Monmouth University, West Long Branch, NJ 07764, USA.
Thromb Res. 2011 Sep;128(3):207-9. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2011.04.005. Epub 2011 Apr 30.
The purpose of this article is to discuss issues related to the use and performance of mechanical compression devices in preventing deep vein thrombosis (DVT), such as graduated compression stockings (GCSs) and pneumatic compression devices (PCDs). While various studies have shown mechanical compression to be effective against DVT, the adequacy of the performance of these devices has not been conclusively determined. One reason for this inconclusiveness is small sample bias in which the results of many studies are open to a considerable chance of error. Another problem is that the studies may not be appropriate designed to measure device effectiveness and be free of bias. In addition, new methods of DVT prophylaxis are forcing a reexamination of what it means for a device to be "effective." Finally, the prevention of DVT is not likely to occur if the patient declines to comply with a prescribed treatment. Compliance is particularly bad with GCSs and some compliance comparisons on PCDs have suffered from failing to control for potentially confounding factors. As such, more and better studies need to be performed on these devices.
本文旨在讨论机械压迫装置在预防深静脉血栓形成（DVT）方面的使用和性能问题，例如梯度压力弹力袜（GCS）和气动压迫装置（PCD）。尽管多项研究表明机械压迫对 DVT 有效，但这些装置的性能是否充分尚未得到明确确定。造成这种不确定性的一个原因是样本量小的偏差，许多研究的结果存在相当大的出错可能性。另一个问题是，这些研究可能没有经过适当设计来衡量设备的有效性并避免偏差。此外，DVT 预防的新方法正在促使重新审视设备“有效”的含义。最后，如果患者拒绝遵守规定的治疗，DVT 不太可能得到预防。患者对 GCS 的依从性尤其差，并且一些关于 PCD 的依从性比较因未能控制潜在的混杂因素而受到影响。因此，需要对这些装置进行更多和更好的研究。
