Use Of Inferior Vena Cava Filters Research Articles

Inferior Vena Cava Filter in Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: A Vade Mecum for the Treating Physicians: A Narrative Review.

Cancer is a remarkable prothrombotic disease, and cancer-associated thrombosis acts as a dreadful omen for poor prognosis. The cornerstone of venous thromboembolism therapy is anticoagulation; however, in patients with venous thromboembolism who are not suitable for anticoagulation (contraindication, failure, or complication), the inferior vena cava filter appears a valuable option in the therapeutic arsenal. The recently heightened trend of steady rise in filter placement mirrors the spread of retrievable devices, together with improvements in physicians' insertion ability, medico-legal issue, and novel and fewer thrombogenic materials. Nevertheless, the exact role of the inferior vena cava filter in cancer has yet to be endorsed due to a dearth of robust evidence. Indeed, data that support the inferior vena cava filter are weak and even controversial, resulting in discrepancies in the interpretation and application of guidelines in daily practice. In this narrative review, we aim at clarifying the state of the art on inferior vena cava filter use in malignancies. Furthermore, we provide a feasible, conclusive 4-step algorithm for the treating physicians in order to offer a practical strategy to successfully employ the inferior vena cava filter as a priceless device in the current armamentarium against cancer.

Association of IVCF use with mortality and intracranial hemorrhage in patients with selected cancers and brain metastasis

AbstractWe investigated the association of inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) usage with early mortality and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) in patients with cancer and venous thromboembolism (VTE) with and without brain metastasis. We used the California Cancer Registry data linked to hospitalization and emergency department databases to identify patients (all ages) with melanoma, kidney, breast, or lung cancers who had acute VTE between 2005 and 2017 at hospital admission. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 180-day ICH post-index VTE hospitalization. Of the 16 847 patients with cancer and VTE, 19.1% had brain metastasis. Patients with brain metastasis were more likely to receive an IVCF (odds ratio, 2.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.01-2.50). Among patients with active bleeding, IVCF placement was associated with ∼50% reduction in 30-day mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% CI, 0.42-0.68), regardless of the presence or absence of brain metastasis. In patients without active bleeding, 30-day mortality decreased by nearly 30% among those with brain metastasis who received IVCF (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.85), with no difference among those without brain metastasis who had an IVCF inserted. Patients with brain metastasis had an elevated hazard of 180-day mortality (HR, 5.14; 95% CI, 2.99-8.83), but no association was found between IVCF insertion and 180-day ICH. Our study suggests a potential mortality benefit of IVCF use among patients with selected cancers and VTE, particularly among patients with active bleeding and those with brain metastasis with no bleeding. IVCF use was not associated with 180-day ICH. Randomized clinical trials are warranted to confirm our results.

Role of Vena Cava Filter in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism in Injured Adult Patients: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Practice Management Guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma [RETRACTED

Injured patients are at an increased risk of developing deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters have been used in injured patients to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE), but current evidence-based guidelines are lacking. Questions regarding IVC filter use in injured patients with clearly defined Population(s), Intervention(s), Comparison(s), and appropriately selected Outcomes (PICO) were formulated. The study sought to understand the evidence behind use of ultra short term IVC filters and use of IVC filters in injured patients with and without known VTE who are unable to receive therapeutic anticoagulation and chemoprophylaxis, respectively. A literature search and review was conducted, followed by meta-analysis. The quality of evidence was assessed per Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. There were twenty-one studies that were analyzed. Three studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), three were observational studies, and fifteen studies were retrospective studies. In injured patients without known acute VTE who cannot receive chemoprophylaxis, we recommend against placement of an IVC filter due to associated higher rate of mortality, DVT, PE, and length of stay. The quality of evidence was assessed to be low. In injured patients with known DVT who cannot receive chemoprophylaxis we conditionally recommend against placement of an IVC filter. The quality of evidence was assessed to be very low. No recommendations can be made with respect to placement of ultra short term IVC filters based upon available data. IVC filters should not be placed routinely for prophylaxis in injured adult patients without known VTE who cannot receive chemoprophylaxis. The taskforce conditionally recommends against the placement of IVC filter in injured adult patients with known DVT who cannot receive chemoprophylaxis. Guideline; Systematic review/meta-analysis, level IV.

