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.

BACKGROUND: The management of perioperative venous thrombembolism (VTE) prophylaxis is highly variable between neurosurgical departments and general guidelines are missing. The main issue in debate are the dose and initiation time of pharmacologic VTE prevention to balance the risk of VTE-based morbidity and potentially life-threatening bleeding. Mechanical VTE prophylaxis with intermittend pneumatic compression (IPC), however, is established in only a few neurosurgical hospitals, and its efficacy has not yet been demonstrated. The objective of the present study was to analyze the risk of VTE before and after the implementation of IPC devices during elective neurosurgical procedures.
METHODS: All elective surgeries performed at our neurosurgical department between 01/2018-08/2022 were investigated regarding the occurrence of VTE. The VTE risk and associated mortality were compared between groups: (1) only chemoprophylaxis (CHEMO; surgeries 01/2018-04/2020) and (2) IPC and chemoprophylaxis (IPC; surgeries 04/2020-08/2022). Furthermore, general patient and disease characteristics as well as duration of hospitalization were evaluated and compared to the VTE risk.
RESULTS: VTE occurred after 38 elective procedures among > 12.000 surgeries. The number of VTEs significantly differed between groups with an incidence of 31/6663 (0.47%) in the CHEMO group and 7/6688 (0.1%) events in the IPC group. In both groups, patients with malignant brain tumors represented the largest proportion of patients, while VTEs in benign tumors occurred only in the CHEMO group.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of combined mechanical and pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis can significantly reduce the risk of postoperative thromboembolism after neurosurgical procedures and, therefore, reduce mortality and morbidity.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a recognised postsurgical risk. Current prevention methods involve low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), graduated compression stockings (GCS), and intermittent pneumatic compression devices (IPCDs). Australian guidelines, commonly adopted by surgeons, recommend LMWH with GCS and/or IPCDs. IPCDs pose clinical risks, increase care burden, are poorly tolerated, and are costly single-use plastic items. Utilising only LMWH and GCS, without IPCDs, could be more practical, patient-friendly, and cost-effective, with added environmental benefits.
METHODS: This is a multicentre, prospective, two-arm randomised controlled non-inferiority trial at five New South Wales (NSW) hospitals, in Australia. We propose to randomise 4130 participants in a 1:1 ratio between arm A: LMWH+GCS+IPCDs (n=2065) or arm B: LMWH+GCS (n=2065). The primary outcome of interest is symptomatic VTE (deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism) identified at the day 30 phone follow-up (FU), confirmed by ultrasound or imaging. Radiologists interpreting the lower-extremity ultrasonography will be blinded to intervention allocation. Secondary outcomes are quality of life at baseline, days 30 and 90 FU using the 5-level European Quality of Life Score, compliance and adverse events with IPCDs, GCS, and LMWH, as well as healthcare costs (from the perspective of the patient and the hospital), and all-cause mortality. The trial has 90% power to detect a 2% non-inferiority margin to detect a reduction rate of VTE from 4% to 2%.
BACKGROUND: This study has been approved by the Hunter New England Human Research Ethics Committee (2022/ETH02276) protocol V.10, 13 July 2023. Study findings will be presented at local and national conferences and in scientific research journals.
BACKGROUND: ANZCTR12622001527752.

This meta-analysis assessed the effect of pneumatic compression therapy on the wound healing of venous ulcers, with the aim of providing a basis for the selection of clinical treatment. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the application of pneumatic compression therapy to venous ulcers were collected by searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP, and Wanfang databases, with a timeframe from database inception to August 2023. After two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted information, and evaluated the quality of the included studies, a meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software. Six RCTs with 367 patients were included, with 172 patients in the intervention group and 195 in the control group. The results showed that pneumatic and bandage compression therapies had a similar impact on wound healing rates of venous ulcers (54.65% vs. 53.84%, odds ratio [OR]: 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49-2.12, p = 0.96), changes in wound area (standardised mean difference: -0.16, 95% CIs: -0.45 to 0.12, p = 0.26), adverse event rates (76.56% vs. 67.07%, OR: 1.62, 95% CI: 0.77-3.39, p = 0.20), and the differences were not statistically significant. Thus, current evidence suggests that the effects of pneumatic compression therapy on wound healing rates, changes in wound area, and the incidence of adverse events in patients with venous ulcers are similar to those of bandage pressure therapy. However, owing to the limitations in the number and quality of studies, more high-quality RCTs are needed to clarify the feasibility and economics of pneumatic compression therapy in patients with venous ulcers.

