Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for the prevention of venous thromboembolism

Shahab Hajibandeh; Shahin Hajibandeh; George A Antoniou; James RH Scurr; Francesco Torella

doi:10.1002/14651858.CD011764.pub2

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Contenido relacionado

Ir a:

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados
Guías
Temas

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados

Topics

Temas

Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 2

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 3

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 4

Forest plot of comparison: 1 NMES versus alternative prophylaxis, outcome: 1.1 Total DVT.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 5

Forest plot of comparison: 2 NMES versus no prophylaxis, outcome: 2.1 Total DVT.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 NMES versus alternative prophylaxis, Outcome 1 Total DVT.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 NMES versus alternative prophylaxis, Outcome 2 Asymptomatic DVT.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 NMES versus alternative prophylaxis, Outcome 3 Symptomatic DVT.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 NMES versus alternative prophylaxis, Outcome 4 PE.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 NMES versus alternative prophylaxis, Outcome 5 Total VTE.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 NMES versus no prophylaxis, Outcome 1 Total DVT.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 NMES versus no prophylaxis, Outcome 2 Asymptomatic DVT.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 NMES versus no prophylaxis, Outcome 3 Symptomatic DVT.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 NMES versus no prophylaxis, Outcome 4 PE.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 NMES versus no prophylaxis, Outcome 5 Total VTE.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 NMES versus low‐dose heparin, Outcome 1 Total DVT.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 NMES versus low‐dose heparin, Outcome 2 Asymptomatic DVT.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 NMES versus low‐dose heparin, Outcome 3 Symptomatic DVT.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 NMES versus Dextran 40, Outcome 1 Total DVT.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 NMES versus Dextran 40, Outcome 2 PE.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4 NMES versus Dextran 40, Outcome 3 Total VTE.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 Combined NMES and low‐dose heparin versus no prophylaxis, Outcome 1 Total DVT.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6 Combined NMES and low‐dose heparin versus low‐dose heparin, Outcome 1 Total DVT.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 7.1

Comparison 7 NMES versus GCS, Outcome 1 Total DVT.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 7.2

Comparison 7 NMES versus GCS, Outcome 2 PE.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 8.1

Comparison 8 NMES versus IPCD, Outcome 1 Total DVT.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 8.2

Comparison 8 NMES versus IPCD, Outcome 2 PE.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Summary of findings for the main comparison. NMES compared to alternative prophylaxis for the prevention of venous thromboembolism

NMES compared to alternative prophylaxis for the prevention of venous thromboembolism
Patient or population: participants at risk of venous thromboembolism Setting: hospital, secondary care Intervention: NMES Comparison: alternative prophylaxis
Outcomes	*Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI)**		Relative effect (95% CI)	No. of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Risk with alternative prophylaxis	Risk with NMES
Total DVT Follow‐up: mean 11 days	Study population		OR 1.01 (0.60 to 1.70)	415 (6 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW^a,b
	170 per 1000	172 per 1000 (110 to 259)
Asymptomatic DVT Follow‐up: 8 days	Study population		OR 1.61 (0.40 to 6.43)	89 (1 RCT)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW^a,c
	82 per 1000	125 per 1000 (34 to 364)
Symptomatic DVT Follow‐up: 8 days	Study population		OR 0.40 (0.02 to 10.07)	89 (1 RCT)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW^a,c
	20 per 1000	8 per 1000 (0 to 173)
PE Follow‐up: mean 4 days	Study population		OR 1.31 (0.38 to 4.48)	126 (2 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW^a,c
	70 per 1000	90 per 1000 (28 to 253)
Total VTE Follow‐up: 6 days	Study population		OR 0.92 (0.34 to 2.52)	72 (1 RCT)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW^a,c
	314 per 1000	297 per 1000 (135 to 536)
Bleeding (major and minor)	see comment	see comment	not estimable	415 (6 RCTs)	‐	None of the studies in this comparison reported this outcome.
Assumed control intervention risks were calculated by the mean number of events in control groups of selected studies for each outcome. The risk in the intervention group* (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; DVT: deep vein thrombosis; NMES: neuromuscular electrical stimulation; OR: odds ratio; PE: pulmonary embolism; RCT: randomised controlled trial; VTE: venous thromboembolism.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence. High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.
^aHigh or unclear risk of selection bias, performance bias, and detection bias ‐ downgraded by one level. ^bModerate level of between‐study heterogeneity ‐ downgraded by one level. ^cFew participants and few events and thus wide confidence intervals ‐ downgraded by one level.

