Inferior Vena Cava Filter Insertion Research Articles

Inferior vena cava filter use at a large community hospital: a retrospective cohort study

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are considered when patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) develop a contraindication to anticoagulation. Use of IVC filters is increasing, despite associated complications and lack of data on efficacy in reducing VTE-related mortality. We characterized the pattern of IVC filter use at a large community hospital between 2018 and 2022. Specifically, we assessed the indications for IVC filter insertion, filter removal rates, and filter-associated complications. Indications for IVC filters were compared to those outlined by current clinical practice guidelines. We reviewed 120 consecutive filter placement events. The most common indications included recent VTE and active bleeding (40.0%) or need for anticoagulation interruption for surgery (25.8%). Approximately one-third (30.0%) of IVC filters were inserted for indications either not supported or addressed by guidelines. Half (50.0%) of patients had successful removal of their IVC filter. At least 13 patients (10.8%) experienced a filter-related complication. In a large community-based practice, nearly one-third of IVC filters were inserted for indications not universally supported by current practice guidelines. Moreover, most IVC filters were not removed, raising the risk of filter-associated complications, and supporting the need for development of comprehensive guidelines addressing use of IVC filters, and post-insertion monitoring practices.

Inferior Vena Cava Filters: A Clinical Review and Future Perspectives.

Anticoagulation represents the first line treatment for venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, inferior vena cava (IVC) filter insertion can be considered as a possible therapeutic strategy when anticoagulant therapy is contraindicated, to avoid embolization from the lower limbs to pulmonary circulation. Other possible indications are debated among experts. Both permanent and retrievable caval filters are available in clinical practice. Retrievable filters can be removed when no longer necessary, as their use may be indicated only for a limited amount of time. Moreover, caval filter insertion is not devoid of possible complications, particularly in cases of permanent or long-dwelling filters. A multidisciplinary approach is recommended to review the appropriateness of caval filter use and to define the best timing for retrieval.

Lessons from an elderly patient with pulmonary embolism caused by protein S deficiency: a case report

BackgroundLower limb deep vein thrombosis (DVT) concurrent with pulmonary embolism (PE) is perilous, particularly in the elderly, exhibiting heterogeneity with thrombophilia mutations. Tailored treatment is essential, yet sudden deaths complicate causative factor elucidation. This report emphasizes genetic testing necessity in PE patients with thrombophilia indicators, facilitating cause identification, personalized treatment guidance, and family education.Case presentationThis study details a 75-year-old Chinese woman with DVT and PE, where genetic testing identified thrombophilia, guiding personalized treatment decisions.ResultsUpon admission, the patient, after over 10 days of bed rest, presented chest tightness, shortness of breath, and unilateral leg swelling. Diagnostic measures revealed DVT and a substantial PE. Genetic testing identified a PROS1 gene C200A>C mutation, reducing protein S activity. Following 2 weeks of anticoagulation and inferior vena cava filter insertion, the patient, discharged, initiated lifelong anticoagulant therapy. A 1-year follow-up showed no recurrent thrombotic events. Family members carrying the mutation received informed and educational interventions.ConclusionGenetic testing for thrombophilic predisposition post-PE is crucial, elucidating etiology, guiding individualized treatment, and playing a pivotal role in family education.

Survival Outcomes after Placement of Inferior Vena Cava Filters in Cancer Patients: Insights from a Comprehensive Cancer Center’s Experience

