Comparison of a nonpneumatic device to four currently available intermittent pneumatic compression devices on common femoral blood flow dynamics

The purpose of the present study was to compare common femoral vein blood flow enhancement during external mechanical compression using the novel, nonpneumatic Recovery Force Health Movement and Compressions (MAC) System (Recovery Force USA, Fishers, Ind), and four currently available intermittent p...

Celý popis

Uloženo v:
Podrobná bibliografie
Vydáno v:Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders (New York, NY) Ročník 9; číslo 5; s. 1241 - 1247
Hlavní autoři: Labropoulos, Nicos, Giuliano, Karen K., Tafur, Alfonso J., Caprini, Joseph A.
Médium: Journal Article
Jazyk:angličtina
Vydáno: United States Elsevier Inc 01.09.2021
Témata:
Blood flow
Blood Flow Velocity
Common femoral vein
Duplex ultrasound
Female
Femoral Vein - diagnostic imaging
Humans
Intermittent Pneumatic Compression Devices
Male
Middle Aged
Nonpneumatic compression
Pneumatic compression
Surgery
Ultrasonography, Doppler, Duplex
Venous Thrombosis - prevention & control
Wearable Electronic Devices
Duplex ultrasound
Pneumatic compression
Common femoral vein
Nonpneumatic compression
Blood flow
ISSN:2213-333X, 2213-3348, 2213-3348
On-line přístup:Získat plný text
Tagy: Přidat tag
Žádné tagy, Buďte první, kdo vytvoří štítek k tomuto záznamu!
Popis
Shrnutí:The purpose of the present study was to compare common femoral vein blood flow enhancement during external mechanical compression using the novel, nonpneumatic Recovery Force Health Movement and Compressions (MAC) System (Recovery Force USA, Fishers, Ind), and four currently available intermittent pneumatic compression devices. The MAC device was compared with the Kendall SCD 700 (Cardinal Health, Dublin, Ohio), Arjo Huntleigh Flowtron ACS900 (Arjo, Malmö, Sweden), ActiveCare+S.F.T. (Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, Ind), and Circul8 (Ortho8, Rocklin, Calif). Doppler ultrasound measurements for each device were directly obtained from the right common femoral vein by a registered vascular technologist. The peak flow velocity and the time taken to reach the peak were calculated. For the MAC system only, the subjects were asked to walk a minimum of 500 steps while wearing the system, which was then checked for slippage. Leg size measurements were obtained using the noncontact Sigvaris Legreader XT5 (Vialis Ortopedia, Turin, Italy). The MAC device is not yet commercially available, and the present study was a prequel to clinical studies of venous thromboembolism prevention. We recruited a broad range of 20 subjects who varied in age (mean ± standard deviation [SD], 50.5 ± 16.2 years), body mass index (mean ± SD, 26 ± 5.5 kg/m2), gender (male, 25%; female, 75%), and right calf circumference (mean ± SD, 37.2 ± 5.5 cm). The peak flow velocity compared with the baseline measurements was significantly greater for the Recovery Force Health MAC System for three (Kendall SCD 700, P = .02; ActiveCare+S.F.T., P = .003; Circul8, P < .001) of the four comparisons. Although the difference was not significant, the Arjo Huntleigh Flowtron ACS900 (SD, 3.4 cm/s) had more measurement variability in the peak flow velocity compared with baseline than did the MAC System (SD, 1.9 cm/s). The MAC had a significantly (P < .001) faster rise time to peak flow compared with the comparison devices. It was the only device to achieve the target peak flow velocity over baseline of at least three times in every body mass index group. Finally, the MAC System met the goal of <2.5 cm of movement after ambulation in 100% of the measurements, with 75% of the measurements showing no movement. The MAC System is a mobile device that remained in place during ambulation and provided more consistent external mechanical compression in the desired range compared with the other three devices included in the present study.
Bibliografie:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ISSN:2213-333X
2213-3348
2213-3348
DOI:10.1016/j.jvsv.2021.01.008