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.

Comparison of inferior vena cava filter use and outcomes between cancer and non-cancer patients in a tertiary hospital

BackgroundWhile accepted indications for the use of inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) in patients with a venous thromboembolism (VTE) have remained stable, their use continues to be frequent. Retrieval rates are still low, being particularly notable in the population with cancer. This study aims to review the rate of adherence to guidelines recommendation and to compare retrieval rates and complications in both cancer and non-cancer patients. MethodsA retrospective study was performed including 185 patients in whom an IVCF was placed in Hospital Clinic of Barcelona. Baseline characteristics, clinical outcomes, and IVCF-related outcomes were analyzed. A strongly recommended indication (SRI) was considered if it was included in all the revised clinical guidelines and non-strongly if it was included in only some. ResultsOverall, 47 % of the patients had a SRI, without differences between groups. IVCF placement after 29 days from the VTE event was more frequent in the cancer group (46.1 vs. 17.7 %). Patients with cancer (48.1 % of the cohort) were older, with higher co-morbidity and bleeding risk. Anticoagulation resumption (75.3 % vs. 92.7 %) and IVCF retrieval (50.6 % vs. 66.7 %) were significantly less frequent in cancer patients. No significant differences were found regarding IVCF-related complications, hemorrhagic events and VTE recurrence. ConclusionsSRI of IVCF placement was found in less than half of the patients. Cancer patients had higher rates of IVCF placement without indication and lower anticoagulation resumption and IVCF retrieval ratios, despite complications were similar in both groups.

Safety and Efficacy of Inferior Vena Cava Filters in the Peri-Partum Period: Experiences at a Tertiary Care Facility

Background: Guidelines recommend placement of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters in patients with acute thrombotic episodes and a concurrent contraindication to anticoagulation, however filter placement during or immediately postpartum presents significant technical challenges. The use and complications of IVC filters in the peripartum period is poorly documented in current literature. Objective(s): To evaluate the use of and outcomes related to IVC filters in an obstetric population at a large tertiary care center. Study Design: Retrospective review of all patients at a tertiary academic medical center from 2001-2016 who either conceived with an IVC filter in place or underwent IVC filter placement during the antepartum or postpartum interval. Manual abstraction of each chart was performed, with data stored in a RedCap database. Results: A total of 24 patients were included in the final analysis: 5 with IVC filter placement prior to pregnancy, 7 with antepartum placement, and 12 with postpartum placement. One patient had multiple pregnancies during our study timeframe and was therefore included twice. The cohort of postpartum placement were the youngest mean age (23.7 years), had a higher number of IVC filters placed for polytrauma (n=4), and had the shortest time to removal (135.9 days). The vast majority (91.3%) of IVC filters placed during pregnancy were retrievable filters in the suprarenal position, while most deployed in an infrarenal position (83.3%) when placed prior to conception. Complications encountered included multiple attempts to remove IVC filter, severe angulation, embedded struts, fracture, and one case of cardiac tamponade during filter placement requiring emergent sternotomy and evacuation. Of the filters requiring multiple attempts for removal, in 1 patient (4%) it was unable to be removed despite multiple attempts and the filter was ultimately left in situ. Complications were more common when placement was performed prior to pregnancy or antepartum (40% and 57.1% respectively) versus postpartum (16.7%). From an obstetrical perspective, 1 patient (4%) required early preterm delivery due to preeclampsia; 1 maternal death occurred in a postpartum patient who experienced a massive pulmonary embolism and subsequently died despite emergent thrombectomy and IVC filter placement, and 1 neonatal death occurred due to congenital heart disease following periviable preterm delivery. Conclusion(s): In our study across 16 years at a large academic medical center we identified 23 patients who had an IVC filter placed prior to pregnancy or placed during the antepartum or postpartum periods. Data from our experience suggested a higher incidence of complications with preconceptual and antepartum placement, although the majority of these did not impact clinical outcomes. While not frequently needed, IVC filters remain an option for clinicians treating pregnant and postpartum patients but should be considered a last resource as they can lead to various complications.

