Methods: The Medline and Embase databases were systematically searched, adhering to PRISMA guidelines, for articles relating to electrical stimulation and thromboprophylaxis. Articles were screened according to a priori inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Results: The search strategy identified 10 randomised controlled trials, which were used in three separate meta-analyses: five trials compared neuromuscular electrical stimulation to control, favouring neuromuscular electrical stimulation (odds ratio of deep vein thrombosis 0.29, 95% confidence interval 0.13–0.65; P = .003); three trials compared neuromuscular electrical stimulation to heparin, favouring heparin (odds ratio of deep vein thrombosis 2.00, 95% confidence interval 1.13–3.52; P = .02); three trials compared neuromuscular electrical stimulation as an adjunct to heparin versus heparin only, demonstrating no significant difference (odds ratio of deep vein thrombosis 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.10–1.14; P = .08).
Neuromuscular electrical stimulation significantly reduces the risk of deep vein thrombosis compared to no prophylaxis. It is inferior to heparin in preventing deep vein thrombosis and there is no evidence for its use as an adjunct to heparin.
Reference:
Article first published online: June 13, 2017 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0268355517710130