Background: Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters serve as a vital intervention when systemic anticoagulation proves ineffective or contraindicated, particularly in the context of cancer patients. This study aimed to provide real-world insights into the outcomes of cancer patients following IVC filter placement. Patients and methods: Cancer patients with IVC filters were retrospectively reviewed. The indications and survival outcomes following IVC filter insertion have been reported. Results: A total of 176 cancer patients with IVC filters were included in the study. The median patient age was 56 years (range: 18–88 years). Solid tumors were the most common primary cancers (n = 125, 71.0%), and the majority (n = 99, 79.2%) had the advanced-stage disease at the time of IVC insertion. The filters were inserted because of contraindications to anticoagulation (n = 99, 56.3%) or the failure of anticoagulation (n = 56, 31.8%). The median survival (range) following filter placement was only 2 (1.45–2.55) months for patients with advanced-stage solid tumors, 5 (0.62–9.38) months for patients with brain tumors, and 44 (8.59–79.41) months for those with early-stage solid tumors, p < 0.001. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that IVC filter placement offers limited benefits to patients with advanced-stage disease. The underlying tumor, stage, and life expectancy are crucial factors in the decision-making process before IVC filter insertion.

OGC P62 Preoperative IVC filter insertion for oesophagogastric cancer surgery patients

Abstract Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a life-threatening complication in cancer patients undergoing oesophagogastric surgery. Oesophagogastric cancer patients are at high risk of developing perioperative VTE due to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, prolonged immobilisation, reduced oral intake, and increased risk of dehydration. NICE guideline [NG158] recommends considering an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter for patients with proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE) when anticoagulation treatment is contraindicated. This study evaluates the effectiveness and safety of preventing perioperative VTE recurrence via the preoperative insertion of the IVC filter after adopting this as a trust-wide policy in 2012. Methods This is a 10-year retrospective study from July 2012-2022. All patients who underwent cardio-oesophagectomy or gastrectomy for oesophagogastric cancers were included. All patients who underwent benign oesophagogastric surgery or local excision of GIST were excluded. The primary outcome includes the incidence of perioperative VTE recurrence following preoperative insertion of an IVC filter. The secondary outcome includes the inpatient and 30-day complications and mortality following the insertion of the IVC filter. Results 582 patients were included in our study. 37/582 (6.4%) patients developed preoperative VTE, in which 25/37 (67.6%) patients were diagnosed with PE, whereas 12/37 (32.4%) patients had proximal DVT. 30/37 (81.1%) patients underwent preoperative IVC filter insertion, while 7/37 (18.9%) did not. Of these 7 patients, 1 patient developed popliteal DVT 9 months after surgery. There was a statistically significant difference in preventing perioperative VTE recurrence through IVC filter insertion before surgery (p<0.05). IVC filters were safely removed in all patients postoperatively. No inpatient or postprocedural 30-day complications or mortality was identified. Conclusions This study has demonstrated that preoperative IVC filter insertion could prevent perioperative VTE recurrence in cancer patients who underwent oesophagogastric surgery. However, the retrospective nature of this study and the relatively small sample size are the main limitations. Preoperative IVC filter insertion is deemed safe, given no postprocedural morbidity or complications were identified.

Lower extremity deep vein thrombosis: an ultrasound revisit regarding its diagnostic value

Aim: To determine the diagnostic value of ultrasound in lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (LEDVT). Methods: Data of 20 patients diagnosed with LEDVT and underwent endovascular treatment at Hue University of Medicine and Pharmacy hospital from 01/2021 - 08/2022 were analyzed. Ultrasound findings were documented and correlated with venography. All patients were initialized with anticoagulation upon the diagnosis of LEDVT. Endovascular treatment included diagnostic venography, inferior vena cava filter insertion, intraclot thrombolysis, manual thromboaspiration with or without venoplasty and stenting. Results: The mean age was 58.63 ± 16.9 (range, 17 - 85 age). The major risk factors were trauma, surgery, and a history of DVT. LEDVT was found prominently in the left leg and at the femoropopliteal level. Ultrasound had a sensitivity of 93.6%, a specificity of 97.6%, a positive predictive value of 98.6%, a negative predictive value of 89.1% and accuracy of 95% in the diagnosis of LEDVT. The sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound in differentiating between chronic and acute thrombus were 96.5% and 92%. Ultrasound had low sensitivity in evaluating collaterals and venous outflow obstruction (May-Thurner syndrome). Conclusion: Ultrasound has a high diagnostic value and remains the first line imaging modality in the investigation of LEDVT. Key words: deep vein thrombosis; ultrasound; venography; thromboaspiration; May-Thurner syndrome

Immediate and delayed complications of inferior vena cava filters: Presented at the 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, August 18-21, 2021.

