Are temporary inferior vena cava filters really temporary?

Abstract

Background Despite significant risk for venous thromboembolism, severely injured trauma patients often are not candidates for prophylaxis or treatment with anticoagulation. Long-term inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are associated with increased risk of postphlebitic syndrome. Retrievable IVC filters potentially offer a better solution, but only if the filter is removed; our hypothesis is that the most of them are not. Methods This retrospective study queried a level I trauma registry for IVC filter insertion from September 1997 through June 2004. Results One IVC filter was placed before the availability of retrievable filters in 2001. Since 2001, 27 filters have been placed, indicating a change in practice patterns. Filters were placed for prophylaxis (n = 11) or for therapy in patients with pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis (n = 17). Of 23 temporary filters, only 8 (35%) were removed. Conclusions Surgeons must critically evaluate indications for IVC filter insertion, develop standard criteria for placement, and implement protocols to ensure timely removal of temporary IVC filters.