Inferior Vena Cava Filter Insertion Research Articles

Incidence of thrombotic events and complications associated to inferior vena cava filters in patients with and without anticoagulation therapy.

Anticoagulation is the primary management to prevent venous thromboembolism; inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) provide a mechanical prophylactic alternative when anticoagulation is contraindicated. The aim of this study was to evaluate in IVCF patients, whether the initiation of anticoagulation therapy is associated with decreased rates of recurrent thrombotic events and device-related complications. This was a retrospective review of patients that underwent insertion of IVCF. Subjects with IVCF were studied in two groups: those initiated on anticoagulation (A) and without anticoagulation (NA). Variables as indications for IVCF, anticoagulation, recurrence of thrombosis, complications, and reinterventions were examined. From April 2007 to March 2014, 54 patients underwent IVCF placement; (61% of females), with mean age of 54 years (standard deviation ± 19). 28 (52%) were initiated on anticoagulation, during a mean follow-up period of 28 months, five experienced recurrent thrombosis and three were on the A group (p=0.5); when comparing patients that developed post-thrombotic syndrome, seven were in the A group and seven in the NA. Two patients with IVC rupture were in the A group (p=0.5), and the only case of IVCF migration occurred in the A group. 11 (20%) patients died from comorbidities nonrelated to the device or procedure (four in the A cohort). Patients with IVCF on anticoagulation have equivalent rates of thrombotic events and device-related complications than those patients NA.

Inferior Vena Cava Filter Retrieval Trends: A Single Center Experience

Background: Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are indicated in patients with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE) who either have contraindications to or have failed anticoagulation (AC). Given rising concerns about their safety and efficacy, the FDA has issued a communication urging clinicians to remove filters (optimally, within 90 days post-implantation). According to national data retrieval rates remain low. Our study aimed to assess IVC filter retrieval rates and factors that influence retrieval. Methods: This is a single center, retrospective cohort study of patients who had IVC filter placement between December 2015 and December 2018. Subjects were identified using procedural codes for IVC filter insertion; data regarding demographics, comorbidities, retrieval, IVC filter-related complications and subsequent thromboembolic events were obtained by direct chart review. Survival analyses and a Cox regression model were performed using JMP statistical software. Results: Over 3 years, 494 patients with IVC filters were identified; 305 (62%) were retrievable. The average age at placement was 69±16 years; 249 (50%) were men and 332 (67%) were Caucasian. After excluding patients who died or were lost to follow-up within 30 days of placement or were discharged to hospice from the index admission, 258 patients with retrievable filters remained (54 retrieved). Indications for IVC filter placement were PE ± DVT 90 (35%), proximal DVT 159 (62%) and prophylactic 9 (3%). Forty two percent of patients (109) were restarted on AC at discharge, while an additional 18% (total 155) received AC at some point thereafter. The rate of retrieval was 8% at 90 days, 23% at 1 year and 28% at 2 years (Figure A). The proportional hazards model identified resumption of AC at any time (HR 3.11, 95%CI 1.6-6.8, p=0.0006) as the strongest predictor of retrieval; AC at discharge was not predictive. Advanced age at placement (HR 0.97 per unit change, 0.96-0.99, p=0.004) and active malignancy (HR 0.5, 95%CI 0.24-0.98, p=0.04) were associated with a lower likelihood of retrieval. The initial thrombotic event, the reversibility of the contraindication to AC, the placing service, sex, ethnicity and other comorbid conditions did not have an impact on retrieval. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that subjects who ever resumed AC had significantly higher rates of retrieval at 90 days (11% vs 3.4%) and at 1 year (33% vs 9.7%, log-rank p=0.0003, Figure B) when compared to those who did not. Only four patients experienced IVC filter-related complications (2 filter thrombosis, 1 IVC penetration, 1 device tilting); all occurred 2 or more years after placement. Recurrent thromboembolic events occurred in 50 patients (5 PE, 48 proximal DVT) with no significant difference in frequency between subjects with retrieved and non-retrieved filters; one PE and one DVT occurred at 1 month and 1 week respectively after retrieval. Conclusion: Despite efforts to increase awareness of IVC filter-associated complications, the unweighted retrieval rate remained below the nationally reported average of 30%. Persistent risk factors for thrombosis such as active malignancy or increasing age and poor prognosis may play a role in the decision to defer retrieval. In our study, resumption of AC proved a powerful predictor of retrieval, with rates approaching expected values in this population. Active surveillance for resolution of contraindications to AC post-IVC filter placement is crucial in increasing retrieval rates. Figure Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Prophylactic inferior vena cava filters for operative pelvic fractures: a twelve year experience.

