Graduated compression stockings for prevention of deep vein thrombosis

Prophylactic anticoagulants for non-hospitalised people with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted healthcare systems worldwide. Multiple reports on thromboembolic complications related to COVID-19 have been published, and researchers have described that people with COVID-19 are at high risk for developing venous thromboembolism (VTE). Anticoagulants have been used as pharmacological interventions to prevent arterial and venous thrombosis, and their use in the outpatient setting could potentially reduce the prevalence of vascular thrombosis and associated mortality in people with COVID-19. However, even lower doses used for a prophylactic purpose may result in adverse events such as bleeding. It is important to consider the evidence for anticoagulant use in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of prophylactic anticoagulants versus active comparators, placebo or no intervention, or non-pharmacological interventions in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 18 April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prophylactic anticoagulants with placebo or no treatment, another active comparator, or non-pharmacological interventions in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19. We included studies that compared anticoagulants with a different dose of the same anticoagulant. We excluded studies with a duration of under two weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, VTE (deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE)), and major bleeding. Our secondary outcomes were DVT, PE, need for hospitalisation, minor bleeding, adverse events, and quality of life. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five RCTs with up to 90 days of follow-up (short term). Data were available for meta-analysis from 1777 participants. Anticoagulant compared to placebo or no treatment Five studies compared anticoagulants with placebo or no treatment and provided data for three of our outcomes of interest (all-cause mortality, major bleeding, and adverse events). The evidence suggests that prophylactic anticoagulants may lead to little or no difference in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 3.61; 5 studies; 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably reduce VTE from 3% in the placebo group to 1% in the anticoagulant group (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.85; 4 studies; 1259 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 50; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in major bleeding (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.78; 5 studies; 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticoagulants probably result in little or no difference in DVT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.46; 3 studies; 1009 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but probably reduce the risk of PE from 2.7% in the placebo group to 0.7% in the anticoagulant group (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.79; 3 studies; 1009 participants; NNTB 50; moderate-certainty evidence). Anticoagulants probably lead to little or no difference in reducing hospitalisation (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.75; 4 studies; 1459 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may lead to little or no difference in adverse events (minor bleeding, RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.90 to 6.72; 5 studies, 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticoagulant compared to a different dose of the same anticoagulant One study compared anticoagulant (higher-dose apixaban) with a different (standard) dose of the same anticoagulant and reported five relevant outcomes. No cases of all-cause mortality, VTE, or major bleeding occurred in either group during the 45-day follow-up (moderate-certainty evidence). Higher-dose apixaban compared to standard-dose apixaban may lead to little or no difference in reducing the need for hospitalisation (RR 1.89, 95% CI 0.17 to 20.58; 1 study; 278 participants; low-certainty evidence) or in the number of adverse events (minor bleeding, RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.54; 1 study; 278 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticoagulant compared to antiplatelet agent One study compared anticoagulant (apixaban) with antiplatelet agent (aspirin) and reported five relevant outcomes. No cases of all-cause mortality or major bleeding occurred during the 45-day follow-up (moderate-certainty evidence). Apixaban may lead to little or no difference in VTE (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.65; 1 study; 279 participants; low-certainty evidence), need for hospitalisation (RR 3.20, 95% CI 0.13 to 77.85; 1 study; 279 participants; low-certainty evidence), or adverse events (minor bleeding, RR 2.13, 95% CI 0.40 to 11.46; 1 study; 279 participants; low-certainty evidence). No included studies reported on quality of life or investigated anticoagulants compared to a different anticoagulant, or anticoagulants compared to non-pharmacological interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low- to moderate-certainty evidence from five RCTs that prophylactic anticoagulants result in little or no difference in major bleeding, DVT, need for hospitalisation, or adverse events when compared with placebo or no treatment in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19. Low-certainty evidence indicates that prophylactic anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in all-cause mortality when compared with placebo or no treatment, but moderate-certainty evidence indicates that prophylactic anticoagulants probably reduce the incidence of VTE and PE. Low-certainty evidence suggests that comparing different doses of the same prophylactic anticoagulant may result in little or no difference in need for hospitalisation or adverse events. Prophylactic anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in risk of VTE, hospitalisation, or adverse events when compared with antiplatelet agents (low-certainty evidence). Given that there were only short-term data from one study, these results should be interpreted with caution. Additional trials of sufficient duration are needed to clearly determine any effect on clinical outcomes.

