Table 4.
Key study characteristics and DVT and PE outcomes of studies comparing the efficacy of combination mechanical prophylaxis
| Study | Study type | Patient population | Intervention | DVT incidence | PE incidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Turpie et al. 1989 [28] | Randomised controlled trial | Potential neurosurgical patients |
GCS alone (n = 80) |
7/80 (8.8%)* | - |
|
GCS + IPC (n = 80) |
7/78 (9.0%)+ | - | |||
|
No treatment (n = 81) |
16/81 (19.8%)*+ | - | |||
| Goldhaber et al. 1995 [27] | Randomised trial | Coronary artery bypass surgery |
GCS + IPC (n = 172) |
31/172 (19%) | - |
|
GCS alone (n = 172) |
36/172 (22%) | - | |||
| Gao et al. 2012 [23] | Randomised trial | Gynaecological pelvic surgery, high-risk patients |
IPC + GCS (n = 52) |
5/104 (4.8%)a* | 1/104 (1%) |
|
GCS (n = 56) |
14/112 (12.5%)a* | 1/112 (1%) | |||
| Chibbaro 2018b [22] | Retrospective cohort | Neurosurgical patients |
IPC + GCS + LMWH (n = 3818) |
32/3818 (0.8%) | 7/3818 (0.81%) |
|
GCS + LMWH (n = 3169) |
73/3169 (2.3%) | 28/3169 (0.9%) | |||
| Prell et al. 2018 [25] | Randomised trial | Craniotomy |
GCS + IPC + LMWH (n = 41) |
3/41 (7.3%)* | - |
|
GCS + LMWH (n = 53) |
14/53 (26.4%)* | - | |||
| Sang et al. 2018 [26] | Randomised trial? | Gynaecological pelvic surgery |
GCS (n = 159) |
14/159 (8.8%)* | 7/159 (4.4%)*+ |
|
GCS + LMWH (n = 157) |
6/157 (3.8%) | 1/157 (0.64%)* | |||
|
GCS + IP (n = 153) |
8/153 (5.2%) | 3/153 (2.0%) | |||
|
GCS + IPC + LMWH (n = 156) |
4/156 (2.6%)* | 1/156 (0.65%)+ | |||
| Lobastov et al. 2021 [24] | Randomised controlled trial | Major surgery, extremely high-risk patients |
IPC + GCS + LMWH (n = 204) |
1/204 (0.5%)* | 0/204 (0%) |
|
GCS + LMWH (n = 203) |
34/203 (16.7%)* | 5/203 (2.5%) |
*,+Statistically significant difference (p < 0.05)
aIncidence of DVT in legs
bNo statistical analysis performed