Objective: Inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement has increased dramatically in the past two decades. However, literature supporting the efficacy of these devices has been limited and controversial. In the present study, we have evaluated the predictors and rates of technical complications after IVC filter insertion in a large national database.

Which caval diameter? Clarification manufacturer's instructions for inferior vena cava filter use and implications for practice

To clarify manufacturer's instructions for inferior vena cava (IVC) filter use and implications for practice. Three vendors of IVC filters were contacted for clarification, with all stating that caval diameter limits are to be true maximum and true minimum cross-sectional diameters. To determine the implications of this, measurements were performed on 302 abdominal computed tomography studies in four transaxial dimensions perpendicular to the long axis including true maximum and minimum diameters, and measurements reflecting those typically taken on fluoroscopic cavography. Based on the true maximum and true minimum caval diameter limits as clarified by vendors, 22% of patients who would typically be considered suitable for IVC filter insertion based on frontal and lateral fluoroscopic cavography would be contraindicated, and 40% of patients who would typically be considered suitable for IVC filter insertion based on only frontal fluoroscopic cavography (as lateral projection is often not performed) would be contraindicated. There is a marked discordance between the vendor-clarified caval diameter limits of three common IVC filter devices and real-world caval geometry. Given the rarity of complications, this suggests a pressing need for revision of manufacturers' instructions for use statements to better reflect current safe routine clinical use, particularly from a medicolegal perspective.

IVC Filter Retrieval before and after Implementation of IVC Filter Retrieval Alert System (IFRAS): A Single-Center Experience

Abstract Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the IVC filter retrieval alert system (IFRAS) in increasing the inferior vena cava (IVC) filter retrieval rate. Materials and Methods This study was a case-based retrospective study, for patients who had IVC filter insertion from January 2013 to December 2019 with a sample of 756 patients. The sample was divided into two groups for filter retrieval rate: before the implementation of the tracking system (IFRAS) between 2013 and 2015 with a sample of 321 patients, and after the implementation of the tracking system (IFRAS) between 2016 and 2019 with a sample of 435 patients. This study aimed to compare the IVC filter retrieval rate before and after the implementation of the IFRAS. The tracking system (IFRAS) protocol was applied by a dedicated employee who is actively tracking patients and strictly following them up with a referred physician or interventional radiologist through the interventional radiology clinic. Results The IVC filter retrieval before the implementation of the tracking system (2013–2015) was 38.3% (123/321), and it became 54.25% (236/435) after the implementation of the tracking system with a p-value less than 0.001. Before implementing the tracking system, patients with no follow-up after IVC filter insertion were 45.17% (145/321), and this decreased to 41.15% (179/435) after implementing the tracking system. Conclusion The study proved a statistically significant difference in increasing the IVC filter retrieval rate after implementing the IFRAS.

Improving the rate of inferior vena cava filter retrieval through multidisciplinary engagement

BackgroundThe placement of retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters occurs commonly, but retrieval rates remain low. Consequently, there is an unmet clinical need to ensure appropriate follow-up and retrieval of these devices. ObjectivesTo determine the association between an IVC filter surveillance team with filter retrievals or a documented filter plan, time to retrieval, and incidence of filter complications or recurrent venous thromboembolism. MethodsAmbidirectional cohort study evaluating consecutive IVC filter insertions before and after the implementation of a multidisciplinary surveillance team (MDST). We report an odds ratio (OR) with 95% CIs, adjusted by age, sex, weight, and malignancy status. ResultsOverall, 453 patients were included, with 272 individuals in the pre-MDST cohort and 181 individuals in the post-MDST cohort. The MDST was associated with a higher composite primary outcome of IVC filter retrieval or a documented filter plan from 79.4% in the pre-MDST cohort to 96.1% in the post-MDST cohort (OR, 6.44; 95% CI, 3.06–15.84). Compared with the pre-MDST cohort, IVC filter retrieval rates were higher in the post-MDST cohort (52.6%–73.5%, respectively; (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.67–3.78). The MDST was associated with a shorter median time-to-filter retrieval (187–150 days, hazard ratio, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.39–2.29), but there was no significant difference when comparing symptomatic or clinically significant IVC filter complications, recurrent venous thromboembolism, or mortality. ConclusionOur study demonstrates the importance of a structured program to ensure timely IVC filter retrieval and ultimately improve patient care.

