Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2024 Jan 1;279(1):29-36.
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000006096. Epub 2023 Sep 27.

An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Impact of Graduated Compression Stockings in Addition to Pharmacological Thromboprophylaxis for Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Surgical Inpatients

Benedict R H Turner  1 , Matthew Machin, Marwah Salih, Sara Jasionowska, Rebecca Lawton, Francesca Siracusa, Adam M Gwozdz, Joseph Shalhoub, Alun H Davies
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Impact of Graduated Compression Stockings in Addition to Pharmacological Thromboprophylaxis for Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Surgical Inpatients

Benedict R H Turner et al. Ann Surg. .

Abstract

Objective: To compare the rate of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in surgical inpatients with pharmacological thromboprophylaxis and additional graduated compression stockings (GCSs) versus pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alone.

Background: Surgical inpatients have elevated VTE risk; recent studies cast doubt on whether GCS confers additional protection against VTE, compared with pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alone.

Methods: The review followed "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses" guidelines using a registered protocol (CRD42017062655). The MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched up to November 2022. Randomized trials reporting VTE rate after surgical procedures, utilizing pharmacological thromboprophylaxis, with or without GCS, were included. The rates of deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism, and VTE-related mortality were pooled through fixed and random effects.

Results: In a head-to-head meta-analysis, the risk of DVT for GCS and pharmacological thromboprophylaxis was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.54-1.36) versus for pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alone (2 studies, 70 events, 2653 participants). The risk of DVT in pooled trial arms for GCS and pharmacological thromboprophylaxis was 0.54 (95% CI: 0.23-1.25) versus pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alone (33 trial arms, 1228 events, 14,108 participants). The risk of pulmonary embolism for GCS and pharmacological prophylaxis versus pharmacological prophylaxis alone was 0.71 (95% CI: 0.0-30.0) (27 trial arms, 32 events, 11,472 participants). There were no between-group differences in VTE-related mortality (27 trial arms, 3 events, 12,982 participants).

Conclusions: Evidence from head-to-head meta-analysis and pooled trial arms demonstrates no additional benefit for GCS in preventing VTE and VTE-related mortality. GCS confer a risk of skin complications and an economic burden; current evidence does not support their use for surgical inpatients.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

A.H.D. is supported by an NIHR Senior Investigator award. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest.

Figures

FIGURE. 1
FIGURE. 1
PRISMA flow diagram of studies included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. PRISMA indicates preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
FIGURE. 2
FIGURE. 2
Forest plot of the risk of DVT with GCS in conjunction with pharmacological prophylaxis versus pharmacological prophylaxis alone.
FIGURE. 3
FIGURE. 3
A, The pooled rate of DVT in studies using GCS in conjunction with pharmacological prophylaxis. B, The pooled rate of DVT in studies using pharmacological prophylaxis alone.
FIGURE. 4
FIGURE. 4
A, the pooled rate of PE in studies using GCS in conjunction with pharmacological prophylaxis. B, The pooled rate of PE in studies using pharmacological prophylaxis alone.
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5
The pooled rate of VTE-related mortality in studies using pharmacological prophylaxis alone.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Heit JA. Epidemiology of venous thromboembolism. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2015;12:464–474. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cohen AT, Agnelli G, Anderson FA, et al. . Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in Europe. The number of VTE events and associated morbidity and mortality. Thromb Haemost. 2007;98:756–764. - PubMed
    1. Assareh H, Chen J, Ou L, et al. . Incidences and variations of hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism in Australian hospitals: a population-based study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16:511. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Agnelli G. Prevention of venous thromboembolism in surgical patients. Circulation. 2004;110(suppl 1):IV4–IV12. - PubMed
    1. Cohen AT, Tapson VF, Bergmann JF, et al. . Venous thromboembolism risk and prophylaxis in the acute hospital care setting (ENDORSE study): a multinational cross-sectional study. Lancet. 2008;371:387–394. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms