Impact of Compliance on Elastic Compression Stockings Efficacy to Prevent Post-Thrombotic Syndrome: A Prespecified Analysis of the Celest Double-Blind Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction: Elastic compression stockings (ECS) are commonly used for the prevention of post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) after deep venous thrombosis (DVT). However, their efficacy is controversial. While two open-label studies reported a 50% risk reduction of PTS in the ECS vs. no-ECS groups, a large double-blind study didn't find any benefit of ECS vs. placebo-ECS to prevent PTS. These opposite results could be explained either by a placebo effect in the open-label studies or to a lack of compliance to study ECS in the double-blind study. Additional data on the impact of compliance on ECS efficacy, obtained in a double-blind way, are therefore needed. Methods: We analyzed data from the French, CELEST, multicentre double-blind trial comparing 25mmHg ECS vs. 35mmHg ECS to prevent PTS at 2 years after a first symptomatic ipsilateral proximal DVT (NCT01578122). All CELEST patients who had complete data for primary outcome (i.e. PTS, defined as a Villalta score ≥5 on the DVT affected leg at the one- or 2-year follow up visit) were included. The objectives of this predefined analysis were to: i) compare the incidences of PTS at 2 years according to compliance to ECS (irrespective of allocated treatment group) during the first 3 months of treatment and during the 2-year follow-up; ii) assess independent predictors of PTS using a stepwise multivariable model including all of the following variables (baseline patients' and DVT characteristics, anticoagulant treatment and compliance to ECS) if they achieved a p value of 0.2 or less in univariate analysis as well as ECS strength allocation group; iii) build an induction tree algorithm to measure the impact in terms of incidence of PTS of each of the independent predictor of PTS. Compliance to ECS was defined as reasonable and optimal if the patient had worn the study ECS more than 50% and more than 80% of the time respectively and had a modified GIRERD score of 0-2. Results: 249 patients were eligible for this analysis. Mean baseline age was 57 years, 70% (n=174) were men, 20% (n=50) were obese, 21% (n=52) had previous VTE event, 7% (n=18) had a baseline Villalta score ≥5 and the most proximal extent of DVT was the iliac vein in 15% (n=37) of cases. In 80% (n=179) of cases patients were treated with anticoagulation for more than 6 months after DVT and a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) was used in 69% (n=164) of cases. 32 % (n=80) of patients developed PTS at 2 years. When patients wore study ECS>80% of the time (i.e optimal compliance), incidence of PTS over 2 years was 26.1% (n=31). Incidence of PTS was 25.0% (n=10) and 40.5% (n=34) in those patients who wore ECS 50-80% and <50% of the time, p=0.06. When comparing patients who never wore study ECS (compliance<50% during the whole study follow-up) to those who were reasonably compliant during the whole study follow-up, incidence of PTS was respectively 46.4% (n=13) vs. 25.3% (n=38), p=0.02. Results of the univariate and multivariate analyses are presented in Table 1 and induction tree algorithm is provided in Figure 1. Conclusions: In our double bling study assessing 25mmHg vs. 35mmHg ECS to prevent PTS, compliance to ECS was a significant independent predictor of PTS in our multivariable model. Impact of ECS use became apparent when patient used ECS at least 50% of the time without any strong benefit beyond. Wearing study ECS>50% of the time was associated with 2-fold decreased risk of developing PTS, which is consistent with the results from previous 'positive' open-label studies. It suggests that use of ECS influences the risk of developing PTS. Our induction tree algorithm evidences that being compliant with ECS seems particularly beneficial in - non-obese - patients with extensive DVT. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Verriere: Laboratoires Innothera: Current Employment.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,024 | 0,026 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,007 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».