Filter Placement In Patients Research Articles

Recurrent Pulmonary Embolism Despite Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement in Patients With the Antiphospholipid Syndrome

In patients at risk for pulmonary emboli, consideration is often given to placement of an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter to prevent propagation of a distal thrombus. However, long-term benefits remain controversial, and deep venous thrombosis and IVC thrombosis may result from the procedure itself. Whether a filter if beneficial or even detrimental in patients with the antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is unclear. We reviewed clinical outcomes in 2 patients who had IVC filter placement years before the diagnosis of the APS and 1 who had a contraindication to anticoagulation. Recurrent pulmonary emboli were seen despite the presence of the filter. IVC pathology sometimes revealed thrombus both proximal and distal to the IVC filter. Pulmonary emboli in the APS may be secondary to deep venous thrombosis (DVT). They may also occur secondary to a cardiac source or in situ thrombosis in the pulmonary vessels. An IVC filter will not be of benefit if the heart or the lungs are the primary source for the emboli. It may also not protect against propagation of a more distal thrombus if collateral vessels develop around the filter or a thrombus is present on the proximal side of the filter. Recurrence of pulmonary emboli after a filter placement should alert the clinician to the possibility of a hypercoagulable state such as APS. Clinicians need to assess risks and benefits carefully before placing a permanent IVC filter in patients with APS. Whether a temporary or retrievable filter is safer in APS and more effective is unknown at the present time.

Fatal pulmonary embolism after bariatric operations for morbid obesity: a 24-year retrospective analysis.

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a leading cause of death following gastric bypass operations for morbid obesity. Although its incidence appears to be stable, the number of bariatric operations performed annually is increasing considerably; hence, the isolated fatal PE is no longer a rare occurrence. The records of patients undergoing bariatric surgical operations since 1979 were reviewed to determine specific factors that increased the risk of developing a fatal PE. Both recommended and optional indications for prophylactic inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement in patients considered at high risk were also examined. Between September, 1979 and March, 2003, 5,554 operations were performed for clinically severe obesity. These operations included jejuno-ileal bypass, horizontal gastroplasty, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass with a 30-cc pouch, modified biliopancreatic diversion, the Sapala-Wood Micropouch gastric bypass (Micropouch(SM)), Lap-Band, and revisions. 12 fatal pulmonary emboli (0.21 %) were identified. All but 1 embolus occurred within 30 days following surgery. In 11 of 12 patients, at least 1 co-morbidity known to increase the risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) was identified. 4 co-morbidites were common to 4 patients (33%): venous stasis disease (VSD), BMI >/= 60, truncal obesity, and obesity hypoventilation syndrome/sleep apnea syndrome (OHS/SAS). 6 of 12 patients (50%) had a BMI >/= 60. Another 6 had chronic leg swelling with stasis dermatitis. 2 patients experienced a previous PE, and 1 patient reported a history of deep vein thrombosis (DVT). 4 patients (33%) demonstrated a combination of risk factors (VSD, BMI >/= 60, truncal obesity, OHS/SAS) recognized as significant for the development of postoperative VTE. In such patients, prophylactic IVC filter placement is highly recommended. Filter placement for other factors, such as age, body build, hypercoagulable state, etc., should be considered on an individual basis.

Vena caval filter use in patients with sepsis: results in 175 patients.