Inferior Vena Cava Filter Use at a Large Community Hospital: A Cross-Sectional Analysis

Introduction: Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are considered among patients who have sustained a recent lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and/or pulmonary embolism (PE) with a contraindication to anticoagulation. IVC filter use has risen in recent decades despite a lack of data on the effectiveness of IVC filters in reducing venous thromboembolism (VTE)-related mortality. Moreover, IVC filters may be associated with significant morbidity, including filter migration, IVC thrombosis, and fatal bleeding. Prolonged insertion of an IVC filter risks endothelialization which renders later attempts at removal ineffective, and raises the risk of complications. In this study, we aimed to characterize the pattern of IVC filter use at a large community-based hospital. Specifically, we characterized the indications for IVC filter insertion, rates of IVC filter removal, and filter-associated complications. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of adult patients (>18 years) who received an IVC filter between January 1, 2005 - February 28, 2022 at Windsor Regional Hospital (WRH), which is a large community-based hospital with academic affiliations in Southwestern Ontario, Canada. Data were collected using RedCAP software and analyzed using descriptive methods. Results: To date, we have reviewed 89 patient charts from 2019-2022. Patients with IVC filters inserted through WRH were most often male (58.4%) with a median age of 68 years. The most common indications for IVC filters included recent VTE (DVT and/or PE within 3 months) and active bleeding (43.8%), and recent VTE with a need for anticoagulation interruption for surgery (32.6%). Approximately 21% (19 patients) of IVC filters were inserted for indications outside recommended guidelines, including: need for interruption of anticoagulation in patients with a remote history of VTE (31.6%) or prior to surgery (15.8%), recent VTE & active bleed but anticoagulant therapy not discontinued (21.1%), surgical prophylaxis (10.5%), recent VTE & risk of bleeding with no active bleed (10.5%), failure of anticoagulation (5.3%), and massive PE with residual DVT (5.3%). Only 34.8% of patients had successful removal of their IVC filter with an average of 1.2 attempts at filter removal per patient. At least 4 patients (4.5%) have experienced complications relating to their IVC filter, including IVC thrombotic occlusion (50%) and IVC filter migration (50%). Conclusions: Approximately 21% of IVC filters were inserted for indications that fall outside of current guidelines at a large community-based hospital in Ontario, Canada. Moreover, 65% of IVC filters were not removed which is consistent with rates reported in other studies, and significantly raises the risk of IVC filter complications. Given that the majority of patient care occurs in the community setting, further efforts are needed to understand patterns of IVC filter use at other community hospitals. As well, our findings further support the need for development of concrete guidelines on indications for IVC filter use and monitoring practices. Figure 1View largeDownload PPTFigure 1View largeDownload PPT Close modal

Efficacy and safety of pre-operative insertion of inferior vena cava filter in patients undergoing bariatric surgery: a systematic review.

