Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLimpus, Anthonyen_US
dc.contributor.authorChaboyer, Wendyen_US
dc.contributor.authorMcDonald, Ellenen_US
dc.contributor.authorThalib, Lukmanen_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-03T13:08:20Z
dc.date.available2017-05-03T13:08:20Z
dc.date.issued2006en_US
dc.identifier.issn10623264en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/14171
dc.description.abstractObjective To systematically review the randomized trials, observational studies, and survey evidence on compression and pneumatic devices for thromboprophylaxis in intensive care patients. Methods Published studies on the use of compression and pneumatic devices in intensive care patients were assessed. A meta-analysis was conducted by using the randomized controlled trials. Results A total of 21 relevant studies (5 randomized controlled trials, 13 observational studies, and 3 surveys) were found. A total of 811 patients were randomized in the 5 randomized controlled trials; 3421 patients participated in the observational studies. Trauma patients only were enrolled in 4 randomized controlled trials and 4 observational studies. Meta-analysis of 2 randomized controlled trials with similar populations and outcomes revealed that use of compression and pneumatic devices did not reduce the incidence of venous thromboembolism. The pooled risk ratio was 2.37, indicative of favoring the control over the intervention in reducing the deep venous thrombosis; however, the 95% CI of 0.57 to 9.90 indicated no significant differences between the intervention and the control. A range of methodological issues, including bias and confounding variables, make meaningful interpretation of the observational studies difficult. Conclusions The limited evidence suggests that use of compressive and pneumatic devices yields results not significantly different from results obtained with no treatment or use of low-molecular-weight heparin. Until large randomized controlled trials are conducted, the role of mechanical approaches to thromboprophylaxis for intensive care patients remains uncertain.en_US
dc.description.peerreviewedYesen_US
dc.description.publicationstatusYesen_US
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherAmerican Association of Critical Care Nursesen_US
dc.publisher.placeUnited Statesen_US
dc.publisher.urihttp://ajcc.aacnjournals.org/content/15/4/402.abstracten_US
dc.relation.ispartofstudentpublicationNen_US
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom402en_US
dc.relation.ispartofpageto410en_US
dc.relation.ispartofissue4en_US
dc.relation.ispartofjournalAmerican Journal of Critical Careen_US
dc.relation.ispartofvolume15en_US
dc.rights.retentionYen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode321103en_US
dc.titleMechanical Thromboprophylaxis in Critically Ill Patients: a systematic review and meta-analysisen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Peer Reviewed (HERDC)en_US
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articlesen_US
gro.rights.copyrightSelf-archiving of the author-manuscript version is not yet supported by this journal. Please refer to the journal link for access to the definitive, published version or contact the author[s] for more information.en_US
gro.date.issued2015-02-04T04:26:45Z
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record