Conflicting evidence exists regarding the role of inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) in the prevention of pulmonary embolism. The aim of this study was to review an institutional policy of prophylactic IVCF placement in all operative pelvic and acetabular fractures as a means of preventing PE by comparing it to a historical prepolicy period of significantly less aggressive IVCF placement. The trauma registry of a single level 1 trauma center was retrospectively queried for all pelvic or acetabular fractures for the prepolicy and intervention periods as defined as January 2003-December 2008 and January 2009-December 2014, respectively-yielding 231 patients for analysis. The primary and secondary outcomes measured were the incidence of PE and deep vein thrombosis. The rate of prophylactic IVCF insertion significantly increased during the study period (p < 0.001). The incidence of pulmonary embolism (1.8% vs. 5.1%, p = 0.351) and DVT (19.3% vs. 10.3%, p = 0.231) were not significantly different when comparing the prepolicy and intervention cohorts. In patients with operative fractures, a nonsignificant trend of increasing incidence of DVTs was appreciated in patients with a prophylactic IVCF versus those without prophylactic IVCF (13 vs. 2, p = 0.222). A policy of increased use of prophylactic IVCFs in patients with operative pelvic and acetabular fractures failed to reduce the incidence of PE or DVT. In contrast, several case reports and institutional series have published several risks associated with IVCF placement including failure to retrieve temporary IVCF. The benefit of prophylactic IVCF in this patient population is unclear.

What are the perceptions of interventional radiology amongst foundation doctors and how can awareness be improved?

To assess perceptions of interventional radiology (IR) amongst foundation trainees (FYs) and to explore how awareness can be improved. Seventy-nine FYs completed a survey developed by the Radiology Department. Forty-five percent of FYs were introduced to IR throughout their training posts, whereas 38% learnt more via self-directed reading. Fifty-nine of the 79 FYs would not consider a career in IR with 53/59 lacking interest in radiology and 13/59 lacking enough information. The majority were aware that interventional radiologists have on-call commitments; however, 55% realised that they attend clinics. Just over 85% were familiar that ultrasound-guided biopsy was performed by IR closely followed by inferior vena cava (IVC) filter and nephrostomy insertions (81% and 72% respectively). Around one-third of FYs thought that interventional radiologists come from a surgical background while 64% knew that juniors are able to apply directly for radiology. Sixty-five percent rejected the notion of learning more about IR; however, the most preferred methods to raise awareness were elective placements and teaching throughout foundation years. FYs perception of IR is generally poor due to lack of adequate knowledge. This may dissuade them from selecting radiology as a career. Efforts need to be exerted to raise awareness with the aim of attracting more juniors to IR in order to address the significant shortage of interventional radiologists in the UK.

Ineffective inferior vena cava filter insertion: a pitfall in a patient with duplicated inferior vena cava.

Ineffective inferior vena cava filter insertion: a pitfall in a patient with duplicated inferior vena cava.

Trends in inferior vena cava filter placement and retrieval at a tertiary care institution

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to examine practice patterns of inferior vena cava (IVC) filter insertion and retrieval at a tertiary care institution. MethodsA retrospective review of all IVC filter procedures performed at the University of Pennsylvania and entered into the Penn cohort of the Vascular Quality Initiative registry between January 2013 and September 2017 was performed. Data collected included demographics, venous thromboembolism risk factors, indications for filter placement, and presence and timing of retrieval. Trend analysis and multivariable logistic regression were performed to evaluate factors associated with failure to retrieve the filter. ResultsDuring the study period, 627 IVC filters were inserted. The mean age was 52.8 ± 16.9 years, and 49.3% were male; 39.2% were placed for a major indication, whereas 58.1% were placed for prophylaxis. There was a significant decline in overall frequency of filter placement during the period observed, with a 33% decrease from 2015 to 2016 and a 26% decrease from 2016 to 2017 (P < .001), with an overall retrieval rate of 44.9%. In contrast, there was a corresponding increase in filter retrieval, with a 20% increase in 2015 and a 68% increase in 2016 (P = .02). In evaluating trends separated by indication, there was a significant decline in prophylactic filter placement (P < .001) and a trend toward an increase in retrieval of prophylactic filters (P = .09). Whereas there was not a significant change in number of filter insertions for major indication (P = .06), filter retrievals for major indication filters increased (P = .01). Multivariable regression analysis revealed that longer time to follow-up (odds ratio [OR], 1.08; P < .001) and discharge to rehabilitation facility (OR, 6.14; P < .001) were predictive of failure to retrieve the filter. In contrast, filter placement at a later date within our study period (OR, 0.90; P < .001) and prophylactic indication for filter placement (OR, 0.36; P < .001) were protective from filter nonretrieval. ConclusionsThese results show both a decline in overall IVC filter placement and an increase in overall IVC filter retrieval at our institution. These trends are predominantly due to a decrease in prophylactic filter placement as well as an overall increase in filter retrieval. Further study should be dedicated to increasing the retrieval rate in this population of patients.