Prophylactic placement of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters prior to performing bariatric surgery is an intervention of unclear safety and efficacy with disagreement between current practice guidelines. To better characterize the risk and benefit of IVC filter insertion prior to bariatric surgery based on the current evidence. A systematic review of the literature of patients with prophylactic IVC filter insertion prior to bariatric surgery was performed and 32 studies were identified for inclusion into the review, of which none were randomized controlled trials. Meta-analysis was performed including the high-quality included studies. Seven high quality studies reported thrombotic events in patients undergoing bariatric surgery who had an IVCF and a control group which allowed for meta-analysis. The pooled odds ratio of venous thrombotic events in the IVC filter population versus the group without IVC filters was 1.57 (95%CI 0.89, 2.76). Among high quality studies 5 reported major bleeding with a rate of 0.76% and 6 reported on IVC filter complications with a rate of 0.67%. Overall no significant reduction in the rate of venous thrombosis was found with prophylactic IVC filter insertion. Use of IVC filters for prophylaxis remains a concern given the lack of clear efficacy in this setting and a small but present complication risk.

Prophylactic IVC filter placement in patients with severe intracranial, spinal cord, and orthopedic injuries at high thromboembolic event risk: A utilization and outcomes analysis of the National Trauma Data Bank

PurposeTo determine relationships between prophylactic inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) insertion and pulmonary embolism (PE), deep venous thrombosis (DVT), and in-hospital mortality outcomes in patients with severe traumatic pelvic/lower extremity, intracranial, and spinal cord injuries. MethodsAdult patients with severe traumatic pelvic/lower extremity, intracranial, and spinal cord injuries admitted to level I-IV trauma centers were selected from the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB). IVCFs that were inserted both ≤48 h after admission and before a lower extremity venous ultrasound were defined as prophylactic. Associations between prophylactic IVCF insertion and PE, DVT, and overall mortality outcomes during admission were estimated using logistic regression models after propensity score matching. Additionally, factors predictive of prophylactic IVCF insertion were estimated using multivariate logistic regression. ResultsOf 462,838 patients, 11,938 (2.6%) underwent prophylactic IVCF insertion. Prophylactic IVCF utilization decreased over time (6.3% in 2008 to 1.8% in 2015). Factors associated with prophylactic IVCF placement were injury pattern, trauma center level/region, Injury Severity Score, and race. Prophylactic IVCF placement was positively associated with PE (Odds Ratio (OR): 5.25, p < 0.01) and DVT (OR: 5.55, p < 0.01), but negatively associated with in-hospital mortality compared to the propensity score-matched control group (OR: 0.46, p < 0.01). ConclusionProphylactic IVCF insertion in adult patients with severe pelvic/lower extremity fractures, intracranial injuries, and spinal cord injuries was negatively associated with in-hospital mortality, but positively associated with VTE. Further research evaluating the use of prophylactic IVCF placement in trauma patients with these specific severe injury types may be warranted.

A retrospective cohort study assessing the incidence of inferior vena cava (IVC) occlusion following prophylactic IVC filter insertion: Is anticoagulation necessary during filter dwell?

BackgroundInferior vena cava (IVC) filters play a role in preventing venous thromboembolism after major trauma where deep venous thrombosis (DVT) risk is up to 80%. It has been suggested that IVC filters are thrombogenic and many patients are therefore placed on therapeutic anticoagulation during IVC filter dwell citing concern of in situ IVC thrombosis, even in the absence of existing DVT. MethodsBetween 1 June 2018 and 31 December 2021, this retrospective study assessed the incidence of IVC thrombosis following prophylactic IVC filter insertion. Groups were defined according to the presence or absence of therapeutic anticoagulation during filter dwell. The primary outcome was the presence or absence of IVC thrombus at retrieval. ResultsA total of 124 patients were included. Anticoagulation was prescribed in 29 and anticoagulation was not prescribed in 63. A further 32 patients developed a new thrombosis episode after the prophylactic IVC filter was placed, and 29 were prescribed anticoagulation part-way during filter dwell as a result of this diagnosis. No cases of IVC occlusion were observed in any patient group. ConclusionsCaval thrombosis was not observed after prophylactic filter placement, with or without the prescription of anticoagulation. While prospective trials are needed to increase the level of evidence, based on these results the use of therapeutic anticoagulation during IVC filter dwell should not be dictated by the presence of an IVC filter alone but rather by the presence of a related thrombosis event.