Determination of Deep Vein Thrombosis Risk in Patients Staying in an Orthopedics and Traumatology Clinic

Background: Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is an important life-threatening complication in patients having orthopedic surgery and its risk factors are still debatable. Aim: This study aimed to determine preoperative and postoperative DVT risk, its risk factors and their effects on preoperative and postoperative DVT risk scores in patients having orthopedic surgery and staying in an orthopedics and traumatology clinic. Method: This descriptive, cross-sectional study was performed with 244 patients. Data were gathered with a sociodemographic, health status and prophylaxis for DVT form and the Autar Deep Vein Thrombosis Risk Assessment Scale (Autar DVTRAS). Results: There was a strong significant difference between the preoperative and postoperative mean scores for the Autar DVTRAS (p

Compression stockings for preventing deep vein thrombosis in airline passengers

BACKGROUND

Air travel might increase the risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT). It has been suggested that wearing compression stockings might reduce this risk. This is an update of the review first published in 2006.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of wearing compression stockings versus not wearing them for preventing DVT in people travelling on flights lasting at least four hours.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and AMED databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 1 April 2020. We also checked the bibliographies of relevant studies and reviews identified by the search to check for any additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials of compression stockings versus no stockings in passengers on flights lasting at least four hours. Trials in which passengers wore a stocking on one leg but not the other, or those comparing stockings and another intervention were also eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. We sought additional information from trialists where necessary.

MAIN RESULTS

One new study that fulfilled the inclusion criteria was identified for this update. Twelve randomised trials (n = 2918) were included in this review: ten (n = 2833) compared wearing graduated compression stockings on both legs versus not wearing them; one trial (n = 50) compared wearing graduated compression tights versus not wearing them; and one trial (n = 35) compared wearing a graduated compression stocking on one leg for the outbound flight and on the other leg on the return flight. Eight trials included people judged to be at low or medium risk of developing DVT (n = 1598) and two included high-risk participants (n = 1273). All flights had a duration of more than five hours. Fifty of 2637 participants with follow-up data available in the trials of wearing compression stockings on both legs had a symptomless DVT; three wore stockings, 47 did not (odds ratio (OR) 0.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.25, P < 0.001; high-certainty evidence). There were no symptomless DVTs in three trials. Sixteen of 1804 people developed superficial vein thrombosis, four wore stockings, 12 did not (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.13, P = 0.09; moderate-certainty evidence). No deaths, pulmonary emboli or symptomatic DVTs were reported. Wearing stockings had a significant impact in reducing oedema (mean difference (MD) -4.72, 95% CI -4.91 to -4.52; based on six trials; low-certainty evidence). A further three trials showed reduced oedema in the stockings group but could not be included in the meta-analysis as they used different methods to measure oedema. No significant adverse effects were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that airline passengers similar to those in this review can expect a substantial reduction in the incidence of symptomless DVT and low-certainty evidence that leg oedema is reduced if they wear compression stockings. The certainty of the evidence was limited by the way that oedema was measured. There is moderate-certainty evidence that superficial vein thrombosis may be reduced if passengers wear compression stockings. We cannot assess the effect of wearing stockings on death, pulmonary embolism or symptomatic DVT because no such events occurred in these trials. Randomised trials to assess these outcomes would need to include a very large number of people.

American Society of Hematology 2021 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: prevention and treatment in patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication among patients with cancer. Patients with cancer and VTE are at a markedly increased risk for morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in their decisions about the prevention and treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

METHODS

ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The guideline development process was supported by updated or new systematic evidence reviews. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations.

RESULTS

Recommendations address mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients with cancer, those undergoing a surgical procedure, and ambulatory patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. The recommendations also address the use of anticoagulation for the initial, short-term, and long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Strong recommendations include not using thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients receiving cancer chemotherapy at low risk of VTE and to use low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. Conditional recommendations include using thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients with cancer, LMWH or fondaparinux for surgical patients with cancer, LMWH or direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) in ambulatory patients with cancer receiving systemic therapy at high risk of VTE and LMWH or DOAC for initial treatment of VTE, DOAC for the short-term treatment of VTE, and LMWH or DOAC for the long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

Obstructive Sleep Apnea as a Cardiovascular Risk Factor-Beyond CPAP

Patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) experience repetitive partial or complete airway collapse during sleep resulting in nocturnal hypoxia-normoxia cycling, and are at increased cardiovascular risk. The number of apneas and hypopneas indexed per hour of sleep (apnea-hypopnea index) along with the associated intermittent hypoxia predict the increased cardiovascular risk; thus, their attenuation or prevention are objectives of OSA therapy. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the gold standard treatment for OSA and, when effective, mitigates the apnea-hypopnea index and hypoxemia. As such, it is reasonable to expect CPAP would decrease cardiovascular risk. However, 3 recent randomized clinical trials of CPAP vs usual care did not show any significant effects of CPAP in attenuating incident cardiovascular events in patients with OSA. In this review, we discuss these studies in addition to potential complementary therapeutic options to CPAP (eg, neurostimulation) and conclude with suggested therapeutic targets for future interventional studies (eg, the autonomic nervous system). Although these areas of research are exciting, they have yet to be tested to any similar degree of rigour as CPAP.

