Compliance with mechanical venous thromboproembolism prophylaxis after cesarean delivery

Abstract

Objective: Universal perioperative mechanical thromboprophylaxis is recommended for patients undergoing cesarean delivery because of increased risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) associated with this mode of delivery. While research supports clinical benefits from this approach, other specialties have demonstrated suboptimal compliance with prophylaxis device use. The objective of this study was to review patient compliance with sequential compression devices (SCDs).

Methods: This cross-sectional observational study utilized data from a prospective quality assurance analysis to evaluate demographic, medical and obstetrical factors associated with postoperative SCD compliance after cesarean delivery. Observations were performed before 7 a.m. on the first postoperative day, a time point when patients were unlikely to be fully ambulatory and would most benefit from device use. The reason for failure was documented in cases where the device was not being properly used.

Results: Two hundred and ninety-three patients underwent cesarean delivery, had SCD compliance assessed and were included in the analysis. Twenty one percent of patients (n=60) were non-compliant with SCD use. Reasons for noncompliance included patient discomfort, machine malfunction and incorrect device use. Patients who were non-compliant had similar risk factors for thromboembolism compared to women who were compliant.

Conclusion: Although SCD’s are effective in preventing thromboembolism, device use was suboptimal in this cohort of post-cesarean patients. These findings are similar to those from other fields. For institutions that rely primarily on mechanical thromboprophylaxis for obstetric patients, quality assurance and auditing of use may be necessary to ensure patients are receiving adequate prophylaxis. For post-cesarean patients with additional VTE risk factors, pharmacologic prophylaxis may be beneficial.

• Care quality
• obstetric thromboembolism
• risk assessment

Declaration of interest

The authors report no conflict of interest.