Non-elastic Compression Garment Therapy Versus Control for Deep Vein Thrombosis

The pain-relief and edema reduction associated with compressive therapy in patients with acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT) have been poorly documented in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Compressive therapy is controversial in that it is currently unclear whether or not it might reduce the risk of postthrombotic syndrome (PTS), a chronic disorder identified in 25-50% of patients with a previous diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis. With the recent SOX trial deeming elastic compression stockings to be ineffective in preventing postthrombotic syndrome and with criticisms focused on the difficulty concerning patients' compliance with these devices, alternative methods such as non-elastic compression garments have been considered. Unfortunately, to our knowledge, no trials have investigated these devices applied with a greater pressure than compression stockings in the context of preventing pain and swelling in the acute DVT phase and of late complications (postthrombotic syndrome).

The experimental literature evaluating non-elastic compression garments is primarily focused on venous insufficiency rather than deep vein thrombosis. For example, previous randomized trial patients allocated to non-elastic compression garments presented faster healing rates/week for venous leg ulcers than a group receiving four-layered compression garments. Although this evidence is related to venous insufficiency, there are currently no RCTs exploring the effect of non-elastic compression in preventing postthrombotic syndrome.

Given this gap in the literature, study aimed at conducting a Bayesian randomized trial to assess a non-elastic compression garment (Circaid) versus a control group in patients with acute DVT.