Prevention of thromboembolism in spinal cord injury -S1 guideline

Introduction

Traumatic and non-traumatic spinal cord injury bears a high risk for thromboembolism in the first few months after injury. So far, there is no consented guideline regarding diagnostic and prophylactic measures to prevent thromboembolic events in spinal cord injury. Based on a Pubmed research of related original papers and review articles, international guidelines and a survey conducted in German-speaking spinal cord injury centers about best practice prophylactic procedures at each site, a consensus process was initiated, which included spinal cord medicine experts and representatives from medical societies involved in the comprehensive care of spinal cord injury patients. The recommendations comply with the German S3 practice guidelines on prevention of venous thromboembolism.

Recommendations

Specific clinical or instrument-based screening methods are not recommended in asymptomatic SCI patients. Based on the severity of neurological dysfunction (motor completeness, ambulatory function) low dose low molecular weight heparins are recommended to be administered up to 24 weeks after injury. Besides, mechanical methods (compression stockings, intermittent pneumatic compression) can be applied. In chronic SCI patients admitted to the hospital, thromboembolism prophylactic measures need to be based on the reason for admission and the necessity for immobilization.

Conclusions

Recommendations for thromboembolism diagnostic and prophylactic measures follow best practice in most spinal cord injury centers. More research evidence needs to be generated to administer more individually tailored risk-adapted prophylactic strategies in the future, which may help to further prevent thromboembolic events without causing major side effects. The present article is a translation of the guideline recently published online (https://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/179-015l_S1_Thromboembolieprophylaxe-bei-Querschnittlaehmung_2020-09.pdf).

Viral Coagulopathy in Patients With COVID-19: Treatment and Care

COVID-19 has proven to be particularly challenging given the complex pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2. Early data have demonstrated how the host response to this novel coronavirus leads to the proliferation of pro-inflammatory cytokines, massive endothelial damage, and generalized vascular manifestations. While SARS-CoV-2 primarily targets the upper and lower respiratory tract, other organ systems are also affected. SARS-CoV-2 relies on 2 host cell receptors for successful attachment: angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 and transmembrane protease serine 2. Clinicopathologic reports have demonstrated associations between severe COVID-19 and viral coagulopathy, resulting in pulmonary embolism; venous, arterial, and microvascular thrombosis; lung endothelial injury; and associated thrombotic complications leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome. Viral coagulopathy is not novel given similar observations with SARS classic, including the consumption of platelets, generation of thrombin, and increased fibrin degradation product exhibiting overt disseminated intravascular coagulation–like syndrome. The specific mechanism(s) behind the thrombotic complications in COVID-19 patients has yet to be fully understood. Parenteral anticoagulants, such as heparin and low-molecular-weights heparins, are widely used in the management of COVID-19 patients. Beyond the primary (anticoagulant) effects of these agents, they may exhibit antiviral, anti-inflammatory, and cytoprotective effects. Direct oral anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents are also useful in the management of these patients. Tissue plasminogen activator and other fibrinolytic modalities may also be helpful in the overall management. Catheter-directed thrombolysis can be used in patients developing pulmonary embolism. Further investigations are required to understand the molecular and cellular mechanisms involved in the pathogenesis of COVID-19-associated thrombotic complications.

American Society of Hematology 2019 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: prevention of venous thromboembolism in surgical hospitalized patients

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common source of perioperative morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) intend to support decision making about preventing VTE in patients undergoing surgery.

METHODS

ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline-development process, including performing systematic reviews. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on 30 recommendations, including for major surgery in general (n = 8), orthopedic surgery (n = 7), major general surgery (n = 3), major neurosurgical procedures (n = 2), urological surgery (n = 4), cardiac surgery and major vascular surgery (n = 2), major trauma (n = 2), and major gynecological surgery (n = 2).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients undergoing major surgery in general, the panel made conditional recommendations for mechanical prophylaxis over no prophylaxis, for pneumatic compression prophylaxis over graduated compression stockings, and against inferior vena cava filters. In patients undergoing total hip or total knee arthroplasty, conditional recommendations included using either aspirin or anticoagulants, as well as for a direct oral anticoagulant over low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). For major general surgery, the panel suggested pharmacological prophylaxis over no prophylaxis, using LMWH or unfractionated heparin. For major neurosurgery, transurethral resection of the prostate, or radical prostatectomy, the panel suggested against pharmacological prophylaxis. For major trauma surgery or major gynecological surgery, the panel suggested pharmacological prophylaxis over no prophylaxis.

Graduated compression stockings in prevention of venous thromboembolism among acutely ill medical patients aged over 75 years: a French national survey

Background: The thromboprophylactic efficacy of graduated compression stockings (GCS) has not yet been demonstrated in acutely ill medical patients, and guidelines vary considerably. Older acutely ill medical patients appear to constitute a distinctive population presenting high risks of both thrombosis and bleeding.

Objective: To evaluate the practices and beliefs of a panel of French geriatricians regarding GCS management in acutely ill medical patients aged over 75 years.

Methods: A survey was designed to study French geriatric practice concerning GCS use for thromboprophylaxis.