Anticoagulation and bleeding in the cancer patient.

Cancer patients have an increased risk of bleeding compared to non-cancer patients with anticoagulant therapy. A bleeding risk assessment before initiation of anticoagulation is recommended. Currently low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are the mainstays of treatment for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE). Since DOACs are administered orally, they offer some convenience and ease of administration; however, LMWH may be preferred in certain cancers. Given the prevalence of anticoagulant therapies in cancer patients, clinical providers must be able to recognize potentially critical bleeding sites and modalities to reverse major hemorrhage. Reversal agents or antidotes to bleeding may be required when bleeding is persistent or life-threatening. These include vitamin K, fresh frozen plasma (FFP), protamine, prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) or andexanet alfa, and idarucizumab. Inferior vena cava (IVC) filter insertion can be also considered in those with major bleeding. Evidence for timing and need for re-initiation of anticoagulant therapy after a major bleeding remains sparse, but a multi-disciplinary approach and shared decision-making can be implemented in the interim.

Inferior Vena Cava Filters: Aligning Practice With Evidence to Improve Patient Outcomes

BackgroundDespite indications for the removal of temporary inferior vena cava (IVC) filters, many filters are unintentionally left in place, predisposing patients to adverse outcomes. ObjectiveThis quality improvement study set out to determine the impact of an IVC filter retrieval protocol on filter retrieval rates and patients lost to follow-up for patients who had undergone placement of a temporary IVC filter. MethodsFollowing a quasi-experimental design, data of all consecutive patients who underwent insertion of a temporary IVC filter for a period of 24-month preprotocol and 12-month postprotocol were compared. ResultsFilter retrieval rates of eligible filters increased from 64.2% to 100%; patients lost to follow-up decreased from 35.9% to 0% (p < .01, both outcomes). ConclusionAdoption of a comprehensive IVC filter protocol by the service that implants these devices can improve filter retrieval rates and decrease patients being lost to follow-up.

Evaluation of a clinical decision support tool to predict permanence of retrievable inferior vena cava filters

ObjectiveTo evaluate the usefulness of a published clinical decision support tool to predict the likelihood of a retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filter being maintained as a permanent device. MethodsThis multicenter retrospective cohort study included 1498 consecutive patients (852 men and 646 women; median age, 60 years; range, 18-98 years) who underwent retrievable IVC filter insertion between January 2012 and December 2019. The indications for IVC filtration, baseline neurologic disease, history of venous thromboembolism (VTE), and underlying malignancy were recorded. Accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of a published clinical support tool were calculated to determine the usefulness of the tool. ResultsThe majority of filters (1271/1498 [85%]) were placed for VTE with a contraindication to anticoagulation. A history of VTE was present in 811 of 1498 patients (54%) patients; underlying malignancy in 531 of 1498 patients (35%), and neurological disease in 258 of 1498 patients (17%). Of the 1498 filters, 456 (30%) were retrieved, 276 (18%) were maintained as permanent devices on follow-up, and 766 (51%) filters were not retrieved. The accuracy of the clinical prediction model was 61%, sensitivity was 60%, and specificity was 62%. ConclusionsA previously published clinical decision support tool to predict permanence of IVC filters had modest usefulness in the examined population; this factor should be taken into account when using this clinical decision support tool outside of the original study population. Future studies are required to refine the predictive capability of IVC filter decision support tools for broader use across different patient populations.

