Abstract
Background
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common, costly, and morbid complication following TJA. Consequently, the current standard of care recommends that all TJA candidates receive some form of thromboprophylaxis postoperatively. Chemoprophylaxis, however, is not without its own risks and has been associated with greater risk of perioperative complications such as major bleeding, infection, stroke, and increased wound drainage. Mechanical compression devices serve as an alternative to chemoprophylaxis. Compression devices are thought to function by decreasing venous stasis and activating fibrinolysis. Intermittent pneumatic compression devices (IPCD) function by providing pressure at a constant cycle; whereas continuous enhanced circulation therapy (CECT) devices such as ActiveCare portable system (Medical Compression Systems, Or Akiva, Israel) function in a synchronized manner with the patient's own respiratory cycles. While both of these systems are widely utilized, there is scarce data comparing their effectiveness as thromboprophylatic agents following TJA. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to comparatively evaluate the efficacy of ActiveCare to IPCDs in the prevention of thromboembolic events following TJA.
Methods
A literature search using PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases were used to identify all articles published between January 2000 and August 2016. Key words used to conduct the search were venous foot pump, intermittent pneumatic compression, total hip arthroplasty/replacement, total knee arthroplasty/replacement, deep vein thrombosis, thromboembolic disease and pulmonary emboli. Two independent investigators carried out the literature review using the PRISMA guidelines (Figure 1). Analysis of risk ratio was performed by evaluation of studies which compared IPCD with any control chemoprophylaxis regiment or ActiveCare with any control chemoprophlaxis regiment. Assessment of heterogeneity and analysis of data were operated by Review Manager 5.3.
Results
Our primary search protocol yielded 968 individual studies by both reviewers of which 525 were duplicates. After screening the remaining 443 abstracts for relevancy 357 were excluded, leaving 86 for full text examination. After a thorough evaluation, 60 were further excluded, and a total of 24 studies, published between 2000 and 2014, were included for analysis, representing 9,134 patients. Of these, 13 were randomized controlled trials and 11 were retrospective studies. When compared to control chemoprophylactic groups, the risk ratio (RR) of DVT development was 0.51 (95% CI: 0.39 – 0.67; I2=69%) with NSIPCDs and 0.47 (95% CI: 0.27 – 0.80; I2=0%) with RSCDs. The RR for development of PE in these groups respectively were 0.24 (95% CI: 0.04 – 0.15) versus 0.55 (95% CI: 0.35 – 0.88) (Figure 3).
Conclusion
When compared to chemoprophylaxis alone, compression devices appear to reduce the incidence of VTEs following TJA. The addition of mechanical prophylaxis to any chemoprophylactic regimen increased VTED prevention Following a comparative analysis of IPCDs and ActiveCare our study suggests that ActiveCare may be more effective at preventing VTE events, albeit not statistically significant. Thus, our results demonstrate that while both devices are effective thromboprophylactic modalities, more research is warranted to better elucidate the strengths and limitations of compression devices as thromboprophylatic agents.
For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly.
