ArticleEuropean journal of radiology2015
Feasibility of intermittent pneumatic compression for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis during magnetic resonance imaging-guided interventions.
Article in European journal of radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeVenous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitalized and surgical patients. To reduce risk, perioperative VTE prophylaxis is recommended for cancer patients undergoing surgical or interventional procedures. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly used in interventional oncology when alternative imaging modalities do not adequately delineate malignancies. Extended periods of immobilization during MRI-guided interventions necessitate an MR compatible sequential compression device (SCD) for intra-procedural mechanical VTE prophylaxis. Such devices are not commercially available. MATERIALS AND
methodsA standard SCD routinely used at our institution for VTE prophylaxis during interventional procedures was used. To satisfy MR safety requirements, the SCD controller was placed in the MR control room and connected to the compression sleeves in the magnet room through the wave guide using tubing extensions. The controller pressure sensor was used to monitor adequate pressure delivery and detect ineffective low or abnormal high pressure delivery. VTE prophylaxis was provided using the above mentioned device for 38 patients undergoing MR-guided ablations.
resultsThere was no evidence of device failure due to loss of pressure in the extension tubing assembly. No interference with the anesthesia or interventional procedures was documented.
conclusionAlthough the controller of a standard SCD is labeled as "MR-unsafe", the SCD can be used in interventional MR settings by placing the device outside the MR scanner room. Using serial tubing extensions did not cause device failure. The described method can be used to provide perioperative mechanical VTE prophylaxis for high risk patients undergoing MR-guided procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.