Guideline Compliance and Indications for Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement at a Quaternary Care Medical Center.

This study investigated physician compliance with indications for inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement according to the 2012 American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) and the 2011 Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) guidelines. A retrospective medical record review of 231 retrievable IVC filters placed between August 15, 2016, and December 28, 2017, at a large urban academic medical center. Guideline compliance to the 2012 ACCP and the 2011 SIR guidelines, and indications for IVC filter placements were assessed through an adjudication protocol. Filter retrieval and complication rates were also examined. Compliance to guidelines was low (60.2% for ACCP; 74.0% for SIR), especially for non-intensive care unit (ICU) patients (ICU 74.6% vs non-ICU 54.8%, p=0.007 for ACCP; ICU 82.5% vs non-ICU 70.8%, p=0.092 for SIR). After adjudication, 8.2% (19/231) of filters were considered non-indicated but reasonable, 17.7% (41/231) non-indicated and unreasonable, and 13.9% (32/231) SIR-indicated but not ACCP-indicated. The most common indication was venous thromboembolism with contraindication to anticoagulation. The most common reasons for non-compliance were distal deep venous thrombosis with contraindication to anticoagulation (19/60, 31.6%) and clot burden (19/60, 31.6%). One-year filter retrieval and 90-day complication rates were 32.0% (74/231) and 6.1% (14/231), respectively. Compliance to established guidelines was low. Reasons for non-compliance included limitations or discrepancies in guidelines, as well as non-evidence-based filter placements. Despite increasing utilization of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters, guideline compliance for IVC filter placement among providers is unclear. The results of this study indicate that physician compliance to established guidelines is poor, especially in non-intensive-care-unit patients. Noncompliance stems from non-evidence-based filter placement as well as differences and limitations in guidelines. Avoiding non-indicated IVC filter placement and consolidation of guidelines may significantly improve guideline compliance. The critical insights gained from this study can help promote judicious use of IVC filters and highlight the role of venous thromboembolism experts in navigating complex cases and nuances of guidelines.

Racial and ethnic disparities in inferior vena cava filter placement for deep vein thrombosis in the United States

ObjectiveWe sought to determine whether racial and ethnic disparities existed in inferior vena cava (IVC) filter (IVCF) placement rates among Black and Latino patients for the treatment of acute proximal lower extremity (LE) deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in the United States from 2016 to 2019. MethodsWe performed a retrospective review of National Inpatient Sample data to identify adult patients with a primary discharge diagnosis of acute proximal LE DVT from January 2016 to December 2019, including self-reported patient race and ethnicity. IVCF placement rates were identified using International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision, codes. Weighted multivariable logistic regression was used to compare IVCF use by race and ethnicity. The regression model was adjusted for patient demographics (ie, sex, primary payer, quartile classification of household income), hospital information (ie, region, location, teaching status, bed size), weekend admission, and clinical characteristics (ie, modified Charlson comorbidity index, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, diabetes mellitus type 2, congestive heart failure, dyslipidemia, coronary artery disease, smoking, obesity, alcohol abuse, chronic kidney disease, pulmonary embolism, malignancy, contraindications to anticoagulation, including other major bleeding). ResultsOf 134,499 acute proximal LE DVT patients, 18,909 (14.1%) received an IVCF. Of the patients who received an IVCF, 12,733 were White (67.3%), 3563 were Black (18.8%), and 1679 were Latino (8.9%). IVCF placement decreased for all patient groups between 2016 and 2019. After adjusting for the U.S. population distribution, the IVCF placement rates were 11 to 12/100,000 persons for Black patients, 7 to 8/100,000 persons for White patients, and 4 to 5/100,000 persons for Latino patients. The difference in IVCF placement rates was statistically significant between patient groups (Black patients vs White patients, P < .05; Black patients vs Latino patients, P < .05; Latino patients vs White patients, P < .05). ConclusionsThis nationwide study showed that Black patients have higher IVCF placement rates compared with White and Latino patients. Given the known long-term complications and uncertain benefits of IVCFs, coupled with the 2010 U.S. Food and Drug Administration safety warning regarding adverse patient events for these devices, proactive measures should be taken to address this disparity among the Black patient population to promote health equity. Future work should assess whether clinician bias might be perpetuating this disparity.