Retrievable inferior vena cava filters in neurosurgical patients: Retrieval rates and clinical outcomes

ObjectiveTo assess inferior vena cava (IVC) filter retrieval rates and clinical outcomes in neurosurgical patients and to determine patient characteristics associated with filter retrieval. Patients and methodsThis single-center retrospective study included 204 consecutive neurosurgical patients (120 men, 84 women; mean age 60 ± 13 years) who underwent retrievable IVC filter insertion between 1/2011-9/2013. Institutional IVC filter database review was used to identify demographic and clinical data, indication for IVC filtration, and IVC filter type. Patients were followed clinically by the neurosurgical, hematology, and interventional radiology services until removal or conversion to a permanent device. Measured outcomes included filter retrieval rates and parameters associated with device removal. ResultsThe majority of filters were placed for venous thromboembolism (200/204, 98%). Of 204 filters, 38(19%) were retrieved at median 186 days post-placement (range 3–665 days), 112(55%) converted to permanent devices, 44(22%) patients were deceased, and 10(5%) patients were lost to follow-up after transfer to an outside healthcare facility. Patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage (18% vs. 35%, p = 0.025) and malignancy (5% vs. 25%, p = 0.009) were less likely to have filters removed. Filter type (p = 0.475), gender (p = 0.221), neurosurgical procedure (p = 0.639), and insurance status (p = 0.207) did not demonstrate a significant association with filter retrieval. ConclusionIVC filter retrieval rates in neurosurgical patients are low despite tracking patients clinically in a multidisciplinary setting. Those neurosurgical patients with intracranial hemorrhage or malignancy requiring IVC filters have a lower likelihood of filter retrieval and may benefit from use of permanent devices.

5. Abstract Title: Indications, outcomes and assessment of guideline adherence of inferior vena cava filter insertions - a multicenter tertiary care center experience

Background: The use of Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) filters has seen a dramatic increase in recent years. They are utilized to prevent embolization of deep vein thromboses (DVT) involving the lower extremities to the lungs in high risk patients. Recent studies also attribute the increased use of these devices to prophylactic indications. However, this is often guided by little evidence supporting their use in improving clinical outcomes with the risk of potential adverse outcomes. We sought to conduct a retrospective review to assess indications and adherence to guidelines of IVC filter insertions at two major tertiary care centers in Calgary, Alberta, Canada over a two year period.

Review article: Do inferior vena cava filters prevent pulmonary embolism in critically ill trauma patients and does the benefit outweigh the risk of insertion? A narrative review article.

Venous thromboembolic disease (VTE) increases the risk of mortality in trauma patients. To decrease the occurrence of VTE, low dose anticoagulants are commonly prescribed. This may be unacceptable in trauma patients who have a high risk of bleeding. Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters can be employed as an alternative strategy to decrease the risk of pulmonary embolism (PE). Insertion of an IVC filter is an invasive procedure that has a range of complications. The benefits of IVC filter insertion must be compared to its risk of complications in each individual patient. A search of the literature since 2005 was conducted on MEDLINE, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Embase. The clinical question posed was does prophylactic IVC filter insertion decrease the risk of PE in trauma patients? The available evidence was low level and unable to definitively answer this question. The majority of articles infer that IVC filter insertion is safe and may decrease the risk of PE. However, there is a need for well-designed randomised controlled trials to be conducted in this area.