Thromboembolic clinical event rates and mortality for patients with and without inferior vena cava filter retrieval in a multicenter study

ObjectiveDespite the widespread use of inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs), no large controlled trials have examined the IVCF retrieval rates and clinical events for patients without retrieved IVCFs. We hypothesized that IVCF retrieval success would decrease as the time from placement increased and that the clinical event rates would be more prevalent for those without a retrieved IVCF. We evaluated retrieval success as a function of time and compared the rates of venous thromboembolism and mortality between patients who had undergone IVCF retrieval within 12 months vs patients with unsuccessful IVCF retrieval. MethodsAll patients who had undergone IVCF placement between 2011 and 2017 with available follow-up data at eight community hospitals were enrolled in our retrospective cohort study. The procedure dates, incidence of subsequent deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism, and mortality dates were collected. Patients were classified as having a nonretrieved IVCF if their IVCF had not been retrieved after ≥12 months of follow-up. ResultsOf 1709 patients who had undergone IVCF placement, IVCF retrieval was successful for 770. We found a significant (P = .018) decrease in retrieval success as the time from IVCF insertion increased. After a mean of 36 ± 16 months, the incidence of subsequent DVT was lower in the retrieved group than in the nonretrieved group (8.1% vs 11.9%; P = .05; hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-1.00). Mortality was lower for those with retrieved than for those without retrieved IVCFs (8.8% vs 28.8%; P < .001; hazard ratio, 0.5; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.7). No significant difference was found in the rate of pulmonary embolism. ConclusionsIVCF nonretrieval was more likely for older patients with a greater prevalence of comorbid conditions. Increased rates of subsequent DVT and mortality were observed for patients without IVCF retrieval. Finally, the likelihood of successful IVCF retrieval decreased with increased time from IVCF placement.

Thrombus Propagation across an Inferior Vena Cava Filter Resulting in Fatal Pulmonary Embolism: A Case Report

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters have since been implanted in the 1970s. The aim of implantation is to prevent the occurrence of fatal pulmonary embolism (PE). However, fatal pulmonary embolisms have been occurring after filter insertion. The mechanism is that either a thrombus or an embolus was already located cranial to the site of deployment of the filter within the inferior vena cava. And so after the filter implantation significant embolism can still occur. We present the case of a 62-year-old woman who had an IVC filter but died two weeks later from pulmonary embolism, through an unusual mechanism. The patient had a fracture of the left tibia, had open reduction and internal fixation developed pulmonary embolism secondary to deep vein thrombosis of the left lower limb. Anticoagulation was started, an IVC filter was inserted and she was discharged home with a therapeutic INR. However, she passed away two weeks later from pulmonary embolism, through the unusual mechanism of thrombus propagation across the IVC filter. The clinical significance of this article is to draw clinicians’ attention to the existence of another mechanism of fatal pulmonary embolism after an IVC filter insertion. The thrombus can propagate across the IVC filter leading to fatal pulmonary embolism.

Catheter-Directed Therapies in Patients with Pulmonary Embolism: Predictive Factors of In-Hospital Mortality and Long-Term Follow-Up.

(1) Background: Catheter-directed therapies (CDT) may be considered for selected patients with pulmonary embolism (PE); (2) Methods: Retrospective observational study including all consecutive patients with acute PE undergoing CDT (mechanical or pharmacomechanical) from January 2010 through December 2020. The aim was to evaluate in-hospital and long-term mortality and its predictive factors; (3) Results: We included 63 patients, 43 (68.3%) with high-risk PE. All patients underwent mechanical CDT and, additionally, 27 (43%) underwent catheter-directed thrombolysis. Twelve (19%) patients received failed systemic thrombolysis (ST) prior to CDT, and an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter was inserted in 28 (44.5%) patients. In-hospital PE-related and all-cause mortality rates were 31.7%; 95% CI 20.6–44.7% and 42.9%; 95% CI 30.5–56%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, age > 70 years and previous ST were strongly associated with PE-related and all-cause mortality, while IVC filter insertion during the CDT was associated with lower mortality rates. After a median follow-up of 40 (12–60) months, 11 more patients died (mortality rate of 60.3%; 95% CI 47.2–72.4%). Long-term survival was significantly higher in patients who received an IVC filter; (4) Conclusions: Age > 70 years and failure of previous ST were associated with mortality in acute PE patients treated with CDT. In-hospital and long-term mortality were lower in patients who received IVC filter insertion.