暂无摘要。

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.

OBJECTIVE: This prospective, longitudinal, pragmatic study describes at home treatment with a proprietary advanced pneumatic compression device (APCD) for patients with lower extremity lymphedema (LED).
METHODS: Following institutiona review board approval, four participating Veterans Affairs centers enrolled LED patients from 2016 to 2022. The primary outcome measures were health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) questionnaires (lymphedema quality of life-leg and the generic SF-36v2) obtained at baseline and 12, 24, and 52 weeks. The secondary outcome measures were limb circumference, cellulitis events, skin quality, and compliance with APCD and other compression therapies.
RESULTS: Because a portion of the trial was conducted during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, 179 patients had 52 weeks of follow-up, and 143 had complete measurements at all time points. The baseline characteristics were a mean age of 66.9 ± 10.8 years, 91% were men, and the mean body mass index was 33.8 ± 6.9 kg/m2. LED was bilateral in 92.2% of the patients. Chronic venous insufficiency or phlebolymphedema was the most common etiology of LED (112 patients; 62.6%), followed by trauma or surgery (20 patients; 11.2%). Cancer treatment as a cause was low (4 patients; 2.3%). Patients were classified as having International Society for Lymphology (ISL) stage I (68.4%), II (27.6%), or III (4.1%). Of the primary outcome measures, significant improvements were observed in all lymphedema quality of life-leg domains of function, appearance, symptoms, and emotion and the overall score after 12 weeks of treatment (P < .0001) and through 52 weeks of follow-up. The SF-36v2 demonstrated significant improvement in three domains at 12 weeks and in the six domains of physical function, bodily pain, physical component (P < .0001), social functioning (P = .0181), role-physical (P < .0005), and mental health (P < .0334) at 52 weeks. An SF-36v2 score <40 indicates a substantial reduction in HR-QoL in LED patients compared with U.S. norms. Regarding the secondary outcome measures at 52 weeks, compared with baseline, the mean limb girth decreased by 1.4 cm (P < .0001). The maximal reduction in mean limb girth was 1.9 cm (6.0%) at 12 weeks in ISL stage II and III limbs. New episodes of cellulitis in patients with previous episodes (21.4% vs 6.1%, P = .001) were reduced. The 75% of patients with skin hyperpigmentation at baseline decreased to 40% (P < .01) at 52 weeks. At 52 weeks, compliance, defined as use for 5 to 7 days per week, was reported for the APCD by 72% and for elastic stockings by 74%.
CONCLUSIONS: This longitudinal study of Veterans Affairs patients with LED demonstrated improved generic and disease-specific HR-QoL through 52 weeks with at home use of an APCD. Limb girth, cellulitis episodes, and skin discoloration were reduced, with excellent compliance.

This study assesses the impact of an advanced intermittent pneumatic compression device (IPC - Lympha Press® Optimal Plus) when added to Complete Decongestive Therapy (CDT) compared to CDT alone on volume reduction of limbs with lymphedema. The goal is to maximally reduce edema in preparation for microsurgery. Fifty subjects scheduled for Multiple Lymphatic-Venous Anastomosis (MLVA) were randomly (sequentially) assigned to experimental or control group: 25 (21 females and 4 males) in the experimental IPC group and 25 (20 females and 5 males) in the control group. The two groups were similar in age, sex distribution, and type of lymphedema. Results indicate the IPC group reported greater volume loss than the control group (p= 0.00137) comparing final vs. initial limb volume. The average percentage edema volume loss achieved with added IPC was two times greater (11.7%) than in the control group (5.0%). When differences in treatment duration were accounted for, the IPC group achieved consistently greater proportional volume loss (12.83% vs 6.30%) than conservative therapy alone. In our pilot study, IPC added to CDT resulted in greater proportional volume loss and provides better preparation for MLVA surgery.

BACKGROUND: Among venous thromboembolism, pulmonary thromboembolism (PTE) is one of the most serious postoperative complications. Deep venous thrombosis (DVT) is the main cause. Considering the unknown prevalence of DVT and PTE in the postoperative period of cardiovascular surgery in Japan, we investigated the incidence in consecutive patients who underwent cardiovascular surgery.
METHODS: A total of 225 patients who underwent cardiovascular surgery at four hospitals consented to participate in the study. We assessed DVT using lower extremity venous ultrasound preoperatively and postoperatively. Seven patients with preexisting DVT were excluded. Postoperative antithrombotic therapy was administered at the discretion of the attending physician at each institution. The postoperative intermittent pneumatic compression therapy followed the standard prophylaxis protocol at each institution. Patients were grouped into DVT and non-DVT cohorts for comparison. Continuous variables were expressed as means ± standard deviations and compared by the t-test.
RESULTS: The analysis of lower extremity venous ultrasound images indicated that DVT developed in 16 of the 218 study patients (DVT, 7.3%). No patient had PTE. Procedure-related data revealed significantly higher total blood transfusion (DVT group: 61.2 ± 49.9 IU vs. non-DVT group: 27.7 ± 30.2 IU: p = 0.018, effect size = 1.048) in the DVT group. The multivariate logistic regression predictor of DVT based on preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative factors was blood transfusion (p = 0.005, 95% confidence interval 1.010-1.059, odds ratio 1.034).
CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of postoperatively developed DVT was 7.3% in this study.

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.

暂无摘要。

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.

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.