Efficacy and safety of vena cava filters in preventing pulmonary embolism: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

To assess the treatment effectiveness of inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) versus non-IVCF for patients undergoing varies conditions. We systematically searched the databases to identify eligible RCTs from their inception up to 9/20/2020. The primary endpoint was pulmonary embolism (PE), while the secondary endpoints included deep-vein thrombosis (DVT), major bleeding, and all-cause mortality. The RRs with 95% CIs were applied as effect estimates for the treatment effectiveness of IVCF versus non-IVCF and calculated by using the random-effects model. 1,137 patients of 5 RCTs were enrolled. There were no significant differences between IVCF and non-IVCF for the risk of PE, major bleeding, and all-cause mortality, while the risk of DVT was significantly increased for patients treated with IVCF. The use of IVCF did not yield any benefits on PE, major bleeding, and all-cause mortality risk for patients undergoing various conditions, while the risk of DVT was significantly increased for patients treated with IVCF.

Diagnosis and treatment of venous thromboembolism and clinical application of inferior vena cava filter in China

ObjectiveThis study investigated the trend of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in China during the past 10 years and assessed the clinical application of inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs). MethodsA survey designed to investigate the diagnosis and management of VTE, specifically the application of IVCFs, was distributed nationally from January 2009 to December 2019. The respondents were mainly designated medical professionals and were asked to complete 4 major and 61 minor items in the survey. ResultsA total of 53 medical centers, including 27 radiologic and 26 vascular surgery centers, from 21 provinces in China participated in the study. These centers had diagnosed and treated 171,310 patients with VTE; 83,969 were inpatients (49%). During a 10-year period, an increasing trend of VTE diagnosis and inpatient management, 3.8-fold and 4.8-fold, respectively, was observed. The characteristics of the inpatients were as follows: 15% bilateral lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT), 27% right lower extremity DVT, and 58% left lower extremity DVT. Anticoagulation therapy included unfractionated heparin with vitamin K antagonists (8%), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) with vitamin K antagonists (21%), LMWH with transition to rivaroxaban (34.2%), LMWH with transition to dabigatran (2.4%), rivaroxaban alone (33.4%), and dabigatran alone (1.0%). The percentage of patients continuing anticoagulation therapy at 3, 6, 12, 24, and >24 months was 36%, 35%, 18%, 6.0%, and 5%, respectively. The in-hospital mortality for the patients with VTE was 3.2%, with DVT and pulmonary embolism responsible for 5.2% and DVT alone for 2.7%. Thrombolytic therapy was initiated for 39,046 of 83,969 patients (46.5%), including catheter-directed thrombolysis for 33,189 of the 39,046 patients (85%) and evaluation of the iliac vein using ultrasound and/or venography for 63,816 patients (76%). Urokinase was the main thrombolytic drug used (98%), followed by recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator. Complete and partial thrombolysis was achieved in 70% and 30% of the patients, respectively. Bleeding complications were observed in 3.5% of patients, and 20% of the patients with bleeding complications required intervention. Between 2009 and 2019, 40,478 IVCFs (76% retrievable) were implanted in hospitalized VTE patients. During the enrollment period, the total number of IVCFs implanted increased by 3.8-fold, with a 4.8-fold increase in retrievable IVCFs and 7.5-fold decline in permanent IVCFs. The removal rate for the retrievable IVCFs was 72%. After IVCF implantation, 94.8% of patients received anticoagulation therapy for an average of 9.1 ± 8.6 months. The overall complication rate associated with IVCF placement was 15.5% (n = 6274 of 40,478 IVCFs), including tilting (54%), vena cava thrombosis (26.1%), caval penetration (12.6%), and migration (7.3%). No IVCF placement-related mortality occurred. ConclusionsA significant increase occurred in VTE diagnosis in China during the past decade. Anticoagulation therapy was the mainstay treatment, and catheter-directed thrombolysis was widely used. Most IVCFs placed were retrievable, and the use of permanent IVCFs has largely been discarded.

