Compression stockings in addition to low-molecular-weight heparin to prevent venous thromboembolism in surgical inpatients requiring pharmacoprophylaxis: the GAPS non-inferiority RCT

Author:

Shalhoub Joseph1ORCID,Lawton Rebecca1ORCID,Hudson Jemma2ORCID,Baker Christopher3ORCID,Bradbury Andrew4ORCID,Dhillon Karen3ORCID,Everington Tamara5ORCID,Gohel Manjit S16ORCID,Hamady Zaed7ORCID,Hunt Beverly J8ORCID,Stansby Gerard9ORCID,Warwick David10ORCID,Norrie John11ORCID,Davies Alun H1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK

2. Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK

3. Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK

4. College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

5. Department of Haematology, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke, UK

6. Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK

7. Southampton HPB Unit, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK

8. Department of Thrombosis and Haemostasis, Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

9. Northern Vascular Unit, Freeman Hospital, The Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

10. Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK

11. Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

Abstract

Background Patients admitted to hospital for surgery are at an increased risk of venous thromboembolism. Pharmaco-thromboprophylaxis and mechanical prophylaxis (usually graduated compression stockings or intermittent pneumatic compression) have been shown to reduce the incidence of venous thromboembolism. The evidence base supporting the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s recommendation for the use of graduated compression stockings for venous thromboembolism prevention in the UK has recently been challenged. It is unclear if the risks and costs associated with graduated compression stockings are justified for deep-vein thrombosis prevention in moderate- and high-risk elective surgical inpatients receiving low-dose low-molecular-weight heparin pharmaco-thromboprophylaxis. Objectives The primary objective was to compare the venous thromboembolism rate in elective surgical inpatients at moderate or high risk of venous thromboembolism who were receiving either graduated compression stockings and low-dose low-molecular-weight heparin (standard care) or low-dose low-molecular-weight heparin alone (intervention). Design This was a pragmatic, multicentre, prospective, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Setting This took place in secondary care NHS hospitals in the UK. Participants Patients aged ≥ 18 years who were assessed to be at moderate or high risk of venous thromboembolism according to the NHS England venous thromboembolism risk assessment tool (or the trust equivalent based on this form) and who were not contraindicated to low-molecular-weight heparin or graduated compression stockings were deemed eligible to take part. Interventions Participants were randomised 1 : 1 to either low-molecular-weight heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin and graduated compression stockings. Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure was venous thromboembolism up to 90 days after surgery. A combined end point of duplex ultrasound-proven new lower-limb deep-vein thrombosis (symptomatic or asymptomatic) plus imaging-confirmed symptomatic pulmonary embolism. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, compliance with graduated compression stockings and low-molecular-weight heparin during admission, and all-cause mortality. Results A total of 1905 participants were randomised and 1858 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. A primary outcome event occurred in 16 out of 937 (1.7%) patients in the low-molecular-weight heparin-alone arm compared with 13 out of 921 (1.4%) patients in the low-molecular-weight heparin plus graduated compression stockings arm. The risk difference between low-molecular-weight heparin and low-molecular-weight heparin plus graduated compression stockings was 0.30% (95% confidence interval –0.65% to 1.26%). As the 95% confidence interval did not cross the non-inferiority margin of 3.5% (p < 0.001 for non-inferiority), the results indicate that non-inferiority of low-molecular-weight heparin alone was shown. Limitations In total, 13% of patients did not receive a duplex ultrasound scan that could have detected further asymptomatic deep-vein thrombosis. However, missing scans were balanced between both trial arms. The subpopulation of those aged ≥ 65 years assessed as being at a moderate risk of venous thromboembolism was under-represented in the study; however, this reflects that this group is under-represented in the general population. Conclusions For elective surgical patients at moderate or high risk of venous thromboembolism, administration of pharmaco-thromboprophylaxis alone is non-inferior to a combination of pharmaco-thromboprophylaxis and graduated compression stockings. These findings indicate that graduated compression stockings may be unnecessary for most elective surgical patients. Future work Further studies are required to evaluate whether or not adjuvant graduated compression stockings have a role in patients receiving extended thromboprophylaxis, beyond the period of hospital admission, following elective surgery or in patients undergoing emergency surgical procedures. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13911492. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 69. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Funder

Health Technology Assessment programme

Publisher

National Institute for Health Research

Subject

Health Policy

Reference42 articles.

1. All Party Parliamentary Thrombosis Group. Annual Review November 2018. London: All Party Parliamentary Thrombosis Group. URL: http://apptg.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/APPTG-annual-survey-report-2018-compressed.pdf (accessed November 2020).

2. Epidemiology and risk factors for venous thrombosis;Cushman;Semin Hematol,2007

3. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Venous Thromboembolism: Reducing the Risk for Patients in Hospital. Clinical Guideline [CG92]. London: NICE; 2010.

4. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Venous Thromboembolism in Over 16s: Reducing the Risk of Hospital-Acquired Deep Vein Thrombosis or Pulmonary Embolism. London: NICE; 2019. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng89 (accessed 24 October 2019).

5. The House of Commons. The Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Hospitalised Patients London: The Stationery Office; 2005.

Cited by 10 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3