology of oedema in the ischaemic and post-revascularised limb, compare compression stockings to pneumatic compression devices, and summarise compression regimens in patients with severe peripheral artery disease (PAD) without revascularisation, after revascularisation, and in mixed arterial and venous disease.
UNASSIGNED: A scoping literature review of the aforementioned topics was carried out using PubMed.
UNASSIGNED: Compression therapy has been shown to increase blood flow and aid in wound healing through a variety of mechanisms. Several studies suggest that intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) devices can be used to treat critical limb ischaemia in patients without surgical options. Additionally, compression stockings may have a role in preventing oedema after peripheral artery bypass surgery, thereby diminishing pain and reducing the risk of surgical wound dehiscence.
UNASSIGNED: Oedema may occur in the ischaemic limb after revascularisation surgery, as well as in combination with venous disease. Clinicians should not fear using compression therapy in PAD.

The benefits of mechanical prophylaxis for the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in abdominal and pelvic surgery are uncertain, with different guidelines stating that graduated compression stockings (GCS) and intermittent pneumatic compression devices (IPCDs) can be used either alone or in combination. To review the efficacy of IPCDs in preventing VTE following abdominal and pelvic surgery.
A systematic review was conducted, identifying relevant literature reporting clinical trials conducted in abdominopelvic surgery, comparing the effect of IPCDs alone or in combination with no prophylaxis, GCS and chemical prophylaxis. The review identified studies reported from 1966 to 2022 in Medline, Embase, PubMed and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials.
Thirteen RCTs involving 1914 participants were identified. IPCDs were superior to placebo (OR VTE 0.39; 95% CI 0.20-0.76) but not superior to other forms of prophylaxis (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.30-2.27) or to GCS alone (OR 0.9; 95% CI 0.24-3.36). The addition of IPCDs to GCS compared with GCS alone was beneficial (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.23-0.91) as was the addition of IPCDs to standard perioperative chemoprophylaxis (OR 0.25; 95% CI 0.09-0.74). The overall quality and reliability of trials were low, with high risk of bias.
IPCDs are more effective than placebo in reducing VTE rates but are not more effective than other forms of thrombo-prophylaxis (chemical or mechanical) following abdominal and pelvic surgery. There is poor quality evidence to suggest that they might have a role as additional prophylaxis when combined with GCS and chemical prophylaxis.

Venous thromboembolic events (VTE) are frequent complications in hospitalized patients and a leading cause of preventable death in hospital. Pharmacologic prophylaxis is a standard of care to prevent VTE in patients at risk, the additional value of intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) is uncertain. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of adding IPC to pharmacologic prophylaxis to prevent VTE in hospitalized adults.
METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to July 2022.
METHODS: We included randomized controlled trials comparing the use of IPC in addition to pharmacological thromboprophylaxis to pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alone in hospitalized adults.
METHODS: Meta-analyses were performed to calculate risk ratio (RR) of VTE, deep venous thrombosis (DVT), and pulmonary embolism (PE). We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Trials, Version 2 and the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS: We included 17 trials enrolling 8,796 participants. The IPC was mostly applied up to the thigh and pharmacological thromboprophylaxis was primarily low-molecular-weight heparin. Adjunctive IPC was associated with a decreased risk of VTE (15 trials, RR = 0.53; 95% CI [0.35-0.81]) and DVT (14 trials, RR = 0.52; 95% CI [0.33-0.81]) but not PE (seven trials, RR = 0.73; 95% CI [0.32-1.68]). The quality of evidence was graded low, downgraded by risk of bias and inconsistency. Moderate and very low-quality evidence, respectively, suggests that adjunctive IPC is unlikely to change the risk of all-cause mortality or adverse events. Subgroup analyses indicate a more evident apparent benefit in industry-funded trials.
CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate low-quality evidence underpinning the additional use of IPC to pharmacological thromboprophylaxis for prevention of VTE and DVT. Further large high-quality randomized trials are warranted to support its use and to identify patient subgroups for whom it could be beneficial.

