A Cochrane review [Abstract] 1 included 9 studies with a total of 489 subjects. In one study more ulcers healed with IPC than with dressings (62% vs 28%; RR 2.27, 95% CI 1.30 to 3.97; n=80). Two studies (n=86) found no difference between IPC and continuous compression (stockings or bandages).
5 studies compared IPC plus continuous compression against continuous compression alone. Two of these studies found increased ulcer healing with IPC plus compression than with compression alone (n=97). The remaining 3 studies found no evidence of a benefit for IPC plus compression compared with compression alone (n=122). Excluding 2 studies (due to statistical heterogeneity) and pooling (fixed effect) the remaining 3 studies showed a statistically significant difference in the number of patients healed between IPC plus continuous compression and continuous compression alone (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.63; 3 studies, n=127). Meta-analysis of the 2 studies reporting pain scores and comparing IPC plus continuous compression to continuous compression alone showed a small but statistically significant difference in the average pain score, lower pain being associated with IPC (-1.03, 95% CI -1.56 to -0.49; 2 studies, n=105).
One study compared different ways of delivering IPC and found that rapid IPC healed more ulcers than slow IPC (86% vs 61%; log rank p=0.003; n=104).
Comment: The quality of evidence is downgraded by study quality (lack of/unclear allocation concealment and blinding), and by inconsistency (variability in results across studies).
Primary/Secondary Keywords