Summary of findings for the main comparison. NMES compared to alternative prophylaxis for the prevention of venous thromboembolism

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Summary of findings 2. NMES compared to no prophylaxis for prevention of venous thromboembolism

NMES compared to no prophylaxis for prevention of venous thromboembolism
Patient or population: participants at risk of venous thromboembolism Setting: hospital, secondary care Intervention: NMES Comparison: no prophylaxis
Outcomes	*Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI)**		Relative effect (95% CI)	No. of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Risk with no prophylaxis	Risk with NMES
Total DVT Follow‐up: mean 7 days	Study population		OR 0.40 (0.23 to 0.70)	576 (4 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ MODERATE^a
	219 per 1000	101 per 1000 (61 to 164)
Asymptomatic DVT Follow‐up: 7 days	Study population		OR 0.32 (0.06 to 1.62)	200 (1 RCT)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW^a,b
	60 per 1000	20 per 1000 (4 to 94)
Symptomatic DVT Follow‐up: 7 days	Study population		OR 0.06 (0.00 to 1.36)	160 (1 RCT)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW^a,b
	50 per 1000	3 per 1000 (0 to 67)
PE Follow‐up: 6 days	Study population		OR 0.36 (0.12 to 1.07)	77 (1 RCT)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW^a,b
	350 per 1000	162 per 1000 (61 to 366)
Total VTE Follow‐up: 6 days	Study population		OR 0.23 (0.09 to 0.59)	77 (1 RCT)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW^a,b
	650 per 1000	299 per 1000 (143 to 523)
Bleeding (major and minor)	see comment	see comment	not estimable	576 (4 RCTs)	‐	None of the studies in this comparison reported this outcome.
Assumed control intervention risks were calculated by the mean number of events in control groups of selected studies for each outcome. The risk in the intervention group* (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; DVT: deep vein thrombosis; NMES: neuromuscular electrical stimulation; OR: odds ratio; PE: pulmonary embolism; RCT: randomised controlled trial; VTE: venous thromboembolism.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence. High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.
^aHigh or unclear risk of selection bias, performance bias, and detection bias ‐ downgraded by one level. ^bFew participants and few events and thus wide confidence intervals ‐ downgraded by one level.

Summary of findings 2. NMES compared to no prophylaxis for prevention of venous thromboembolism

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Summary of findings 3. NMES compared to low‐dose heparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism

NMES compared to low‐dose heparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism
Patient or population: participants at risk of venous thromboembolism Setting: hospital, secondary care Intervention: NMES Comparison: low‐dose heparin
Outcomes	*Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI)**		Relative effect (95% CI)	No. of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Risk with low‐dose heparin	Risk with NMES
Total DVT Follow‐up: mean 7 days	Study population		OR 2.78 (1.19 to 6.48)	194 (2 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW^a,b
	87 per 1000	208 per 1000 (101 to 380)
Asymptomatic DVT Follow‐up: 8 days	Study population		OR 1.61 (0.40 to 6.43)	89 (1 RCT)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW^b,c
	82 per 1000	125 per 1000 (34 to 364)
Symptomatic DVT Follow‐up: 8 days	Study population		OR 0.40 (0.02 to 10.07)	89 (1 RCT)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW^b,c
	20 per 1000	8 per 1000 (0 to 173)
PE	see comment	see comment	not estimable	194 (2 RCTs)	‐	None of the studies in this comparison reported this outcome.
Total VTE	see comment	see comment	not estimable	194 (2 RCTs)	‐	None of the studies in this comparison reported this outcome.
Bleeding (major and minor)	see comment	see comment	not estimable	194 (2 RCTs)	‐	None of the studies in this comparison reported this outcome.
Assumed control intervention risks were calculated by the mean number of events in control groups of selected studies for each outcome. The risk in the intervention group* (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; DVT: deep vein thrombosis; NMES: neuromuscular electrical stimulation; OR: odds ratio; PE: pulmonary embolism; RCT: randomised controlled trial; VTE: venous thromboembolism.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence. High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.
^aHigh or unclear risk of selection bias, performance bias, and detection bias ‐ downgraded by one level. ^bFew participants and few events and thus wide confidence intervals ‐ downgraded by one level. ^cHigh or unclear risk of selection bias and detection bias ‐ downgraded by one level.