Results: A total of 111 geriatricians answered the questionnaire. Among the responders, 46% declared frequent or very frequent prescription of GCS for preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE) in acutely ill, hospitalized medical patients, 54% declaring that they frequently re-evaluated GCS prescription during the patient’s hospitalization. The main reason reported for discontinuing GCS use was patient request. Regarding complications of GCS, 87% of responders declared having already noted adverse effects with the use of GCS, although 80% estimated the risk of complications to be low or very low. In the context considered, the efficacy of wearing GCS was believed to be high or very high for 73% of responders. GCS prescription was judged to be in accordance with evidence-based medicine for 69%.

Conclusion: There is a gap between the frequent use of GCS to prevent VTE in older patients presenting an acute medical illness and the availability of data concerning their efficacy, safety, and management by nurses. Prospective trials including clinical and cost effectiveness are needed.

[Thromboembolic prophylaxis in orthopaedics: update on the current S3 guideline, effective 2015]

BACKGROUND

Thromboembolism is one of the most significant complications in many orthopaedic treatments and illnesses. Therefore, prevention is of vital importance.

CURRENT STATUS

The existing S3 guideline, revised in 2015, investigates the various symptoms and treatments in great detail, and thus provides very good recommendations. The difficulties of thrombosis prophylaxis in orthopaedics were ever-present in 2018, which is shown by the large number of publications on the topic. These new findings can be incorporated into further versions of the guideline, thereby adapting them to the current status. Finally, the fact that is especially important for everyday practice should be mentioned, that is, in particular when patients are transferred or discharged, information about the necessary prophylaxis is communicated to the colleagues who will be carrying out further treatment to guarantee uninterrupted prophylaxis.

Guidelines for perioperative care in gynecologic/oncology: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society recommendations-2019 update

BACKGROUND

This is the first updated Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society guideline presenting a consensus for optimal perioperative care in gynecologic/oncology surgery.

METHODS

A database search of publications using Embase and PubMed was performed. Studies on each item within the ERAS gynecologic/oncology protocol were selected with emphasis on meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and large prospective cohort studies. These studies were then reviewed and graded according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.

RESULTS

All recommendations on ERAS protocol items are based on best available evidence. The level of evidence for each item is presented accordingly.

CONCLUSIONS

The updated evidence base and recommendation for items within the ERAS gynecologic/oncology perioperative care pathway are presented by the ERAS® Society in this consensus review.

Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Elective Colorectal Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations: 2018

BACKGROUND

This is the fourth updated Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society guideline presenting a consensus for optimal perioperative care in colorectal surgery and providing graded recommendations for each ERAS item within the ERAS® protocol.

METHODS

A wide database search on English literature publications was performed. Studies on each item within the protocol were selected with particular attention paid to meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials and large prospective cohorts and examined, reviewed and graded according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.

RESULTS

All recommendations on ERAS® protocol items are based on best available evidence; good-quality trials; meta-analyses of good-quality trials; or large cohort studies. The level of evidence for the use of each item is presented accordingly.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence base and recommendation for items within the multimodal perioperative care pathway are presented by the ERAS® Society in this comprehensive consensus review.

Graduated compression stockings for prevention of deep vein thrombosis

BACKGROUND

Hospitalised patients are at increased risk of developing deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in the lower limb and pelvic veins, on a background of prolonged immobilisation associated with their medical or surgical illness. Patients with DVT are at increased risk of developing a pulmonary embolism (PE). The use of graduated compression stockings (GCS) in hospitalised patients has been proposed to decrease the risk of DVT. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2000, and last updated in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of graduated compression stockings in preventing deep vein thrombosis in various groups of hospitalised patients.

