ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2018
Intermittent pneumatic compression is a cost-effective method of orthopedic postsurgical venous thromboembolism prophylaxis.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vascular impulse technology versus elevation for the reduction of swelling of lower extremity joint fractures: results of a prospective randomized controlled study.The bone & joint journal · 2021Trial
- Socioeconomic Burden of Pulmonary Embolism in Europe: Shifting Priorities and Challenges for Novel Reperfusion Strategies.Thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025Review
- Cost-effectiveness of mechanical thromboprophylaxis for cesarean deliveries in Brazil.PloS one · 2023Article
- Effects of different intensities of intermittent pneumatic soft-tissue compression on bone defect repair.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Article
- A comparative cost-effectiveness analysis of mechanical and pharmacological VTE prophylaxis after lower limb arthroplasty in Australia.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2019Article
- Thromboprophylaxis After Hospitalization for Joint Replacement Surgery.Journal for healthcare quality : official publication of the National Association for Healthcare QualityArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVenous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major complication after lower-limb arthroplasty that increases costs and reduces patient's quality of life. Using anticoagulants for 10-35 days following arthroplasty is the standard prophylaxis, but its cost-effectiveness after accounting for bleeding complications remains unproven.
methodsA comprehensive, clinical model of VTE was created using the incidences, clinical effects (including bleeding), and costs of VTE and prophylaxis from randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and large observational studies. Over 50 years, the total health care costs and clinical impact of three prophylaxis strategies, that are as follows, were compared: low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) alone, intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC), and IPC with LMWH (IPC+LMWH). The cost per VTE event that was avoided and cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained in both the US and Australian health care settings were calculated.
resultsFor every 2,000 patients, the expected number of VTE and major bleeding events with LMWH were 151 and 6 in the USA and 160 and 46 in Australia, resulting in a mean of 11.3 and 9.1 QALYs per patient, respectively. IPC reduced the expected VTE events by 11 and 8 in the USA and Australia, respectively, compared to using LMWH alone. IPC reduced major bleeding events compared to LMWH, preventing 1 event in the US and 7 in Australia. IPC+LMWH only reduced VTE events. Neither intervention substantially impacted QALYs but both increased QALYs versus LMWH. IPC was cost-effective followed by IPC+LMWH.
conclusionIPC and IPC+LMWH are cost-effective versus LMWH after lower-limb arthroplasty in the USA and Australia. The choice between IPC and IPC+LMWH depends on expected bleeding risks.
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.