The authors of this study are a group of presumably instensivists physicians who are practicing in France. Their aim for this parallel, multihospital, randomized study was to evaluate if mechanical prophylaxis is efficient in patients who are at high risk for bleeding and are admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). The results of this study (n=407) showed that there is no evidence that the incidence of developing deep venous thrombosis (DVT) decreases if a patient has intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) and graduated compression stockings (GCS) versus a patient who has only GCS as a method of prophylaxis (10/179 in the IPC plus GCS developed DVT versus 17/184 in the GCS group) The strength of the study is that the authors reported that the power of the study was 54% probably related to the low number of DVT occurrences, according to the authors. The authors reported that one of the limitations was the fact that the participants had compression ultrasonography performed on the sixth day of the therapy. That information should be used wisely in the future studies, however, one needs to keep in mind that more days with only mechanical prophylaxis can pose higher risk for developing DVTs in patients with blood disorders. This study would fall into Level I as it is randomized trial. Using the ANA appraisal tool, this study is consistent despite the fact that was considered as statistically underpowered by authors.
…show more content…
As many other similar studies, this study also emphasizes the fact that mechanical prophylaxis is beneficial and should be utilized more often, however, DVT prophylaxis should be individualized according to the patient’s overall health
As many other similar studies, this study also emphasizes the fact that mechanical prophylaxis is beneficial and should be utilized more often, however, DVT prophylaxis should be individualized according to the patient’s overall health