Efficacy of intermittent compression devices for thromboembolic prophylaxis in major abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background The benefits of mechanical prophylaxis for the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in abdominal and pelvic surgery are uncertain, with different guidelines stating that graduated compression stockings (GCS) and intermittent pneumatic compression devices (IPCDs) can be used either alone or in combination. To review the efficacy of IPCDs in preventing VTE following abdominal and pelvic surgery. Methods A systematic review was conducted, identifying relevant literature reporting clinical trials conducted in abdominopelvic surgery, comparing the effect of IPCDs alone or in combination with no prophylaxis, GCS and chemical prophylaxis. The review identified studies reported from 1966 to 2022 in Medline, Embase, PubMed and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials. Results Thirteen RCTs involving 1914 participants were identified. IPCDs were superior to placebo (OR VTE 0.39; 95% CI 0.20-0.76) but not superior to other forms of prophylaxis (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.30-2.27) or to GCS alone (OR 0.9; 95% CI 0.24-3.36). The addition of IPCDs to GCS compared with GCS alone was beneficial (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.23-0.91) as was the addition of IPCDs to standard perioperative chemoprophylaxis (OR 0.25; 95% CI 0.09-0.74). The overall quality and reliability of trials were low, with high risk of bias. Conclusions IPCDs are more effective than placebo in reducing VTE rates but are not more effective than other forms of thrombo-prophylaxis (chemical or mechanical) following abdominal and pelvic surgery. There is poor quality evidence to suggest that they might have a role as additional prophylaxis when combined with GCS and chemical prophylaxis.