Comparative study of venous thromboembolic prophylaxis strategies in hemorrhagic stroke: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

 With this uncertainty, it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY NOT TO HAVE THIS TYPE OF STROKE! I bet you can be assured your doctor and hospital are not pushing for research to solve this problem.

Do you prefer your  doctor and hospital incompetence NOT KNOWING? OR NOT DOING?

Comparative study of venous thromboembolic prophylaxis strategies in hemorrhagic stroke: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Giorgio Maraziti https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9252-1297, Maria Giulia Mosconi https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0456-9160 mariagiulia98581@yahoo.it, and Maurizio PaciaroniView all authors and affiliations

Accepted Manuscripts

https://doi.org/10.1177/17474930241248542

• 
  

• • Abstract
• Get access
• • Cite article
  • Share options
  • Information, rights and permissions
  • Metrics and citations

Abstract

Background:

Venous thromboembolic events, including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), are frequent complications in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). Various prophylactic strategies have been employed to mitigate this risk, such as heparin, intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC), and graduated compression stockings (GCS). The optimal thromboembolic prophylaxis approach remains uncertain due to the lack of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing all interventions.

Aims:

We conducted a network meta-analysis and meta-analysis to systematically review and synthesize evidence from RCTs and non-randomized studies on the efficacy and safety of thromboembolic prophylaxis strategies in hospitalized ICH patients.

Summary of findings:

Our study followed registered protocol (PROSPERO CRD42023489217) and PRISMA guidelines incorporating the extension for network meta-analyses. Search for eligible studies was performed up to December 2023. We considered the occurrence of DVT, PE, hematoma expansion (HE), and all-cause mortality as outcome measures. A total of 16 studies, including 7 RCTs and 9 non-randomized studies, were included in the analysis. Network meta-analysis revealed that IPC demonstrated the highest efficacy in reducing DVT incidence (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.08-1.16), particularly considering only RCTs (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.16-0.67). GCS showed the highest safety profile for HE (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.14-3.13), but without efficacy. Chemoprophylaxis did not reduce the risk of PE events (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.17-7.19) with a higher occurrence of HE (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.60-2.96), but the differences were not significant.

Conclusion:

Our study supports the use of IPC as the primary thromboembolic prophylaxis measure in ICH patients. Further research, including head-to-head RCTs, is needed to strengthen the evidence base and optimize clinical decision-making for thromboembolic prophylaxis in this vulnerable patient population.

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.