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.

OBJECTIVE: Intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) applies gradual pressure to facilitate lymph and blood flow movement to reduce exercise-induced tissue fluid accumulation and plasma volume loss. This study aimed to evaluate the cardiovascular system response during the recovery with IPC compared with passive recovery (Sham).
METHODS: Sixteen volunteers (7 females and 9 males) executed a cycling-based exhausting sprint interval exercise (8 × 20 s all out), followed by a 30-min IPC or Sham condition. Participants performed two trials in a randomised, counterbalanced, and crossover design. Several cardiovascular parameters (blood pressure, heart function, and peripheral vascular resistance) were recorded at baseline (5\'), through the recovery protocol (30\'), and afterwards (5\').
RESULTS: The use of IPC during the recovery phase led to a faster recovery, stated in relative values to pre-exercise, in mean blood pressure (102.5 ± 19.3% vs. 92.7 ± 12.5%; P < 0.001), and cardiac output (139.8 ± 30.0% vs. 146.2 ± 40.2%; P < 0.05) in comparison to Sham condition. Furthermore, during the IPC-based recovery, there was a slower recovery in cardiac pressure change over time (92.5 ± 25.8% vs. 100.5 ± 48.9%; P < 0.05), and a faster return to pre-exercise values in the peripheral vascular resistance (75.2 ± 25.5% vs. 64.8 ± 17.4%; P < 0.001) compared to Sham.
CONCLUSIONS: The application of IPC after high-intensity exercise promotes the recovery of the cardiovascular system, reducing cardiovascular strain. Future investigations should consider the effects on the sympathetic-parasympathetic balance, such as heart rate variability, to assess further bonds between the use of IPC and autonomous control.

BACKGROUND: Surgical prophylaxis for venous thrombo-embolic disease (VTE) includes risk assessment, chemical prophylaxis and mechanical prophylaxis (graduated compression stockings [GCS] and/or intermittent pneumatic compression devices [IPCD]). Although there is overwhelming evidence for the need and efficacy of VTE prophylaxis in patients at risk, only about a third of those who are at risk of VTE receive appropriate prophylaxis.
OBJECTIVE: There is debate as to the best combination of VTE prophylaxis following abdominal surgery due to lack of evidence. The aim of this survey was to understand this gap between knowledge and practice.
METHODS: In 2019 and 2020, a survey was conducted to investigate the current practice of venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis for major abdominal surgery, with a focus on colorectal resections. The study received ethics approval and involved distributing an 11-item questionnaire to members of two professional surgical societies: the Colorectal Surgical Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSSANZ) and the General Surgeons Australia (GSA).
RESULTS: From 214 surgeons: 100% use chemical prophylaxis, 68% do not use a risk assessment tool, 27% do not vary practice according to patient risk factors while > 90% use all three forms of VTE prophylaxis at some stage of treatment. Most surgeons do not vary practice between laparoscopic and open colectomy/major abdominal surgery and only 33% prescribe post-discharge chemical prophylaxis. 42% of surgeons surveyed had equipoise for a clinical trial on the use of IPCDs and the vast majority (> 95%) feel that IPCDs should provide at least a 2% improvement in VTE event rate in order to justify their routine use.
CONCLUSIONS: Most surgeons in Australia and New Zealand do not use risk assessment tools and use all three forms of prophylaxis regardless. Therfore there is a gap between practice and VTE prophylaxis for the use of mechanical prophylaxis options. Further research is required to determine whether dual modality mechanical prophylaxis is incrementally efficacious. Trial Registration- Not Applicable.