An Informatics Approach to Facilitate Clinical Management of Patients With Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters.

Long indwelling times for inferior vena cava (IVC) filters that are used to prevent venous thromboembolism can result in complications. To improve care for patients receiving retrievable IVC filters, we developed and evaluated an informatics-based initiative to facilitate patient tracking, clinical decision-making, and care coordination. A semiautomated filter-tracking application was custom-built to query our radiology information system to extract and transfer key data elements related to IVC filter insertion procedures into a database. A web-based interface displayed key information and facilitated communication between the interventional radiology clinical team and referring physicians. A set of filter management options was provided depending on each patient's clinical condition. The system was launched in April 2016. Using retrospective observational cohort methods, we compared filter retrieval rates during a test period from July through December 2016 with a control period of the same 6 months in 2015. System development required approximately 100 hours of development time. Two hundred ninety-three IVC filter placements and 83 filter retrievals were tracked during the study periods. The overall filter retrieval rate was 23% in the control period and 34% in the test period. Mean times from filter placement to retrieval in the control and test periods were not significantly different (88.9 and 102.7 days, respectively; p = 0.32). A semiautomated approach to tracking patients with IVC filters can facilitate care coordination and clinical decision-making for a device with known potential complications. Similar applications designed to improve provider communication and documentation of filter management plans, including appropriateness for retrieval, can be replicated.

Inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs): a review of uses and application to international guidelines at a single Australian center; implications of venous thromboembolism associated with malignancy.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a potentially lethal event. Anticoagulation is the cornerstone of treatment. Inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) may be used in circumstances when anticoagulation is contraindicated or as an adjunct to anticoagulation. IVCF use is not without controversy due to concerns over their safety profile, differences in guidelines from international societies, and a limited randomized control trial evidence. We retrospectively undertook a review of IVCF use over a three-year period (2014–2016) at our center, which has a large oncology service but no trauma unit. There were 44 patients with successful IVCF insertion and one patient with an unsuccessful attempt. Indications for insertion included: a contraindication to anticoagulation (n = 28); recurrent VTE on anticoagulation (n = 10); and extensive VTE (n = 7). There were 13 retrieval attempts, of which ten were successful. There were five documented IVCF complications (tilting: n = 2, IVC thrombus: n = 3) with one episode of IVCF failure and two episodes of deep vein thrombosis during the follow-up period. Of the patients, 71% had an active malignancy (of whom 71% had metastatic disease). Seventeen patients died due to progressive malignancy during the study period. There were no life-threatening VTEs or IVCF-associated mortalities. Adherence with published international guidelines was variable. Patients with malignancy were less likely to undergo IVCF retrieval and had a reduced rate of retrieval success. None of the international guidelines comment on the use of IVCFs in patients with malignancy despite being commonly used. IVCF use may be an underappreciated tool in this group.

The role of preoperative deep vein thrombosis screening in neurooncology.

OBJECTIVEVenous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major cause of morbidity in patients undergoing neurosurgical intervention. The authors postulate that the introduction of a routine preoperative deep vein thrombosis (DVT) screening protocol for patients undergoing neurosurgical intervention for brain tumors would result in a more effective diagnosis of DVT in this high-risk subgroup, and subsequent appropriate management of the condition would reduce pulmonary embolism (PE) rates and improve patient outcomes.METHODSThe authors conducted a prospective study of 115 adult patients who were undergoing surgical intervention for a brain tumor. All patients underwent preoperative lower-limb Doppler ultrasonography scanning for DVT screening. Patients with confirmed DVT underwent a period of anticoagulation therapy, which was stopped prior to surgery. An inferior vena cava (IVC) filter was inserted to cover the perioperative period during which anticoagulation therapy was avoided due to bleeding risk before restarting the therapy at a later date. Patients underwent follow-up performed by a neurooncology multidisciplinary team, and subsequent complications and outcomes were recorded.RESULTSSeven (6%) of the 115 screened patients had DVT. Of these patients, one developed postoperative PE, and another had bilateral DVT postoperatively. None of the patients without preoperative DVT developed VTE postoperatively. Age, symptoms of DVT, and previous history of VTE were significantly higher in the group with preoperative DVT. There were no deaths and no complications from the anticoagulation or IVC filter insertion.CONCLUSIONSPreoperative screening for DVT is a worthwhile endeavor in patients undergoing neurosurgical intervention. A multidisciplinary approach in management of anticoagulation and IVC filter insertion is safe and can minimize further VTE in such patients.