Updated Trends in Inferior Vena Cava Filter Use by Indication in the United States After Food and Drug Administration Safety Warnings: A Decade Analysis From 2010 to 2019

Background: Overall inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) utilization has decreased in the United States since the 2010 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) safety communication. The FDA renewed this safety warning in 2014 with additional mandates on reporting IVCF-related adverse events. We evaluated the impact of the FDA recommendations on IVCF placements for different indications from 2010 to 2019 and further assessed utilization trends by region and hospital teaching status. Methods: Inferior vena cava filter placements between 2010 and 2019 were identified in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database using the associated International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification, and Tenth Revision codes. Inferior vena cava filter placements were categorized by indication for venous thromboembolism (VTE) “treatment” in patients with VTE diagnosis and contraindication to anticoagulation and “prophylaxis” in patients without VTE. Generalized linear regression was used to analyze utilization trends. Results: A total of 823 717 IVCFs were placed over the study period, of which 644 663 (78.3%) were for VTE treatment and 179 054 (21.7%) were for prophylaxis indications. The median age for both categories of patients was 68 years. The total number of IVCFs placed for all indications decreased from 129 616 in 2010 to 58 465 in 2019, with an aggregate decline rate of −8.4%. The decline rate was higher between 2014 and 2019 than between 2010 and 2014 (−11.6% vs −7.2%). From 2010 to 2019, IVCF placement for VTE treatment and prophylaxis trended downward at rates of −7.9% and −10.2%, respectively. Urban nonteaching hospitals saw the highest decline for both VTE treatment (−17.2%) and prophylactic indications (−18.0%). Hospitals located in the Northeast region had the highest decline rates for VTE treatment (−10.3%) and prophylactic indications (−12.5%). Conclusion: The higher decline rate in IVCF placements between 2014 and 2019 compared with 2010 and 2014 suggests an additional impact of the renewed 2014 FDA safety indications on national IVCF utilization. Variations in IVCF use for VTE treatment and prophylactic indications existed across hospital teaching types, locations, and regions. Clinical Impact Inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) are associated with medical complications. The 2010 and 2014 FDA safety warnings appeared to have synergistically contributed to a significant decline in IVCF utilization rates from 2010 – 2019 in the US. IVC filter placements in patients without venous thromboembolism (VTE) declined at a higher rate than VTE. However, IVCF utilization varied across hospitals and geographical locations, likely due to the absence of universally accepted clinical guidelines on IVCF indications and use. Harmonization of IVCF placement guidelines is needed to standardize clinical practice, thereby reducing the observed regional and hospital variations and potential IVC filter overutilization.

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.

The application of inferior vena cava filters in orthopaedics and current research advances.

Deep vein thrombosis is a common clinical peripheral vascular disease that occurs frequently in orthopaedic patients and may lead to pulmonary embolism (PE) if the thrombus is dislodged. pulmonary embolism can be prevented by placing an inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) to intercept the dislodged thrombus. Thus, IVCFs play an important role in orthopaedics. However, the occurrence of complications after inferior vena cava filter placement, particularly recurrent thromboembolism, makes it necessary to carefully assess the risk-benefit of filter placement. There is no accepted statement as to whether IVCF should be placed in orthopaedic patients. Based on the problems currently displayed in the use of IVCFs, an ideal IVCF is proposed that does not affect the vessel wall and haemodynamics and intercepts thrombi well. The biodegradable filters that currently exist come close to the description of an ideal filter that can reduce the occurrence of various complications. Currently available biodegradable IVCFs consist of various organic polymeric materials. Biodegradable metals have shown good performance in making biodegradable IVCFs. However, among the available experimental studies on degradable filters, there are no experimental studies on filters made of degradable metals. This article reviews the use of IVCFs in orthopaedics, the current status of filters and the progress of research into biodegradable vena cava filters and suggests possible future developments based on the published literature by an electronic search of PubMed and Medline databases for articles related to IVCFs searchable by October 2022 and a manual search for citations to relevant studies.