Summary of findings 3. NMES compared to low‐dose heparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Summary of findings 4. NMES compared to Dextran 40 for the prevention of venous thromboembolism

NMES compared to Dextran 40 for the prevention of venous thromboembolism
Patient or population: participants at risk of venous thromboembolism Setting: hospital, secondary care Intervention: NMES Comparison: Dextran 40
Outcomes	*Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI)**		Relative effect (95% CI)	No. of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Risk with Dextran 40	Risk with NMES
Total DVT Follow‐up: 6 days	Study population		OR 0.63 (0.18 to 2.19)	72 (1 RCT)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW^a,b
	200 per 1000	136 per 1000 (43 to 354)
Asymptomatic DVT	see comment	see comment	not estimable	72 (1 RCT)	‐	The single study in this comparison did not report this outcome.
Symptomatic DVT	see comment	see comment	not estimable	72 (1 RCT)	‐	The single study in this comparison did not report this outcome.
PE Follow‐up: 6 days	Study population		OR 1.50 (0.39 to 5.84)	72 (1 RCT)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW^a,b
	114 per 1000	162 per 1000 (48 to 430)
Total VTE Follow‐up: 6 days	Study population		OR 0.92 (0.34 to 2.52)	72 (1 RCT)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW^a,b
	314 per 1000	297 per 1000 (135 to 536)
Bleeding (major and minor)	see comment	see comment	not estimable	72 (1 RCT)	‐	The single study in this comparison did not report this outcome.
Assumed control intervention risks were calculated by the mean number of events in control groups of selected studies for each outcome. The risk in the intervention group* (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; DVT: deep vein thrombosis; NMES: neuromuscular electrical stimulation; OR: odds ratio; PE: pulmonary embolism; RCT: randomised controlled trial; VTE: venous thromboembolism.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence. High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect,
^aHigh or unclear risk of selection bias, performance bias, and detection bias ‐ downgraded by one level. ^bSingle study, few participants, and few events and thus wide confidence intervals ‐ downgraded by one level.

Summary of findings 4. NMES compared to Dextran 40 for the prevention of venous thromboembolism

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Summary of findings 5. Combined NMES and low‐dose heparin compared to no prophylaxis for the prevention of venous thromboembolism

Combined NMES and low‐dose heparin compared to no prophylaxis for the prevention of venous thromboembolism
Patient or population: participants at risk of venous thromboembolism Setting: hospital, secondary care Intervention: combined NMES and low‐dose heparin Comparison: no prophylaxis
Outcomes	*Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI)**		Relative effect (95% CI)	No. of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Risk with no prophylaxis	Risk with combined NMES and low‐dose heparin
Total DVT Follow‐up: 28 days	Study population		OR 0.08 (0.01 to 0.76)	32 (1 RCT)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW^a,b
	471 per 1000	66 per 1000 (9 to 403)
Asymptomatic DVT	see comment	see comment	not estimable	32 (1 RCT)	‐	The single study in this comparison did not report this outcome.
Symptomatic DVT	see comment	see comment	not estimable	32 (1 RCT)	‐	The single study in this comparison did not report this outcome.
PE	see comment	see comment	not estimable	32 (1 RCT)	‐	The single study in this comparison did not report this outcome.
Total VTE	see comment	see comment	not estimable	32 (1 RCT)	‐	The single study in this comparison did not report this outcome.
Bleeding (major and minor)	see comment	see comment	not estimable	32 (1 RCT)	‐	The single study in this comparison did not report this outcome.
Assumed control intervention risks were calculated by the mean number of events in control groups of selected studies for each outcome. The risk in the intervention group* (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; DVT: deep vein thrombosis; NMES: neuromuscular electrical stimulation; OR: odds ratio; PE: pulmonary embolism; RCT: randomised controlled trial; VTE: venous thromboembolism.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence. High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.
^aHigh or unclear risk of selection bias and detection bias ‐ downgraded by one level. ^bSingle study, few participants, and few events and thus wide confidence intervals ‐ downgraded by one level.