Venous thromboembolism represents a persistent proportionate cause of maternal mortality in the United States accounting for 9% to 10% of maternal deaths. Given that overall maternal mortality rose >40% since the late 1990s, it is likely that absolute venous thromboembolism mortality risk increased as well. This persistent risk may be secondary to increases in broad population-based risk factors for venous thromboembolism such as obesity and cesarean delivery. Widespread adoption of perioperative cesarean mechanical thromboprophylaxis is associated with reduced risk for venous thromboembolism events but has not been sufficient to reduce mortality. Experts agree that improved clinical care is required to reduce risk as it is unlikely that trends in venous thromboembolism risk factors will reverse course anytime soon. Experts further agree that improving prophylaxis and prevention may provide the largest benefit. However, how to best improve prophylaxis is highly controversial with both experts and guidelines in disagreement. In the United Kingdom, mortality risk decreased substantially following the 2004 recommendations for broader heparin prophylaxis without evidence of increased mortality risk from hemorrhage. A key clinical question in the United States is whether heparin prophylaxis should be expanded to patients hospitalized for cesarean delivery or an antepartum indication. Some experts, including us, support expanded heparin prophylaxis. Evidence supporting heparin prophylaxis includes (1) demonstration of safety and efficacy in the United Kingdom, (2) that mechanical prophylaxis-the primary alternative to heparin-has major limitations outside the immediate perioperative setting, and (3) that hospitalized cesarean and antepartum patients are at high relative risk of events. Experts against broader heparin prophylaxis cite concerns related to safety, efficacy, and cost. This expert review focused on whether heparin prophylaxis should be routinely used during antepartum hospitalizations and after cesarean delivery. First, we review the differences in major society guidelines. Second, we review arguments for and against broader heparin prophylaxis. Third, we discuss what future research may be most likely to further inform best practices. Fourth, we review practical clinical considerations with heparin prophylaxis, including access to neuraxial anesthesia. Given the best available data, we concluded that expanding heparin prophylaxis represents a modest intervention with the potential to meaningfully reduce venous thromboembolism mortality.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a potentially fatal complication of hospitalisation. Intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) is one approach to reducing the likelihood of a VTE. Adherence to IPC is known to be inadequate though the reasons for this remain unclear. This systematic review explores factors that affect adherence to IPC in the inpatient context.
Information sources-EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO were searched for literature between January 1960 and May 2019. Eligibility criteria-studies were included if they focused on inpatient care and examined factors affecting adherence to IPC devices.
Included studies-a total of 20 out of 1476 studies were included. Synthesis of results-eight factors were identified that affected adherence: patient discomfort (n=8), healthcare professionals\' knowledge and behaviours (n=6), mobilisation (n=6), equipment supply and demand (n=3), the use of guidelines (n=3), intensive care context (n=2), computer-assisted prescribing (n=2) and patients\' knowledge of IPC (n=1).
Overall while the evidence base is quite limited, a number of factors were shown to affect adherence to IPC. These findings could be used to inform future research and quality improvement efforts to increase adherence in this very important, but currently under-researched area.

This study assessed the effect of adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) on venous thromboembolism incidence in hospitalized patients receiving pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis.
We searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register with no language restrictions from inception until May 15, 2019, for randomized clinical trials comparing adjunctive IPC in pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis and pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis for venous thromboembolism. Two researchers extracted data from published reports independently. A meta-analysis was conducted to calculate the risk ratio (RR) using random-effects models. Primary outcomes were deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE).
Eight trials with a total of 7,354 participants were eligible for analysis. Addition of IPC to pharmacologic prophylaxis compared to pharmacologic prophylaxis alone reduced the risk of DVT by 43% (RR 0.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.35-0.93; I2 = 0%), with benefit only seen in surgical patients (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.15-0.59; I2 = 0%) and not in medical patients (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.60-1.07; I2 = 0%; p for interaction = .008). Addition of IPC reduced the risk for PE by 54% (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.30-0.72; I2 = 0%), with benefit only seen in surgical patients (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24-0.65; I2 = 0%) and not in medical patients (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.32-2.26; I2 = 0%; p for interaction = .18) CONCLUSIONS: Addition of IPC to pharmacologic prophylaxis confers moderate benefit on venous thromboembolism, with benefit confined to surgical patients. For medical patients, there was a trend toward reduced DVT with adjunctive IPC, which warrants further investigation.
Venous thromboembolism is not unusual among hospitalized patients despite pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. Nursing personnel should use adjunctive IPC in surgical patients receiving pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis to prevent venous thromboembolism.