Is external compression on the IVC a risk factor for IVC filter abutment? A single center experience of 141 infrarenal celect filter insertions

ObjectivesTo investigate risk factors for inferior vena cava (IVC) filter abutment, including external compression on the IVC wall, using venous phase computed tomography (CT). MethodsOne-hundred-forty-one cases of Celect IVC filter insertion between January 2009 and April 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. On pre-procedural CT, IVC diameter and morphological classifications were measured. Filter tilt angle, IVC angle, vertical position, and filter tip abutment to the IVC wall were analyzed on post-procedural CT. IVC compression was examined by pre- and post-procedural CT analysis. Multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to find factors related to IVC filter abutment. ResultsOf 141 IVC filter insertion cases, 52 were classified in the filter tip abutment group and 89 in the non-abutting group. IVC tilt angle (11.7 ± 5.5° vs. 6.4 ± 5.4°), presence of external compression (14/52, 27% vs. 9/89, 9%), and IVC morphology were different between the groups (p < 0.05). In multiple logistic regression analysis, filter-tilt angle over 9.25° and external compression on the IVC were found to be independent predictors of filter abutment (odds ratios: 4.56, 10.18, respectively). ConclusionIVC filter tilt, external compression on IVC wall, and IVC morphology were significantly different between the filter tip abutment and non-abutment groups. External compression and filter tilt over 9.25° were risk factors for filter tip abutment in multiple logistic regression analysis. By identifying these factors, we may be able to reduce filter tilting by preventing the filter from being deployed in a dangerous area.

Indications, retrieval rate, and complications of inferior vena cava filters: Single-center experience in Saudi Arabia.

BACKGROUND:Inferior vena cava (IVC) filter is indicated in patients with acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) in whom therapeutic anticoagulation is contraindicated. While prophylactic insertion of an IVC filter may be considered for patients at high risk of VTE, there are significant differences between clinical guidelines on the role of IVC filters. These discrepancies have arisen predominantly because of the paucity of data on the efficacy and safety of IVC filters. We, therefore, evaluated the indications for filter insertion, the rate of filter retrieval and complications in patients who received IVC filters at King Abdulaziz Medical City (KAMC), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.METHODS:A descriptive, retrospective review of electronic- and paper-based medical records was performed. Consecutive sampling was used to study all adult patients who received an IVC filter at KAMC between 2007 and 2016 and met the inclusion criteria.RESULTS:A total of 382 IVC filters were inserted. 113 patients (30%) had an acute VTE and a contraindication to anticoagulation while 53 patients (14%) received an IVC filter in the absence of VTE (i.e., prophylactic). Only 124 (32.5%) IVC filters were eventually retrieved. The most common reason for nonretrieval was the need for permanent filtration (155, 60%). Thrombotic complications developed in 72 (19%) patients; nine patients had fatal pulmonary embolism.CONCLUSION:The insertion of IVC filters in this cohort was associated with low retrieval rate and relatively high incidence of thrombotic complications. Follow-up of patients is required to detect IVC filter-related complications and to increase retrieval rate.

Endovascular Management of Arterial Injuries Related to Venous Access: A Retrospective Review of 10‑Year Single-Center Experience