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.

Back to the Basics: Inferior Vena Cava Filters.

Inferior vena cava filters are an important therapeutic option for patients with venous thromboembolism and contraindication to anticoagulation. Indications for filter placement have varied over the previous decades. This article discusses the history of inferior vena cava filter use, with a basic overview of technology and specific devices. Finally, this article reviews emerging filter design and technology. Understanding the basics of inferior vena cava filters is critical to building more robust clinical data for the purpose of improving patient outcomes.

Does timing of IVC filter placement in bariatric surgery patients impact perioperative outcomes?

Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) remains a safe and effective treatment for morbid obesity with a low-risk profile. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains the most common cause of mortality. There is increasing consensus that inferior vena cava (IVC) filter use is associated with more harm than benefit. Our study aim was to determine if the timing of IVC filter placement correlates with VTE complications. The 2015-2019 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program databases were used to identify Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) patients who had an IVC filter at the time of bariatric procedure. Selected cases were stratified by IVC placement timing. Propensity-score matching estimated the probabilities of receiving pre-existing vs. prophylactic IVC placement. Resultant models were then used to assess VTE complications. Statistical analyses were performed with Stata MP version 16. A p-value < 0.05 was considered significant. In total, 228,986 RYGB and 568,386 SG cases were analyzed, and 0.6% and 0.5% had an IVC filter. Prophylactic IVC filter use declined annually, but not pre-existing filters. VTE and VTE-related mortality were significantly higher in filter vs. no filter cohorts (p<0.001). Propensity matching reduced biases between RYGB and SG IVC filter cohorts (pre-existing vs. prophylactic). There were no differences in the RYGB pre-existing and prophylactic IVC filter cohorts; however; for SG cases, pre-existing IVC filters compared to prophylactic IVC filters were associated with decreased odds of having a VTE (OR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.95, 0.99). Compared to a pre-existing filter, the presence of a prophylactic IVC filter in SG patients was associated with a higher likelihood of VTE. 1. Annual use of prophylactic IVC filter is bariatric surgery patients is decreasing. 2. The presence of a pre-existing IVC filter remain constant. 3. Any IVC filter presence at time of MBS increased VTE and VTE-related mortality and morbidity. 4. In SG cases, prophylactic IVC filter was associated with higher rates of VTE and VTE-related mortality.

Thromboembolic events in pelvic and acetabulum fractures: a systematic review of the current literature on incidence, screening, and thromboprophylaxis.

Rates of venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) as high as 41% deep vein thrombosis (DVT) were reported in association with pelvic and acetabular fractures (PAFs). There is no clear consensus on VTE prophylaxis for PAFs. Extracting evidence-based guidelines is key to overcome this challenging complication. The aims of this review are (A) to highlight the incidence of VTEs in PAFs, (B) to examine the screening and prophylaxis methods available in the current literature, and (C) direct future creation of a best practice protocol to reduce the risk of VTE in PAFs. We performed a systematic search of Medline, EMBASE databases, and the Cochrane library. MESH terms were used to identify studies pertinent to VTE in PAFs, including incidence, prophylaxis, and screening. In total, 28 studies were identified and grouped into four categories including incidence, screening, prophylaxis, and the use of inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs). Incidence of VTE ranged from 0.21 to 41% for DVT and 0 to 21.7% for PE. Nine studies screened 1360 patients using different imaging modalities. Ten articles, 2836 patients, examined different thromboprophylaxis protocols. Two out of three studies investigating the use of IVCF showed significant reduction of the rates of PE. Incidence of VTE in PAF varies significantly with different protocols. The current literature shows that screening is still controversial. The combination of chemical and mechanical prophylaxis starting at 24 hours from the injury would provide the best protection. Guidelines were extracted; however, higher level multicenter studies are still required to guide future protocols.