SEARCH METHODS

For this review the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and trials registries on 21 March 2017; and the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, CINAHL Ebsco, AMED Ovid , and trials registries on 12 June 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving GCS alone, or GCS used on a background of any other DVT prophylactic method. We combined results from both of these groups of trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (AS, MD) assessed potentially eligible trials for inclusion. One review author (AS) extracted the data, which a second review author (MD) cross-checked and authenticated. Two review authors (AS, MD) assessed the methodological quality of trials with the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion with the senior review author (TL). For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the Peto odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval. We pooled data using a fixed-effect model. We used the GRADE system to evaluate the overall quality of the evidence supporting the outcomes assessed in this review.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 RCTs involving a total of 1681 individual participants and 1172 individual legs (2853 analytic units). Of these 20 trials, 10 included patients undergoing general surgery; six included patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery; three individual trials included patients undergoing neurosurgery, cardiac surgery, and gynaecological surgery, respectively; and only one trial included medical patients. Graduated compression stockings were applied on the day before surgery or on the day of surgery and were worn up until discharge or until the participants were fully mobile. In the majority of the included studies DVT was identified by the radioactive I¹²⁵ uptake test. Duration of follow-up ranged from seven to 14 days. The included studies were at an overall low risk of bias.We were able to pool the data from 20 studies reporting the incidence of DVT. In the GCS group, 134 of 1445 units developed DVT (9%) in comparison to the control group (without GCS), in which 290 of 1408 units developed DVT (21%). The Peto odds ratio (OR) was 0.35 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 0.43; 20 studies; 2853 units; high-quality evidence), showing an overall effect favouring treatment with GCS (P < 0.001).Based on results from eight included studies, the incidence of proximal DVT was 7 of 517 (1%) units in the GCS group and 28 of 518 (5%) units in the control group. The Peto OR was 0.26 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.53; 8 studies; 1035 units; moderate-quality evidence) with an overall effect favouring treatment with GCS (P < 0.001). Combining results from five studies, all based on surgical patients, the incidence of PE was 5 of 283 (2%) participants in the GCS group and 14 of 286 (5%) in the control group. The Peto OR was 0.38 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.96; 5 studies; 569 participants; low-quality evidence) with an overall effect favouring treatment with GCS (P = 0.04). We downgraded the quality of the evidence for proximal DVT and PE due to low event rate (imprecision) and lack of routine screening for PE (inconsistency).We carried out subgroup analysis by speciality (surgical or medical patients). Combining results from 19 trials focusing on surgical patients, 134 of 1365 (9.8%) units developed DVT in the GCS group compared to 282 of 1328 (21.2%) units in the control group. The Peto OR was 0.35 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.44; high-quality evidence), with an overall effect favouring treatment with GCS (P < 0.001). Based on results from seven included studies, the incidence of proximal DVT was 7 of 437 units (1.6%) in the GCS group and 28 of 438 (6.4%) in the control group. The Peto OR was 0.26 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.53; 875 units; moderate-quality evidence) with an overall effect favouring treatment with GCS (P < 0.001). We downgraded the evidence for proximal DVT due to low event rate (imprecision).Based on the results from one trial focusing on medical patients admitted following acute myocardial infarction, 0 of 80 (0%) legs developed DVT in the GCS group and 8 of 80 (10%) legs developed DVT in the control group. The Peto OR was 0.12 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.51; low-quality evidence) with an overall effect favouring treatment with GCS (P = 0.004). None of the medical patients in either group developed a proximal DVT, and the incidence of PE was not reported.Limited data were available to accurately assess the incidence of adverse effects and complications with the use of GCS as these were not routinely quantitatively reported in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-quality evidence that GCS are effective in reducing the risk of DVT in hospitalised patients who have undergone general and orthopaedic surgery, with or without other methods of background thromboprophylaxis, where clinically appropriate. There is moderate-quality evidence that GCS probably reduce the risk of proximal DVT, and low-quality evidence that GCS may reduce the risk of PE. However, there remains a paucity of evidence to assess the effectiveness of GCS in diminishing the risk of DVT in medical patients.

Indications for medical compression stockings in venous and lymphatic disorders: An evidence-based consensus statement

Objective Medical compression stockings are a standard, non-invasive treatment option for all venous and lymphatic diseases. The aim of this consensus document is to provide up-to-date recommendations and evidence grading on the indications for treatment, based on evidence accumulated during the past decade, under the auspices of the International Compression Club. Methods A systematic literature review was conducted and, using PRISMA guidelines, 51 relevant publications were selected for an evidence-based analysis of an initial 2407 unrefined results. Key search terms included: 'acute', CEAP', 'chronic', 'compression stockings', 'compression therapy', 'lymph', 'lymphatic disease', 'vein' and 'venous disease'. Evidence extracted from the publications was graded initially by the panel members individually and then refined at the consensus meeting. Results Based on the current evidence, 25 recommendations for chronic and acute venous disorders were made. Of these, 24 recommendations were graded as: Grade 1A (n = 4), 1B (n = 13), 1C (n = 2), 2B (n = 4) and 2C (n = 1). The panel members found moderately robust evidence for medical compression stockings in patients with venous symptoms and prevention and treatment of venous oedema. Robust evidence was found for prevention and treatment of venous leg ulcers. Recommendations for stocking-use after great saphenous vein interventions were limited to the first post-interventional week. No randomised clinical trials are available that document a prophylactic effect of medical compression stockings on the progression of chronic venous disease (CVD). In acute deep vein thrombosis, immediate compression is recommended to reduce pain and swelling. Despite conflicting results from a recent study to prevent post-thrombotic syndrome, medical compression stockings are still recommended. In thromboprophylaxis, the role of stockings in addition to anticoagulation is limited. For the maintenance phase of lymphoedema management, compression stockings are the most important intervention. Conclusion The beneficial value of applying compression stockings in the treatment of venous and lymphatic disease is supported by this document, with 19/25 recommendations rated as Grade 1 evidence. For recommendations rated with Grade 2 level of evidence, further studies are needed.

