Towards evidence-based guidelines for the prevention of venous thromboembolism: systematic reviews of mechanical methods, oral anticoagulation, dextran and regional anaesthesia as thromboprophylaxis

Roderick P, Ferris G, Wilson K, Halls H, Jackson D, Collins R, Baigent C
Record ID 32006000031
Authors' objectives:

The aim of this report was to assess the benefits in terms of reductions in the risks of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and of pulmonary embolism (PE), and hazards in terms of major bleeding, of: (i) mechanical compression; (ii) oral anticoagulants; (iii) dextran; and (iv) regional anaesthesia (as an alternative to general anaesthesia) in surgical and medical patients.

Authors' results and conclusions: Mechanical compression methods reduced the risk of DVT by about two-thirds when used as monotherapy and by about half when added to a pharmacological method. These benefits were similar irrespective of the particular method used (graduated compression stockings, intermittent pneumatic compression or footpumps) and were similar in each of the surgical groups studied. Mechanical methods reduced the risk of PVT by about half and the risk of PE by two-fifths. Oral anticoagulants, when used as monotherapy, reduced the risk of DVT and of PVT by about half, and this protective effect appeared similar in each of the surgical groups studied. There was an apparently large four-fifths reduction in the role of PE, but not only was the magnitude of this reduction statistically uncertain, but also pulmonary embolism was reported by a minority of trials, so it may be subject to selection bias. Oral anticoagulant regimens approximately doubled the risk of major bleeding and appeared less effective at preventing DVT than heparin regimens, although were associated with less major bleeding. Dextran reduced the risk of DVT and of PVT by about half, again irrespective of the type of surgery, but too few studies had reported PE to provide reliable estimates of effect on this outcome. Dextran appeared to be less effective at preventing DVT than the heparin regimens studied. Dextran was associated with an increased risk of bleeding, but too few bleeds had occurred for the size of this excess risk to be estimated reliably. Compared with general anaesthesia, regional anaesthesia reduced the risk of DVT by about half, and this benefit appeared similar in each of the surgical settings studied. Regional anaesthesia was associated with less major bleeding than general anaesthesia.
Authors' recomendations: In the absence of a clear contraindication (such as severe peripheral arterial disease), patients undergoing a surgical procedure would be expected to derive net benefit from a mechanical compression method of thromboprophylaxis (such as graduated compression stockings), irrespective of their absolute risk of venous thromboembolism. Patients who are considered to be at particularly high risk of venous thromboembolism may also benefit from a pharmacological thromboprophylactic agent, but since oral anticoagulant and dextran regimens appear less effective at preventing DVT than standard low-dose unfractionated heparin or low molecular weight heparin regimens, they may be less suitable for patients at high risk of venous thromboembolism, even though they are associated with less bleeding. Whenever feasible, the use of regional anaesthesia as an alternative to general anaesthesia may also provide additional protection against venous thromboembolism. There is little information on the prevention of venous thromboembolism among high-risk medical patients (such as those with stroke), so further randomised trials in this area would be helpful.
Authors' methods: Systematic review
Project Status: Completed
URL for project:
Year Published: 2005
English language abstract: An English language summary is available
Publication Type: Not Assigned
Country: England
MeSH Terms
  • Anesthesia, Conduction
  • Anticoagulants
  • Dextrans
  • Stress, Mechanical
  • Pulmonary Embolism
  • Venous Thrombosis
Organisation Name: NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme
Contact Address: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK
Contact Name:
Contact Email:
Copyright: 2009 Queen's Printer and Controller of HMSO
This is a bibliographic record of a published health technology assessment from a member of INAHTA or other HTA producer. No evaluation of the quality of this assessment has been made for the HTA database.