Outcomes Comparison between Low Molecular-Weight Heparin with Mechanical Prophylaxis versus Mechanical Prophylaxis Alone for Perioperative Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in Abdominopelvic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Chairat Supamutchai, Chumpon Wilasrusmee, Jakrapun Jirasiritum, Nutsiri Kittitirapong*, Parach Sirisriro, Pitichote Hiranyatheb, Piyanut Pooltracool, Pongsasit Singhatas, Preeda Sumritparadit, Samart Phuwapraisirisam, Sopon Jirasirithum, Surasak Leela-Udomlipi, Suthas Horsirimanont, Tharin Thampongsa, Wiwat Tirapanich
Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10400, Thailand; Phone: +66-2-2011316, Mobile: +66-85-5539293; Email: nutsiri.kit@mahidol.ac.th
Background: Pharmaco-mechanical prophylaxis has been recommended for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention in surgical patients. The rate of receiving pharmacological prophylaxis was low due to the bleeding concern. The mechanical prophylaxis; either intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) or graduated compressive stocking (GCS), becomes a preferred method, although its VTE incidence was higher than pharmaco-mechanical prophylaxis. The combination of IPC and GCS had a lower risk of DVT than GCS alone. We examined the efficacy of combining mechanical prophylactic methods; IPC and GCS, in VTE prophylaxis.
Objective: The present study aimed to compare the pharmaco-mechanical method with combining mechanical method in VTE prophylactic effectiveness and adverse events for elective abdominopelvic surgery.
Materials and Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in elective abdominopelvic surgical patients. The control group received low molecular weight heparin, IPC, and GCS, whereas the study group received IPC and GCS.
Results: We enrolled 76 elective abdominopelvic surgical patients, 39 patients in the control group, and 37 patients in the study group. Surgery for cancer was accounted for 64 (84.2%) and Caprini score was 8.4 (±1.95). The incidence of perioperative VTE was 5 (6.58%). All VTE cases were asymptomatic DVT. In the present study group, 1 (2.7%) of proximal DVT and 3 (8.1%) of calf vein DVT occurred. Only 1 (2.6%) of proximal DVT occurred in the control group. The incidence of VTE tended to be higher in the present study group than in the control group; 4 (10.8%) vs. 1 (2.6%); RR 4.22, 95% CI 0.49 to 36.00, p-value=0.194). The adverse event such as symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE), bleeding complication, and readmission rate was not found.
Conclusion: The effectiveness of IPC combined with GCS was not superior to pharmaco-mechanical thromboprophylaxis for VTE prevention in high-risk surgical patients.
วารสารจดหมายเหตุทางการแพทย์ ปี 2564, December ปีที่: 104 ฉบับที่ 12 (Suppl5) หน้า S1-S9
Pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, VTE cancer surgery, DVT prophylaxis, VTE prophylaxis, DVT, PE, mechanical thromboprophylaxis, Intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC), Graduated compression stockings (GCS)