The Prophylaxis of Venous Thromboembolism

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the third most common cardiovascular condition, after myocardial infarction and stroke. Prophylactic measures in accordance with current guidelines can significantly reduce the risk of VTE and the associated morbidity and mortality. Until now, the German interdisciplinary, evidence- and consensus-based (S3) clinical practice guideline on VTE prophylaxis was based on a complete review of all pertinent literature available in MEDLINE up to January 2008. More recent publications and drug approvals have made a thorough revision necessary.

METHODS

A systematic search was carried out in the MEDLINE and Embase databases for publications that appeared from 1 January 2008 to 7 August 2013. Updates of 5 national and international reference guidelines and 2 new Health Technology Assessment (HTA) reports were considered as well. A structured consensus-finding process was carried out with delegates from 27 scientific medical societies and from the Union of Medical Specialist Associations.

RESULTS

46 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included for critical appraisal. New findings led to re-evaluation of the value of compression stockings in combination with pharmacological prophylaxis (open recommendation), and suggest equal value of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) or fondaparinux in elective hip and knee replacement (strong recommendation). For patients undergoing hip fracture surgery, we recommend LMWH or fondaparinux.

CONCLUSION

Further research is needed to assess the value of NOACs for pharmacological prophylaxis in orthopedic/trauma patients undergoing surgical procedures other than the ones mentioned above, and into the benefit and harm of new devices available for mechanical prophylaxis. The stringent implementation of basic measures such as early mobilization, movement exercises, and patient instruction is a key point to prevent venous thrombo - embolism.

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for the prevention of venous thromboembolism

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a serious but preventable cause of morbidity and mortality. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation systems (NMES) for the prevention of VTE may be beneficial for patients in whom pharmacological or standard mechanical prophylaxis methods are contraindicated or are regarded as unsafe or impractical. Although findings of experimental studies suggest that NMES reduce venous stasis, the clinical utility and effectiveness of NMES in VTE prevention remain controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of neuromuscular electrical stimulation in the prevention of venous thromboembolism.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Group Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (22 March 2017) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Studies (CENTRAL (2017, Issue 2)). The CIS also searched trial registries for details of ongoing and unpublished studies. The review authors searched the bibliographic lists of relevant articles and reviews to look further for potentially eligible trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials that compared any form of neuromuscular electrical stimulation as an intervention for VTE prophylaxis (alone or combined with pharmacological or other mechanical methods) versus no prophylaxis and other mechanical or pharmacological methods of VTE prophylaxis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two independent review authors were involved in study selection, data extraction, methodological quality assessment of included studies, and data analysis. We resolved disagreements by discussion between the two review authors. If no agreement could be reached, a third review author acted as an adjudicator. The main outcomes of the review were total deep vein thrombosis (DVT), symptomatic and asymptomatic DVT, pulmonary embolism (PE), total VTE and bleeding (major and minor). The quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach and is indicated in italics.

MAIN RESULTS

We included in the review five randomised controlled trials and three quasi-randomised trials, enrolling a total of 904 participants. Among these, four studies included patients undergoing major surgical procedures; one study included patients undergoing surgery for hip fracture under spinal anaesthesia; one study included trauma patients with a contraindication for prophylactic heparin; one study included neurosurgical patients who were operated on under general anaesthesia; and one study included patients with non-functional spinal cord injuries. Overall, eight studies investigated 22 treatment arms. Four studies compared the NMES arm with a no prophylaxis arm, and five studies compared the NMES arm with alternative methods of prophylaxis arms. Alternative methods of prophylaxis included low-dose heparin (5000 IU subcutaneously) - two studies, Dextran 40 - one study, graduated compression stockings (GCS) and intermittent pneumatic compression devices (IPCD) - one study. One study compared combined NMES and low-dose heparin versus no prophylaxis or low-dose heparin alone.We found no clear difference in risks of total DVT (odds ratio (OR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 1.70, P = 0.98; 6 studies, 415 participants; low-quality evidence), asymptomatic DVT (OR 1.61, 95% CI 0.40 to 6.43, P = 0.50; 1 study, 89 participants; low-quality evidence), symptomatic DVT (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.02 to 10.07, P = 0.58; 1 study, 89 participants; low-quality evidence), PE (OR 1.31, 95% CI 0.38 to 4.48, P = 0.67; 2 studies, 126 participants;low-quality evidence), and total VTE (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.52, P = 0.88; 1 study, 72 participants; low-quality evidence) between prophylaxis with NMES and alternative methods of prophylaxis. None of the studies in this comparison reported bleeding.Compared with no prophylaxis, NMES showed lower risks of total DVT (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.70, P = 0.02; 4 studies, 576 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and total VTE (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.59, P = 0.002; 1 study, 77 participants; low-quality evidence). Data show no clear differences in risk of asymptomatic DVT (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.62, P = 0.17; 1 study, 200 participants; low-quality evidence), symptomatic DVT (OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.36, P = 0.08; 1 study, 160 participants;low-quality evidence), or PE (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.07, P = 0.07; 1 study, 77 participants; low-quality evidence) between prophylaxis with NMES and no prophylaxis. None of the studies in this comparison reported bleeding.In comparison with low-dose heparin, NMES was associated with higher risk of total DVT (OR 2.78, 95% CI 1.19 to 6.48, P = 0.02; 2 studies, 194 participants; low-quality evidence), but data were inadequate for other comparisons (NMES vs Dextran 40, NMES vs GCS, or NMES vs IPCD) and for other clinical outcomes such as symptomatic or asymptomatic DVT, PE, total VTE, and bleeding in individual comparisons.Overall, we judged the quality of available evidence to be low owing to high or unclear risk of bias and imprecise effect estimates due to small numbers of studies and events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-quality evidence shows no clear difference in the risk of DVT between NMES and alternative methods of prophylaxis but suggest that NMES may be associated with lower risk of DVT compared with no prophylaxis (moderate-quality evidence) and higher risk of DVT compared with low-dose heparin (low-quality evidence). The best available evidence about the effectiveness of NMES in the prevention of VTE is not adequately robust to allow definitive conclusions. Adequately powered high-quality randomised controlled trials are required to provide adequately robust evidence.