Purpose: Retrospective review of the pattern and management techniques of arterial injuries related to central venous access with long-term outcomes. Materials and Methods: Between January 2007 and November 2017, a total of 20 patients (13 females) were included with the mean age of 63 (28–89 years) and mean body mass index of 25.75 (13.3–36.5). Venous access procedures included central venous catheter (CVC) placement, dialysis line insertion, or endovascular venous procedures. The study excluded patients who had arterial injuries related to arterial access, such as postarterial line placement, postangiography, or percutaneous coronary interventions. Results: Iatrogenic arterial injuries occurred after attempted venous access procedures involving the common femoral vein (n = 18) and subclavian vein (n = 2). Injuries were related to CVC placement (n = 5), temporary dialysis catheter (n = 14), and inferior vena cava filter insertion (n = 1). Nine patients had transarterial venous catheter insertion complicated by active bleeding from pseudoaneurysm and arteriovenous fistula. Other injuries included isolated fistula (n = 3), isolated pseudoaneurysm (n = 4), isolated branch injury (n = 2), and intra-arterial insertion (n = 2). Endovascular management included stent–graft placement (n = 14), embolization of bleeding vessel (n = 2), and thrombin injection for pseudoaneurysm (n = 2). Conservative management with manual compression achieved hemostasis in two patients. Technical success was achieved in 100%. One patient required repeat angiography and embolization of bleeding branch vessel following stent–graft placement to control bleeding fistula and pseudoaneurysm. Clinical success was achieved in all patients. Procedure-related complications included puncture site hematoma (n = 1) and partially occlusive thrombus/spasm of deep femoral artery after stent–graft placement. Six patients (33%) died within 20 days after the procedure (3–20 days) due to other comorbidities. Three additional patients (16%) died during the same hospital admission at the time of the procedure (38–114 days). There were no reported complaints related to possible stent–graft stenosis or occlusion at mean follow-up time of 5 years (50 days–8.64 years) in all seven patients who survived after stent–graft placement procedure. Conclusion: Despite technically successful endovascular management of arterial injuries related to venous access in critically ill patients, the mortality rate remains high due to other comorbidities. Allowing for the small sample size, stent–graft placement for arterial injuries in this cohort of patients appears to be an effective option with high long-term patency rate.

Should We Remove the Retrievable Cook Celect Inferior Vena Cava Filter? Eight Years of Experience at a Single Center.

BackgroundThe inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) is very effective for preventing pulmonary embolism in patients who cannot undergo anticoagulation therapy. However, if a filter is placed in the body permanently, it may lead to other complications.MethodsA retrospective study was performed of 159 patients who underwent retrievable Cook Celect IVCF implantation between January 2007 and April 2015 at a single center. Baseline characteristics, indications, and complications caused by the filter were investigated.ResultsThe most common underlying disease of patients receiving the filter was cancer (24.3%). Venous thrombolysis or thrombectomy was the most common indication for IVCF insertion in this study (47.2%). The most common complication was inferior vena cava penetration, the risk of which increased the longer the filter remained in the body (p=0.032, Exp(B)=1.004).ConclusionIf the patient is able to retry anticoagulation therapy and the filter is no longer needed, the filter should be removed, even if a long time has elapsed since implantation. If the filter cannot be removed, it is recommended that follow-up computed tomography be performed regularly to monitor the progress of venous thromboembolisms as well as any filter-related complications.

Association of Admission Glucose Level and Improvement in Pulmonary Artery Pressure in Patients with Submassive-type Acute Pulmonary Embolism.

Objective The admission glucose level is a predictor of mortality even in patients with acute pulmonary embolism (APE). However, whether or not the admission glucose level is associated with the severity of APE itself or the underlying disease of APE is unclear. Methods This study was a retrospective observational study. A pulmonary artery (PA) catheter was used to accurately evaluate the severity of APE. The percentage changes in the mean PA pressure (PAPm) upon placement and removal of the inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) were evaluated. We hypothesized that the admission glucose level was associated with the improvement in the PA pressure in patients with APE. Patients A total of consecutive 22 patients with submassive APE who underwent temporary or retrievable IVCF insertion on admission and repetitive PA catheter measurements upon placement and removal of IVCFs were enrolled. Results There was a significant positive correlation between the admission glucose levels and the percentage changes in the PAPm (r=0.543, p=0.009). A univariate linear regression analysis showed that the admission glucose level was the predictor of the percentage change in PAPm (β coefficient=0.169 per 1 mg/dL; 95% confidence interval, 0.047-0.291; p=0.009). A multivariate linear regression analysis with the forced inclusion model showed that the admission glucose level was the predictor of the percentage change in PAPm independent of diabetes mellitus, PAPm on admission, troponin positivity, and brain natriuretic peptide level (all p＜0.05). Conclusion The admission glucose level was associated with the improvement in the PAPm in patients with submassive-type APE.

