Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Review
Systematic Review
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Peri-procedural thromboprophylaxis in the prevention of DVT in varicose vein interventions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to determine the role of thromboprophylaxis in the prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing varicose vein interventions.

METHODS: PUBMED, EMBASE and Web of Science were searched for comparative studies of patients undergoing varicose vein interventions and received either thromboprophylaxis or no thromboprophylaxis. Data were collected on the number of thrombotic events including deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE) and endothermal heat-induced thrombosis (EHIT) as well as bleeding events. The primary outcomes for the meta-analysis were the risk of all thrombotic events, risk of DVT and risk of bleeding. Pooled risk ratios were calculated using random effects modelling.

RESULTS: Eight studies (6479 participants) were included. The use of thromboprophylaxis reduces the risk of all thrombotic events (Pooled risk ratio = 0.63, 95% Confidence interval [CI], 0.04-10.43) and the risk of DVT (Pooled risk ratio = 0.59, 95% CI, 0.08-4.60) with no increased risk of bleeding (Pooled risk ratio = 0.66, 95% CI, 0.06-7.21]. Rivaroxaban has similar efficacy in the prevention of DVT compared to Fondaparinux in patients undergoing endovenous ablation of varicose veins (Pooled risk ratio = 0.68, 95% CI, 0.06-7.41). An extended course of thromboprophylaxis reduces the risk of developing DVT compared to a short course (Pooled risk ratio = 1.40, 95% CI, 0.44-4.46). However, the two studies reporting on the duration of thromboprophylaxis did not stratify patients according to their risk of developing venous thromboembolism.

CONCLUSION: The use of thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing varicose vein interventions reduces the risk of venous thromboembolism with no significant increase in the risk of bleeding. However, the included studies were underpowered with high to moderate risk of bias. Therefore, more randomised controlled trials with a large sample size are needed in order to provide high quality evidence for clinical practice.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app