Compression Stockings and Pressure Ulcers: Case Series of a Neglected Issue

Pressure ulcers develop in patients who endure long periods of immobilization, often caused by conditions such as musculoskeletal and neurological diseases. Pressure ulcers adversely affect the patient and increase caregiver burden and healthcare costs. Typical sites for these ulcers include the sacrum, trochanters, and heels; they also occur on the nape of the neck, penis, nostrils, helix of the ear, and upper back. Compression stockings are commonly used to prevent and stop the progression of venous disorders, including deep vein thrombosis, but their role in the development of pressure ulcers is not well known. We describe three case reports of pressure ulcer development due to prolonged application of compression stockings. In each case, the nursing staff who were primarily responsible for the prevention of pressure ulcers applied the stockings continuously without any intermittent relief. Moreover, the stockings did not include manufacturer instructions, such as recommended exposure times and applications. We recommend that nursing staff be trained in pressure relief and prevention of pressure ulcers, including rare occurrences, and that manufacturers give detailed guidance regarding the safe use of compression stockings.

Establishing a Multidisciplinary Approach to the Management of Neurologic Disease Affecting the Urinary Tract

Neurologic diseases often affect the urinary tract and may be congential or acquired. The progressive nature of many neurologic diseases necessitates routine surveillance and treatment with a multidisciplinary approach. Urologic treatments may interact with pharmacologic or procedural interventions planned by other specialists, mandating close coordination of care and communication among providers. Primary care and nursing often can serve as the quarterbacks of the multidisciplinary team by identifying when a slowly progressive condition warrants further investigation and management by specialists.

Potential and Limitations of Cochrane Reviews in Pediatric Cardiology: A Systematic Analysis

Evidence-based medicine has contributed substantially to the quality of medical care in pediatric and adult cardiology. However, our impression from the bedside is that a substantial number of Cochrane reviews generate inconclusive data that are of limited clinical benefit. We performed a systematic synopsis of Cochrane reviews published between 2001 and 2015 in the field of pediatric cardiology. Main outcome parameters were the number and percentage of conclusive, partly conclusive, and inconclusive reviews as well as their recommendations and their development over three a priori defined intervals. In total, 69 reviews were analyzed. Most of them examined preterm and term neonates (36.2%), whereas 33.3% included also non-pediatric patients. Leading topics were pharmacological issues (71.0%) followed by interventional (10.1%) and operative procedures (2.9%). The majority of reviews were inconclusive (42.9%), while 36.2% were conclusive and 21.7% partly conclusive. Although the number of published reviews increased during the three a priori defined time intervals, reviews with "no specific recommendations" remained stable while "recommendations in favor of an intervention" clearly increased. Main reasons for missing recommendations were insufficient data (n = 41) as well as an insufficient number of trials (n = 22) or poor study quality (n = 19). There is still need for high-quality research, which will likely yield a greater number of Cochrane reviews with conclusive results.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016

OBJECTIVE

To provide an update to "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012".

DESIGN

A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development.

METHODS

The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable.

RESULTS

The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.

Prevention of venous thromboembolism in gynecologic oncology surgery

Gynecologic oncology patients are at a high-risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism and these events are a source of major morbidity and mortality. Given the availability of prophylaxis regimens, a structured comprehensive plan for prophylaxis is necessary to care for this population. There are many prophylaxis strategies and pharmacologic agents available to the practicing gynecologic oncologist. Current venous thromboembolism prophylaxis strategies include mechanical prophylaxis, preoperative pharmacologic prophylaxis, postoperative pharmacologic prophylaxis and extended duration pharmacologic prophylaxis that the patient continues at home after hospital discharge. In this review, we will summarize the available pharmacologic prophylaxis agents and discuss currently used prophylaxis strategies. When available, evidence from the gynecologic oncology patient population will be highlighted.