Summary of findings 5. Combined NMES and low‐dose heparin compared to no prophylaxis for the prevention of venous thromboembolism

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Summary of findings 6. Combined NMES and low‐dose heparin compared to low‐dose heparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism

Combined NMES and low‐dose heparin compared to low‐dose heparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism
Patient or population: participants at risk of venous thromboembolism Setting: hospital, secondary care Intervention: combined NMES and low‐dose heparin Comparison: low‐dose heparin
Outcomes	*Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI)**		Relative effect (95% CI)	No. of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Risk with low‐dose heparin	Risk with combined NMES and low‐dose heparin
Total DVT Follow‐up: 28 days	Study population		OR 0.07 (0.01 to 0.68)	31 (1 RCT)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW^a,b
	500 per 1000	65 per 1000 (10 to 405)
Asymptomatic DVT	see comment	see comment	not estimable	31 (1 RCT)	‐	The single study in this comparison did not report this outcome.
Symptomatic DVT	see comment	see comment	not estimable	31 (1 RCT)	‐	The single study in this comparison did not report this outcome.
PE	see comment	see comment	not estimable	31 (1 RCT)	‐	The single study in this comparison did not report this outcome.
Total VTE	see comment	see comment	not estimable	31 (1 RCT)	‐	The single study in this comparison did not report this outcome.
Bleeding (major and minor)	see comment	see comment	not estimable	31 (1 RCT)	‐	The single study in this comparison did not report this outcome.
Assumed control intervention risks were calculated by the mean number of events in control groups of selected studies for each outcome. The risk in the intervention group* (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; DVT: deep vein thrombosis; NMES: neuromuscular electrical stimulation; OR: odds ratio; PE: pulmonary embolism; RCT: randomised controlled trial; VTE: venous thromboembolism.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence. High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.
^aHigh or unclear risk of selection bias and detection bias ‐ downgraded by one level. ^bSingle study, few participants, and few events and thus wide confidence intervals ‐ downgraded by one level.

Summary of findings 6. Combined NMES and low‐dose heparin compared to low‐dose heparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Summary of findings 7. NMES compared to GCS for the prevention of venous thromboembolism

NMES compared to GCS for the prevention of venous thromboembolism
Patient or population: participants at risk of venous thromboembolism Setting: hospital, secondary care Intervention: NMES Comparison: GCS
Outcomes	*Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI)**		Relative effect (95% CI)	No. of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Risk with GCS	Risk with NMES
Total DVT Follow‐up: 1 day	Study population		OR 0.32 (0.01 to 8.27)	36 (1 RCT)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW^a,b
	56 per 1000	18 per 1000 (1 to 327)
Asymptomatic DVT	see comment	see comment	not estimable	36 (1 RCT)	‐	None of the studies in this comparison reported this outcome.
Symptomatic DVT	see comment	see comment	not estimable	36 (1 RCT)	‐	None of the studies in this comparison reported this outcome.
PE Follow‐up: 1 day	Study population		OR 0.32 (0.01 to 8.27)	36 (1 RCT)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW^a,b
	56 per 1000	18 per 1000 (1 to 327)
Total VTE	see comment	see comment	not estimable	36 (1 RCT)	‐	None of the studies in this comparison reported this outcome.
Bleeding (major and minor)	see comment	see comment	not estimable	36 (1 RCT)	‐	None of the studies in this comparison reported this outcome.
Assumed control intervention risks were calculated by the mean number of events in control groups of selected studies for each outcome. The risk in the intervention group* (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; DVT: deep vein thrombosis; GCS: graduated compression stockings; NMES: neuromuscular electrical stimulation; OR: odds ratio; PE: pulmonary embolism; RCT: randomised controlled trial; VTE: venous thromboembolism.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence. High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.
^aHigh or unclear risk of selection bias, performance bias, and detection bias ‐ downgraded by one level. ^bSingle study, few participants, and few events and thus wide confidence intervals ‐ downgraded by one level.

Summary of findings 7. NMES compared to GCS for the prevention of venous thromboembolism

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Summary of findings 8. NMES compared to IPCD for the prevention of venous thromboembolism