Septic patients are at risk of thromboembolism. However, the Food and Drug Administration guidance for intravascular filters states that "filters should not be implanted in patients with risk of septic embolism." The purpose of this study is to evaluate this restriction. There is no difference in outcomes following filter placement in patients with and without septicemia. A registry of vena caval filter experiences containing information regarding filter placement and annual examinations of more than 2600 patients obtained during a 15-year period was reviewed. We conducted a MEDLINE search of publications reporting clinical sequelae of filter placement in septic patients. The registry was searched for patients with a diagnosis of sepsis at filter placement; survival rates, adverse events, and recurrent sepsis or thromboembolism were noted. The MEDLINE search joined results from 7 MeSH headings (vena cava filter,sepsis, septic thromboembolism, vena caval filter contraindication, and filter adverse events) related to filters and sepsis. One-hundred seventy-five patients (6.7%) met the criteria and received Greenfield filters. None of the adverse events were related to sepsis, and no filter was removed. Follow-up data were available for 56 patients, with a combined recurrent pulmonary embolism and caval occlusion rate of 1.7%. The 30-day mortality rate was 33%. We noted a significant difference in survival related to the use of anticoagulation therapy (P =.001) and to age (P =.004). The MEDLINE search did not identify any clinical reports of septic filters or the need to remove a filter because of sepsis. Based on our review, the Greenfield filter is a safe method of prophylaxis for septic patients. Rescinding the restriction for use of vena caval filters in septic patients should be considered by regulatory bodies.

Older people included in a venous thrombo-embolism clinical trial: a patients' viewpoint

despite the numerous publications debating ethical rules of clinical research, older patients' opinions are rarely taken into account. We report on the feelings and memories related by older patients included in a randomised controlled trial. a closed-questionnaire was submitted to patients, aged >65 years, who had been included in the randomised trial "PREPIC". PREPIC was a multicentre open trial performed in France, that included 400 patients over 42 months. The aim of PREPIC was to evaluate the benefits and risks of prophylactic filter placement in patients with proximal deep-vein thrombosis who were considered to be at risk for pulmonary embolism. 104 patients (mean age: 74 years) were interviewed. At the time the trial was proposed to them, 45% of patients felt surprised or shocked and 30% feared incurring additional risks. While 85% of patients did not remember the trial methods (including the randomisation), most older patients (77%) not only judged that they received clear medical information but also well remembered (95%) the aim of the study and the treatment they received (67%). Finally, most older patients not only did not regret their participation (91%), but would also recommend their close relations to participate in a clinical trial (62%). this study demonstrates that medical scientific information can be understood and remembered by older people.

Inferior vena cava filters in malignant disease

Patients undergoing treatment for cancer have a high risk and prevalence of venous thrombosis and frequent contraindications to anticoagulation therapy that lead to placement of caval filters. We questioned whether the increasing frequency of this intervention has clinical benefit. Between 1993 and 2000, 116 patients undergoing active treatment for malignant disease underwent filter placement at our institution. Outcome was retrospectively assessed with regard to procedural complications, recurrent thrombotic events, and patient survival. Primary tumors were gastrointestinal (n = 25), lung (n = 24), breast (n = 14), gynecologic (n = 14), prostate (n = 12), hematologic (n = 8), urologic (n = 4) or other (n = 15). Indications for filter were contraindication to anticoagulation therapy for deep venous thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE; bleeding, n = 33; surgery, n = 29), recurrent or propagating DVT or recurrent PE during anticoagulation therapy (n = 17), right heart failure (n = 15), intracerebral malignancy (n = 7), and other indications (n = 18). Procedural complications were five localized hematomas, none necessitating surgery. Two patients had progressive DVT and three had clinical recurrent PE after filter placement. Life-table analysis revealed survival rates of 68.8% at 30 days, 49.4% at 3 months, and 26.8% at 1 year (standard error, <5%). Of 91 patients with stage IV disease, 42 patients had died of cancer within 6 weeks and only 13.7% were alive at 1 year. Although recurrent thromboembolic events are rare after caval filter placement in patients with malignant disease, survival is short in most patients with stage IV disease and prevention of PE may be of little clinical benefit and a poor utilization of resources. Oncologists should consider these sobering results when requesting filter placement in patients with advanced malignant disease.