Compression stockings for preventing deep vein thrombosis in airline passengers

BACKGROUND

Air travel might increase the risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT). It has been suggested that wearing compression stockings might reduce this risk. This is an update of the review first published in 2006.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of wearing compression stockings versus not wearing them for preventing DVT in people travelling on flights lasting at least four hours.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (10 February 2016). In addition, the CIS searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CENTRAL (2016, Issue 1)).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials of compression stockings versus no stockings in passengers on flights lasting at least four hours. Trials in which passengers wore a stocking on one leg but not the other, or those comparing stockings and another intervention were also eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. We sought additional information from trialists where necessary.

MAIN RESULTS

One new study that fulfilled the inclusion criteria was identified for this update. Eleven randomised trials (n = 2906) were included in this review: nine (n = 2821) compared wearing graduated compression stockings on both legs versus not wearing them; one trial (n = 50) compared wearing graduated compression tights versus not wearing them; and one trial (n = 35) compared wearing a graduated compression stocking on one leg for the outbound flight and on the other leg on the return flight. Eight trials included people judged to be at low or medium risk of developing DVT (n = 1598) and two included high-risk participants (n = 1273). All flights had a duration of more than five hours.Fifty of 2637 participants with follow-up data available in the trials of wearing compression stockings on both legs had a symptomless DVT; three wore stockings, 47 did not (odds ratio (OR) 0.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.25, P < 0.001; high-quality evidence). There were no symptomless DVTs in three trials. Sixteen of 1804 people developed superficial vein thrombosis, four wore stockings, 12 did not (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.13, P = 0.09; moderate-quality evidence). No deaths, pulmonary emboli or symptomatic DVTs were reported. Wearing stockings had a significant impact in reducing oedema (mean difference (MD) -4.72, 95% CI -4.91 to -4.52; based on six trials; low-quality evidence). A further two trials showed reduced oedema in the stockings group but could not be included in the meta-analysis as they used different methods to measure oedema. No significant adverse effects were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-quality evidence that airline passengers similar to those in this review can expect a substantial reduction in the incidence of symptomless DVT and low-quality evidence that leg oedema is reduced if they wear compression stockings. Quality was limited by the way that oedema was measured. There is moderate-quality evidence that superficial vein thrombosis may be reduced if passengers wear compression stockings. We cannot assess the effect of wearing stockings on death, pulmonary embolism or symptomatic DVT because no such events occurred in these trials. Randomised trials to assess these outcomes would need to include a very large number of people.

Development of a Soft Pneumatic Sock for Robot-Assisted Ankle Exercise

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a severe medical condition that affects many patients around the world, where one of the main causes is commonly associated with prolonged immobilization. Current mechanical prophylaxis systems, such as the compression stockings and intermittent pneumatic compression devices, have yet to show strong efficacy in preventing DVT. The current study aimed to develop a soft pneumatic sock prototype that uses soft extension pneumatic actuators to provide assisted ankle dorsiflexion–plantarflexion motion, so as to prevent the occurrence of DVT. The prototype was evaluated for its efficacy to provide the required dorsiflexion–plantarflexion motion by donning and actuating the prototype on simulated ankle–foot models with various ankle joint stiffness values. Our results showed that the soft extension actuators in the sock prototype provided controllable assisted ankle plantarflexion through actuator extension and ankle dorsiflexion through actuator contraction, where in our study, the actuations extended to 129.9–146.8% of its original length. Furthermore, the sock was able to achieve consistent range of motion at the simulated ankle joint across different joint stiffness values (range of motion: 27.5 ± 6.0 deg). This study demonstrated the feasibility of using soft extension pneumatic actuators to provide robot-assisted ankle dorsiflexion–plantarflexion motion, which will act as an adjunct to physiotherapists to optimize therapy time for bedridden patients and therefore may reduce the risk of developing DVT.

Risk assessment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in surgical inpatients: improving adherence to national guidelines

In Europe, venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the third most common cause of vascular death after myocardial infarction and stroke. It is especially common during and after hospitalisation for surgery and acute medical illness though many other risk factors have now been identified. VTE is often preventable with judicious use of preventative measures in the form of thromboprophylaxis and mechanical antiembolism stockings. In 2014, a study was undertaken across all surgical wards at a teaching hospital in London to assess compliance to national guidelines for VTE risk assessment and subsequent institution of protective measures.

The initial results demonstrated that performance could be improved in terms of meeting the national target of assessing 95% of surgical inpatients for risk of VTE at admission, prescribing anti-embolism stockings, ensuring that they are correctly worn, and reassessing patients 24 hours later. Utilising a multidisciplinary team approach, simple interventions were put in place such as e-mail reminders, posters, and senior input during ward rounds. Three subsequent measurements demonstrated that sustained improvement was achieved with the national guideline of 95% VTE risk assessment met. Improved performance was noted across all parameters considered, highlighting that simple intervention with all team members involved can improve patient safety and care.