Table 5.
Secondary outcomes of studies comparing the efficacy of mechanical prophylaxis
| Study | Intervention | Rate of adverse events | Rate of non-compliance | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IPC vs. GCS | ||||
| Silbersack et al. 2004 [20] |
IPC + LMWH (n = 68) |
- | 27% | The majority of IPC was not used correctly at the start of the study (cuffs not applied correctly, system not turned on) |
|
GCS + LMWH (n = 63) |
- | - | ||
| Chin et al. 2009 [21] |
IPC (n = 110) |
0 | - | |
|
GCS (n = 110) |
0 | - | ||
|
No treatment (n = 110) |
0 | - | ||
| Combination of IPC + GCS vs. GCS alone | ||||
| Turpie et al. 1989 [28] |
GCS alone (n = 80) |
- | 3% | 2 patients did not wear according to the protocol |
|
GCS + IPC (n = 80) |
- | 13% | 10 patients did not tolerate IPC, and 8 of these continued to wear GCS according to the protocol | |
|
No treatment (n = 81) |
- | - | ||
| Goldhaber et al. 1995 [27] |
GCS + IPC (n = 172) |
- | 36%* | Non-compliance is defined as > 3 h interruption to the protocol |
|
GCS alone (n = 172) |
- | 3%* | ||
| Gao et al. 2012 [23] |
IPC + GCS (n = 52) |
0 | - | |
|
GCS (n = 56) |
0 | - | ||
| Sang et al. 2018 [26] |
GCS (n = 159) |
0 | - | Adverse events related to mechanical devices only, bleeding complications not included |
|
GCS + LMWH (n = 157) |
0 | - | ||
|
GCS + IPC (n = 153) |
0 | - | ||
|
GCS + IPC + LMWH (n = 156) |
0 | - | ||
| Lobastov et al. 2021 [24] |
IPC + GCS + LMWH (n = 204) |
12.3% | - | Adverse events defined as “leg skin injury” |
|
GCS + LMWH (n = 203) |
7.4% | - | ||
*Statistically significant difference (p < 0.05)