Background: Optimal frequency and duration of pneumatic compression device (PCD) therapy for lymphedema is undetermined. This prospective, randomized preliminary study evaluated the impact of different PCD dosing protocols on physiological and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to estimate treatment effects, assess the responsiveness of various measurement techniques, and identify endpoints for a definitive PCD dosing trial. Methods and Results: Twenty-one patients with lower extremity lymphedema were randomized into three groups for treatment with the Flexitouch advanced PCD: (A) once per day for 1 hour, 12 consecutive days; (B) twice per day in 1-hour treatments, 5 consecutive days; or (C) twice per day in 2-hour treatments, 5 consecutive days. Outcomes measured were changes in limb volume (LV), tissue fluid, tissue tone, and PROs. Those in group A experienced mean (standard deviation) LV reductions of 109 (58) mL (p = 0.003) on day 1 and of 97 (86) mL (p = 0.024) on day 5. Group A also showed possible single-treatment decreases in extracellular fluid volume by bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) on day 5. There were no consistent changes in groups B and C. Long-term assessment of LV and BIS showed no clear change. Tonometry, ultrasound, local tissue water, and PROs showed wide variation among participants. Conclusions: LV measurements showed potential benefit for 1-hour daily PCD treatment. A definitive dosing trial should include LV, BIS, and PROs in a comparison of 1- and 2-hour daily treatment protocols conducted over a study period of 4 weeks. These data may inform appropriate outcome measures for other intervention studies in lymphedema.

To demonstrate intranodal thoracic duct embolization (TDE) for treating chyle leaks following thoracic surgery and the feasibility of applying lower-limb intermittent pneumatic compression devices during TDE.
Between December 2017 and October 2020, 12 consecutive TDEs for post-operative chyle leaks were performed in 11 patients using intranodal lymphangiogram (IL) with an intermittent pneumatic compressive device applied to the lower limb. The procedure\'s duration, technical/clinical success, and complications were retrospectively evaluated.
IL was successful at imaging the thoracic duct in all procedures (100%), and TDE had an intention- to-treat success rate of 92% (11/12). No related complications were observed during follow-up, which took place at a mean of 27 days. The time from the commencement of lymphangiogram until visualization of the thoracic duct was a mean of 21.6 min, and the mean overall procedure time was 87.3 min.
This study supports IL-guided TDE as a safe and effective option to treat post-thoracic surgery chyle leaks. We revealed shorter lymphangiogram times compared with previously published studies, and we postulate that the application of intermittent lower-limb pneumatic compressive devices contributed toward this study\'s results by expediting the return of lymph from the lower limb. This study is the first to illustrate this approach in TDE and advocates for randomized controlled studies to further evaluate the influence of intermittent pneumatic compressive devices on the procedure.

Objective  The present study describes the preferences and current practices of a sample of knee surgeons in Brazil regarding thromboprophylaxis in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Method  In the present internet survey, surgeons from the Brazilian Knee Surgery Society (SBCJ, in the Portuguese acronym) voluntarily answered an anonymous questionnaire including time of personal surgical experience, perceptions about the best thromboprophylaxis options, and actual practices in their work environment. Results  From December 2020 to January 2021, 243 participants answered the questionnaire. All, except for 3 (1.2%), reported using thromboprophylaxis, and most (76%) combined pharmacological and mechanical techniques. The most prescribed drug was enoxaparin (87%), which changed to rivaroxaban (65%) after discharge. The time of thromboprophylaxis initiation varied according to the length of training of the knee surgeon ( p ≤ 0.03), and their preferences and practices differed according to the Brazilian region ( p  < 0.05) and the health system in which the surgeons work (public or private sector; p  = 0.024). The option for mechanical thromboprophylaxis also depended on the training time of the surgeon. Conclusion  Thromboprophylaxis preferences and practices in TKA are diverse across Brazilian regions and health systems (public or private sectors). Given the lack of a national clinical guideline, most orthopedists follow either their hospital guidelines or none. The mechanical prophylaxis method and the little use of aspirin are the points that most diverge from international guidelines and practices.