NMES compared to IPCD for the prevention of venous thromboembolism
Patient or population: participants at risk of venous thromboembolism Setting: hospital, secondary care Intervention: NMES Comparison: IPCD
Outcomes	*Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI)**		Relative effect (95% CI)	No. of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Risk with IPCD	Risk with NMES
Total DVT Follow‐up: 1 day	Study population		not estimable	36 (1 RCT)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW^a,b	No DVT events were recorded.
	see comment	see comment
Asymptomatic DVT	see comment	see comment	not estimable	36 (1 RCT)	‐	None of the studies in this comparison reported this outcome.
Symptomatic DVT	see comment	see comment	not estimable	36 (1 RCT)	‐	None of the studies in this comparison reported this outcome.
PE Follow‐up: 1 day	Study population		not estimable	36 (1 RCT)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW^a,b	No PE events were recorded.
	see comment	see comment
Total VTE	see comment	see comment	not estimable	36 (1 RCT)	‐	None of the studies in this comparison reported this outcome.
Bleeding (major and minor)	see comment	see comment	not estimable	36 (1 RCT)	‐	None of the studies in this comparison reported this outcome.
Assumed control intervention risks were calculated by the mean number of events in control groups of selected studies for each outcome. The risk in the intervention group* (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; DVT: deep vein thrombosis; IPCD: intermittent pneumatic compression devices; NMES: neuromuscular electrical stimulation; OR: odds ratio; PE: pulmonary embolism; RCT: randomised controlled trial; VTE: venous thromboembolism.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence. High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.
^aHigh or unclear risk of selection bias, performance bias, and detection bias ‐ downgraded by one level. ^bSingle study, few participants, and few events ‐ downgraded by one level.

Summary of findings 8. NMES compared to IPCD for the prevention of venous thromboembolism

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 1. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation delivery in the included studies

Study	Device	Frequency (Hz)	Pulse width	Charge (mA)	Voltage (V)	Duration
Hou 2013	G6805‐II	30‐100	NR	NR	6‐15	7 days (20 minutes twice/d)
Goyal 2012	VEINOPLUS	NR	NR	NR	15–25	Only during surgery
Velmahos 2005	Lymphavision	1.75	3 ms	NR	0‐120	7‐14 days (30 minutes twice/d)
Kiudelis 2002	Mioritm 021	NR	NR	50‐100	NR	Only during surgery
Merli 1988	NR	10	50 μs	NR	NR	28 days (23 hours/d)
Bostrom 1986	NR	8	50 ms	40‐50	NR	7 days
Lindstrom 1982	NR	8	50 ms	40‐50	NR	Only during surgery
Rosenberg 1975	Thrombophylactor	NR	50 ms	NR	Adjustable	Only during surgery
NR: rot reported.

Table 1. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation delivery in the included studies

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 1. NMES versus alternative prophylaxis

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Total DVT Show forest plot	6	415	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.01 [0.60, 1.70]

2 Asymptomatic DVT Show forest plot	1		Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

3 Symptomatic DVT Show forest plot	1		Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

4 PE Show forest plot	2	126	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.31 [0.38, 4.48]

5 Total VTE Show forest plot	1		Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

Comparison 1. NMES versus alternative prophylaxis

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 2. NMES versus no prophylaxis

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Total DVT Show forest plot	4	576	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.40 [0.23, 0.70]

2 Asymptomatic DVT Show forest plot	1		Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

3 Symptomatic DVT Show forest plot	1		Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

4 PE Show forest plot	1		Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

5 Total VTE Show forest plot	1		Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

Comparison 2. NMES versus no prophylaxis

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 3. NMES versus low‐dose heparin

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Total DVT Show forest plot	2	194	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.78 [1.19, 6.48]

2 Asymptomatic DVT Show forest plot	1		Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

3 Symptomatic DVT Show forest plot	1		Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

Comparison 3. NMES versus low‐dose heparin

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 4. NMES versus Dextran 40

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Total DVT Show forest plot	1		Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

2 PE Show forest plot	1		Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

3 Total VTE Show forest plot	1		Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

Comparison 4. NMES versus Dextran 40

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 5. Combined NMES and low‐dose heparin versus no prophylaxis

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Total DVT Show forest plot	1		Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

Comparison 5. Combined NMES and low‐dose heparin versus no prophylaxis

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 6. Combined NMES and low‐dose heparin versus low‐dose heparin

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Total DVT Show forest plot	1		Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

Comparison 6. Combined NMES and low‐dose heparin versus low‐dose heparin

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 7. NMES versus GCS

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Total DVT Show forest plot	1		Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

2 PE Show forest plot	1		Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

Comparison 7. NMES versus GCS

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 8. NMES versus IPCD

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Total DVT Show forest plot	1		Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

2 PE Show forest plot	1		Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

Comparison 8. NMES versus IPCD

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

The Cochrane Library

Scolaris Language Selector Scolaris Language Selector

Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane

Idioma de la web

Scolaris Content Language Banner Portlet Scolaris Content Language Banner Portlet