Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 29, 2025
Optimized Management of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke
Published on: January 18, 2018
Comparative study of venous thromboembolic prophylaxis strategies in hemorrhagic stroke: A systematic review and
Giorgio Maraziti1, Maria Giulia Mosconi1, Maurizio Paciaroni1
1Internal Cardiovascular and Emergency Medicine-Stroke Unit, S. Maria della Misericordia Hospital, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy.
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 a registered protocol (PROSPERO CRD42023489217) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (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 (odds ratios (OR) 0.30, 95% confidence interval (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.