Prophylactic vena caval filters in trauma: The rest of the story

Objective: The purpose of this study was to describe outcomes for patients with trauma who had vena caval filters placed in the absence of venous thromboembolic disease (group P) and compare them with outcomes for patients with trauma who had filters placed after either deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (group T). Design: The study is a case series of consecutive patients who received vena caval filters after traumatic injury. Data were collected prospectively at the time of filter placement from reports of diagnostic studies obtained for clinical indications and during the annual follow-up examinations. Event rate findings are based on objective tests. Data were obtained from the Michigan Vena Cava Filter Registry. Results: Filters were placed in 385 patients with trauma; 249 of these filters were prophylactic (group P). Event rates were similar in the two groups. New pulmonary embolism was diagnosed in 1.5% of the patients in group P and 2% of the patients in group T. Caval occlusion rates were 3.5% for group P and 2.3% for group T. In all, 15.6% of the patients in group P had deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism after placement. The frequencies of lower extremity swelling and use of support hose were higher in group T than in group P (43% vs 25% and 25% vs 3.5%, respectively; P <.005). Outcomes were comparable in the two groups with respect to mechanical stability of the filter. Conclusions: The prophylactic indication for vena caval filter placement in patients with trauma is associated with a low incidence of adverse outcomes while providing protection from fatal pulmonary embolism. The current challenge is to limit the number of unnecessary placements through improved methods of risk stratification. (J Vasc Surg 2000;32:490-7.)

Intravascular Ultrasound as an Alternative to Positive-contrast Vena Cavography prior to Filter Placement

In a nonconsecutive series of patients, intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) was investigated for safety and efficacy as an alternative to positive-contrast vena cavography for evaluating the inferior vena cava (IVC) prior to filter placement. In a 6.5-year period, 30 patients (15 women, 15 men) ranging in age from 22 to 98 years old (mean, 56 years) underwent vena cava filter placement without conventional positive-contrast vena cavography, after IVUS evaluation of the IVC with use of a 6.2-F, 12.5- or 20-MHz monorail catheter system. The rationale for using IVUS included contraindications to iodinated contrast material in 14 patients with renal insufficiency and in four patients with previous life-threatening anaphylactoid reaction to iodinated contrast material; limitations to radiation exposure in four pregnant patients; and inability to otherwise image the IVC of eight morbidly obese patients who exceeded the weight limits of available angiographic equipment. IVUS completely replaced positive-contrast vena cavography, although not fluoroscopy in the four pregnant patients and in the 18 patients with contrast material contraindications. In two of the eight obese patients, IVUS was the only imaging modality. In all 30 patients, IVUS successfully determined the patency of the filter delivery route veins and the vena cava, the absence of thrombus, the location of renal veins, the absence of anatomical variants, and the vena cava diameter at the desired filter deployment level. Successful filter placement was confirmed in all 30 patients either with plain film alone (n = 12), IVUS alone (n = 3), computed tomography alone (n = 1), external ultrasound alone (n = 1), IVUS and another imaging modality (n = 10), or by combinations of other imaging modalities (n = 3). There were no complications. IVUS is a safe and effective alternative to conventional positive-contrast vena cavography for imaging the IVC prior to filter placement in patients with contraindications to iodinated contrast material or ionizing radiation.

Complications following prophylactic IVC filter placement in patients with quadriplegia: Thomas B. Kinney, M.D., S.C. Rose, M.D., S.B. Oglevie, M.D., A.C. Roberts, M.D., K. Valji, M.D.

Complications following prophylactic IVC filter placement in patients with quadriplegia: Thomas B. Kinney, M.D., S.C. Rose, M.D., S.B. Oglevie, M.D., A.C. Roberts, M.D., K. Valji, M.D.

