The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

A novel approach to mechanical prophylaxis: calf impulse technology mimics natural ambulation nmore effectively than sequential calf compression

A novel approach to mechanical prophylaxis: calf impulse technology mimics natural ambulation nmore effectively than sequential calf compression
A novel approach to mechanical prophylaxis: calf impulse technology mimics natural ambulation nmore effectively than sequential calf compression
BACKGROUND: The risk of thrombosis can be reduced by mechanical compression, but the optimal device is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To record the effect of natural ambulation on deep venous flow, providing a reference for evaluating the efficacy of mechanical compression systems, assuming that ambulation is the gold standard against which such systems should be compared; and to compare the hemodynamic effect of the A-V Impulse System CalfPad garment (A-VI) (Orthofix Vascular Novamedix, United Kingdom) with the SCD Express calf compression garment (SCD) (Covidien, USA). METHODS: Twelve healthy volunteers were recruited and randomly assigned to either A-VI or SCD in a two-device, two-period crossover design. Peak femoral velocity (PFV) was calculated using custom ultrasound software and compared with baseline values. Ultrasound images were recorded. RESULTS: A-VI augmented the mean (± SD) PFV to 59.79±29.07 cm/s compared with 22.86±5.73 cm/s for SCD. The actual percentage increase from baseline was approximately five times greater for A-VI (mean increase 385%±260%) than SCD (mean increase 81%±53%). Using an analysis of covariance model, with baseline fitted as a covariate, a highly statistically significant difference in favour of A-VI was detected (P=0.0002). Least square (adjusted) means (±95% CIs) were 37.24 cm/s (21.39 cm/s to 64.84 cm/s) for A-VI and 6.71 cm/s (3.86 cm/s to 11.69 cm/s) for SCD, representing more than fivefold greater improvement in PFV from rest with the A-VI device than with the SCD device. CONCLUSION: Pulsatile impulse calf compression (A-VI) more closely mimics PFV of normal ambulation than slow-squeeze sequential compression (SCD). Pulsatile calf compression may provide superior protection against thrombosis in immobile patients.
1061-1711
197-201
Warwick, DJ
fce62656-f6e7-4f8e-b92c-ea83cb506c66
Dewbury, K
09c46458-e54e-411d-b257-93dbc0351ac8
Warwick, DJ
fce62656-f6e7-4f8e-b92c-ea83cb506c66
Dewbury, K
09c46458-e54e-411d-b257-93dbc0351ac8

Warwick, DJ and Dewbury, K (2008) A novel approach to mechanical prophylaxis: calf impulse technology mimics natural ambulation nmore effectively than sequential calf compression. International Journal of Angiology, 17 (4), 197-201.

Record type: Article

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The risk of thrombosis can be reduced by mechanical compression, but the optimal device is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To record the effect of natural ambulation on deep venous flow, providing a reference for evaluating the efficacy of mechanical compression systems, assuming that ambulation is the gold standard against which such systems should be compared; and to compare the hemodynamic effect of the A-V Impulse System CalfPad garment (A-VI) (Orthofix Vascular Novamedix, United Kingdom) with the SCD Express calf compression garment (SCD) (Covidien, USA). METHODS: Twelve healthy volunteers were recruited and randomly assigned to either A-VI or SCD in a two-device, two-period crossover design. Peak femoral velocity (PFV) was calculated using custom ultrasound software and compared with baseline values. Ultrasound images were recorded. RESULTS: A-VI augmented the mean (± SD) PFV to 59.79±29.07 cm/s compared with 22.86±5.73 cm/s for SCD. The actual percentage increase from baseline was approximately five times greater for A-VI (mean increase 385%±260%) than SCD (mean increase 81%±53%). Using an analysis of covariance model, with baseline fitted as a covariate, a highly statistically significant difference in favour of A-VI was detected (P=0.0002). Least square (adjusted) means (±95% CIs) were 37.24 cm/s (21.39 cm/s to 64.84 cm/s) for A-VI and 6.71 cm/s (3.86 cm/s to 11.69 cm/s) for SCD, representing more than fivefold greater improvement in PFV from rest with the A-VI device than with the SCD device. CONCLUSION: Pulsatile impulse calf compression (A-VI) more closely mimics PFV of normal ambulation than slow-squeeze sequential compression (SCD). Pulsatile calf compression may provide superior protection against thrombosis in immobile patients.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Published date: 2008

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 72740
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/72740
ISSN: 1061-1711
PURE UUID: 10404820-bb26-4934-8559-9629e0ffca75

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 23 Feb 2010
Last modified: 08 Jan 2022 05:24

Export record

Contributors

Author: DJ Warwick
Author: K Dewbury

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×