MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3211576181 · doi:10.1182/blood-2021-151084

Impact of Compliance on Elastic Compression Stockings Efficacy to Prevent Post-Thrombotic Syndrome: A Prespecified Analysis of the Celest Double-Blind Study

2021· article· en· W3211576181 on OpenAlexaff
J.‐P. Galanaud, Genty Celine, Alexa Comte, Carole Rolland, François Verrière, Jean‐Luc Bosson

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePost-thrombotic syndromeDouble blindPlaceboDeep veinThrombosisCompression stockingsVenous thrombosisInternal medicineVenous thromboembolismClinical trialIntention-to-treat analysisSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.007
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management→French-language works237,207→