Current use of inferior vena cava filters

To study possible changes in the clinical use of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters caused by the introduction of percutaneous delivery systems, we reviewed all patients who underwent placement of IVC filters at our institution from 1988 to 1991. Eighty-four patients (52 men and 32 women) ranging in age from 18 to 90 years (mean 67 years) were identified. Filters were required because of contraindications to anticoagulation in 64%, anticoagulation failure in 25%, and preoperative prophylaxis in 11% of patients. The underlying disease was lower extremity deep vein thrombosis in 50% and pulmonary embolism in 45% of patients. Five percent of patients received prophylactic filters without documented thromboembolism. All filters were placed percutaneously by interventional radiologists, 77 through the common femoral vein and 7 through the internal jugular vein. Three types of filters were used. One procedure-related death occurred because of acute IVC occlusion. Fatal pulmonary embolism within 48 hours after filter placement was documented in one patient and suspected in one late death. No other clinically apparent pulmonary embolism or leg swelling occurred after filter placement. Minor complications related to filter placement occurred in 13 patients, but none required operative intervention. Analysis of complication rates of the three filter types was precluded by the small sample size. After a mean follow-up of 11 months, 42 patients (50%) had died of malignancy (n = 25), multisystem organ failure (MSOF; n = 7), cardiovascular events (n = 4), recurrent pulmonary embolism (n = 2), cerebrovascular events (n = 4), or an unknown cause (n = 1). Twenty-three patients (27%) died before hospital discharge. Of these patients, 16 died as a direct result of disseminated cancer or MSOF. Among the subgroup of 48 patients with a history of advanced cancer or MSOF, 20 (43%) died before hospital discharge and an additional 12 died within 6 months of filter placement. Percutaneous placement of IVC filters has not changed the indications for filter placement, nor has this new technique significantly reduced the charge for percutaneous placement ($5300) compared with operative placement ($5800). Filter placement in patients with advanced malignancy or MSOF was associated with such poor survival that the benefit of IVC filtration in these patients was questionable. Careful patient selection is required to avoid nonbeneficial filter placement in as many as 25% of patients in whom IVC filter placement initially appears indicated.

Prophylactic Placement of Vena Caval Filters: A Cautionary Note

Greenfield filter placement in patients without deep venous thrombosis has been performed when such patients were felt to be at high risk for asymptomatic deep venous thrombosis and subsequent embolus. In this group placement is termed "truly prophylactic" to differentiate from placement in a patient with documented deep venous thrombosis which has not yet embolized. A retrospective review of Greenfield filter placement at five Dayton, Ohio, community hospitals over three years revealed 59 filters placed in 58 patients. Of these 90% were placed surgically and 10% percutaneously at an average cost of $4,141.00 per surgical procedure. Indications included traditional as well as true prophylaxis. A low morbidity and no mortality related to filter placement was observed. The high efficacy and safety of filter placement seen at large institutions is also found in our community hospital experience despite placement by physicians who perform the procedure infrequently. Although filter placement in patients at a high risk for silent fatal pulmonary emboli may prevent a rare mortality, widespread use of this modality for pulmonary embolus prophylaxis is costly and not without patient risk. We caution against the use of Greenfield filters for pulmonary embolus prophylaxis in patients without deep venous thrombosis until evidence of superior efficacy compared to other forms of prophylaxis can be demonstrated.

Metastatic cancer. A relative contraindication to vena cava filter placement.

From October 1979 to November 1984, 41 patients underwent placement of vena cava filters for prevention of pulmonary emboli. After filter placement, no pulmonary emboli were documented. No patient died due to filter placement. However, 20 of these 41 patients are dead. Eighteen deaths were caused by cancer. Ten (24%) patients died within 2 months of filter placement. Five (12%) patients died prior to hospital discharge. All ten of these patients had known, widely metastatic cancer. Among the ten patients who died more than 2 months after filter placement, six had well-differentiated, slow growing tumors. Only three of these patients had brain metastases. Among the 21 survivors only two suffered from cancer. Strict adherence to accepted indications for vena cava filter placement required operative procedures on a small but significant number of patients who demonstrated no significant improvement in quality of life or time out of hospital. Filter placement in patients with aggressive cancers and proven metastases should be performed only after analysis of predicted survival and after detailed discussions with patients and referring physicians. Filter placement in patients with aggressive metastatic cancer may cause discomfort, risk, and expense with little hope for improvement of hospital course, longevity, or quality of life.