Outcomes after inferior vena cava filter placement in cancer patients diagnosed with pulmonary embolism: risk for recurrent venous thromboembolism.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication in cancer patients and anticoagulation (AC) remains the standard of care for treatment. Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters may also used to reduce the risk of pulmonary embolism, either alone or in addition to AC. Although widely used, data are limited on the safety and efficacy of IVC filters in cancer patients. We performed a retrospective review of outcomes after IVC filter insertion in a database of 1270 consecutive patients with cancer-associated pulmonary embolism (PE) at our institution between 2008 and 2009. Outcomes measured included rate of all recurrent VTE, recurrent PE, and overall survival within 12months. 317 (25%) of the 1270 patients with PE had IVC filters placed within 30days of the index PE event or prior to the index PE in the setting of prior DVT. Patients with IVC filters had markedly lower overall survival (7.3months) than the non-IVC filter patients (13.2months). Filter patients also had a lower rate of AC use at time of initial PE. There was a trend towards higher recurrent VTE in patients with IVC filters (11.9%) compared to non-filter patients (7.7%), but this was not significant (p = 0.086). The risk of recurrent PE was similar between the IVC filter cohort (3.5%) and non-filter group (3.5%, p = 0.99). Cancer patients receiving IVC filters had a similar risk of recurrent PE, but a trend towards more overall recurrent VTE. The filter patients had poorer overall survival, which may reflect a poorer cancer prognosis, and had greater contraindication to AC; therefore these patients likely had a higher inherent risk for recurrent VTE. A prospective study would be helpful for further clarification on the partial reduction in the recurrent PE risk by IVC filter placement in cancer patients.

Venous thromboembolism after laparoscopic or robotic biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch. Ninety-days outcome of a 10 years’ experience

BackgroundVenous thromboembolism (VTE) is a feared complication after bariatric surgery. Biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPD-DS) is a complex bariatric procedure that is offered typically to super morbidly obese patients. Scarce data exist in reporting VTE outcome and identifying the risk factors associated with it after BPD-DS. ObjectiveTo determine the risk factors for VTE after BPD-DS at 90-day follow-up. SettingA nonprofit regional referral center and teaching hospital in Pennsylvania. MethodsA retrospective chart review was performed on prospectively collected data over 10 years, between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2016. Patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic BPD-DS were included. Preoperative variables, selected risk factors, and methods of VTE prophylaxis were analyzed. ResultsA total of 662 patients who underwent BPD-DS were identified. The mean age was 44.7 ± 10.4 (20–72) years; 474 patients were female (71.7%), and the mean body mass index of the cohort was 50.5 ± 7.5 (34–98) kg/m2. Overall, 16 patients (2.4%) experienced VTE complication at 90-days follow-up post–BPD-DS with 100% follow-up rate; deep vein thrombosis was experienced by 10 patients (1.5%), and 6 patients (0.9%) experienced pulmonary embolism (1 patient experience both). None of those patients had a previous history of VTE. Only operative time (P value = .009) and length of stay (P value ≤ .001) were associated with VTE events. Other factors such as age, sex, body mass index, previous history of VTE, preoperative heparin injection, preoperative inferior vena cava filter insertion, intermittent compressive device use, interval heparin time, and postoperative chemical prophylaxis did not show a statistical association. A logistic regression analysis showed a statistically significant increase of VTE outcome with length of stay; odds ratio of 1.161, (95% confidence interval, 1.048–1.285), P value = .004. ConclusionWith proper preoperative evaluation and aggressive VTE prophylaxis protocol, the risk of VTE post–BPD-DS is comparable to other bariatric procedures. Every effort should be adopted to shorten the length of stay, and thus reduce VTE risk.

Practice patterns of retrievable inferior vena cava filters and predictors of filter retrieval in patients with pulmonary embolism.

Retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are increasingly used in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) who have contraindications to anticoagulant therapy. However, previous studies have shown that many retrievable filters are left permanently in patients. This study aimed to identify the common indications for IVC filter insertion, the filter retrieval rate, and the predictive factors for filter retrieval attempts. To this end, a retrospective cohort study was performed at a tertiary care center in South Korea between January 2010 and May 2016. Electronic medical charts were reviewed for patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) who underwent IVC filter insertion. A total of 439 cases were reviewed. The most common indication for filter insertion was a preoperative/procedural aim, followed by extensive iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Retrieval of the IVC filter was attempted in 44.9% of patients. The retrieval success rate was 93.9%. History of cerebral hemorrhage, malignancy, and admission to a nonsurgical department were the significant predictive factors of a lower retrieval attempt rate in multivariate analysis. With the increased use of IVC filters, more issues should be addressed before placing a filter and physicians should attempt to improve the filter retrieval rate.