Do Prophylactic Inferior Vena Cava Filters Affect the Rates of Venous Thromboembolism and Pulmonary Embolism in Patients Undergoing Major Spine Surgery?

Retrospective Analysis. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) represents a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in major spine surgery. Placement of prophylactic inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) in patients undergoing major spine surgery was previously adopted at our institution. This study reports our experience and compares VTE rates between patients with and without preoperative IVCF placement. A Retrospective comparative study was conducted on adult patients who underwent IVCF placement and those who did not prior to their spinal fusion procedure, between 2013 and 2016. Thoracolumbar fusions (anterior and/or posterior) of 7 or more levels, spinal osteotomies, and a minimum of a 3-month follow-up were included. Traumatic, oncologic, and cervical pathology were excluded. Primary outcomes measured included the incidence of overall VTE (DVT/PE), death, IVCF related complications, and IVCF retrieval. 386 patients who underwent major spine surgery, 258 met the eligibility criteria. Of those patients, 105 patients (40.7%) had prophylactic IVCF placement. All patients had postoperative SCDs and chemoprophylaxis. The presence of an IVCF was associated with an increased rate of overall VTE (14.3% vs 6.5%, P ≤ .05) and DVT episodes (8.6% vs 2.6%, P = .04). The rate of PE for the IVCF group and non-IVCF group was 8.6% and 4.6%, respectively, which was not statistically significant (P = .32). The all-cause mortality rate overall of 2.3% was statistically similar between both groups (P = 1.0). The IVCF group had higher rates of hematoma/seroma vs the non-IVCF group (12.4% vs 3.9%, P ≤ .05). 99 IVCFs were retrievable designs, and 85% were successfully retrieved. Overall IVCF-related complication rate was 11%. No statistical difference in PE or mortality rates existed between the IVCF and the control group. Patients with IVCF placement experienced approximately twice the rate of VTE and three times the rate of DVT compared to those without IVCF. The IVCF-related complication rate was 11%. Based on the results of this study, the authors recommend against the routine use of prophylactic IVCFs in adults undergoing major spine surgery. III.

Clinical practice and volume trends of inferior vena cava filter usage at a single tertiary care center during a 19-year period

BackgroundWe investigated the clinical practice and volume trends of inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) usage at a single institution for an extended period and identified the potential factors affecting the clinical decision for placement, follow-up, and retrieval. MethodsAn institutional database was queried for IVCFs placed from 2000 to 2018 using the Current Procedural Terminology codes. The medical records were reviewed to evaluate the demographics, economic status, placement indication, IVCF type, follow-up evaluation for retrieval, and retrieval success rates. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS, and t tests for continuous and χ2 for categorical variables. ResultsA total of 3915 IVCFs were placed from 2000 to 2018. The placement of IVCFs had increased steadily from 2000 (127 IVCFs/y), peaking in 2010 at 371 IVCFs/y and representing a 292% increase in IVCF usage. Since 2010, the number of IVCFs placed has steadily declined until 2016 to 2018, with a 426% decrease from the peak. In a subgroup of IVCFs placed for prophylaxis, the total volume trends paralleled a shift in clinical indications, peaking in 2010 and accounting for 45% of all IVCFs placed and then decreasing from 2013 to 2018 to ≤10%. Overall, 989 permanent IVCFs (25.3%) and 2926 retrievable IVCFs (74.7%) were placed during the entire study period. Before dedicated efforts to implement retrieval follow-up visits, the successful retrieval rate was ∼1% from 2000 to 2006 and had increased to ∼10% to 15% from 2007 to 2015, 36.7% in 2016, 40.2% in 2017, and 40.3% in 2018 after implementation of more active retrieval follow-up protocols. The predictors for the lack of evaluation for IVCF retrieval included an extended length of stay (P = .004) and geographic distance (P < .001). ConclusionsThe use of IVCFs during the past 19 years at our institution reflected increased usage from 2000 to 2010, corresponding to an increase in prophylactic placement, followed by a decreasing total volume from 2011 to 2018, largely attributable to decreased prophylactic IVCF placement. Improved retrieval rates were seen after implementation of an active IVCF retrieval program.