Use Of Vena Cava Filters Research Articles

Prevention of Deep Venous Thromboembolism.

The nature of many combat wounds puts patients at a high risk of developing deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), which fall under the broader disease category of venous thromboembolism (VTE). In addition to the hypercoagulable state induced by trauma, massive injuries to the extremities, prolonged immobility, and long fixed wing transport times to higher echelons of care are unique risk factors for venous thromboembolism in the combat-injured patient. These risk factors mandate aggressive prophylaxis for DVT and PE that can effectively be achieved by the use of lower extremity sequential compression devices and low dose unfractionated heparin or low molecular weight heparin. In addition, inferior vena cava filters are often used for PE prophylaxis when chemical DVT prophylaxis fails or is contraindicated. The following Department of Defense (DoD) Joint Trauma System (JTS) Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) discusses the current recommendations for the prevention of DVT and PE including the use of inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs).

Gender Differences Among Patients With Acute Pulmonary Embolism

Gender differences in patients with acute pulmonary embolism (APE) remain unclear and controversial. We aimed to understand the gender differences in patients with APE treated in the cardiovascular care units. The registry database of 1,428 patients with APE treated at the Tokyo cardiovascular care unit Network institutions from 2010 to 2014 was retrieved for analysis. In all, 795 women (55.7%) and 633 men (44.3%) were included in this study. The women were older than men (68.0 ± 16.1 vs 60.9 ± 15.6 years, p < 0.0001). Compared with men, women had more complaints of dyspnea and disturbed consciousness, lesser complaints of leg symptoms, and chest pain. Pulmonary arterial systolic pressure (51.5 ± 22.2 mm Hg vs 47.4 ± 22.4 mm Hg, p = 0.012) and the serum B-type natriuretic peptide level (180.4 [50.7 to 526.1] pg/ml vs 107.0 [25.0 to 306.8] pg/ml, p < 0.0001) on admission, was higher in women than in men. Severe cases with massive embolism were seen more in women compared with men (14.6% vs 9.2%, p = 0.0002). The use of inferior vena cava filters were lower in women than in men (31.9% vs 37.3%, p = 0.029). Furthermore, 30-day PE-related mortality was higher in women than in men significantly (5.0% vs 2.8%, p = 0.043). In conclusion, women APE patients were older with higher severity than men APE patients, resulting in poor prognosis.

Are there any risk factors for developing complications with the use of retrievable vena cava filters in orthopaedic surgery?

In high-risk patients, common prophylaxis may be insufficient to prevent thromboembolic events after orthopaedic procedures. In this scenario, a retrievable vena cava filter (VCF) could be considered as an alternative, although it's use remains controversial. Therefore, we asked: (1) what is the overall mechanical complication rate associated with the use of retrievable VCFs in orthopaedic surgery?, (2) what is the association with thromboembolic disease (TED) recurrence, post-thrombotic syndrome and/or major bleeding according to different surgical characteristics?, (3) What is the overall mortality rate attributed to VCF use? We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of 68 patients who underwent orthopaedic surgery with a previous diagnosis of TED, in whom a retrievable VCF was placed. Permanent filters were excluded. We studied the filter's mechanical complications and considered as possible outcomes death and 3 hematologic complications: TED recurrence, post-thrombotic syndrome and major bleeding. To estimate association with risk factors, we subclassified surgeries into 5 groups: 1, arthroplasty/non-arthroplasty; 2, primary/revision; 3, elective/urgent; 4, oncologic/non-oncologic; 5, preoperative/postoperative filter. Mechanical complications were 16% and required a filter revision. Sixty-four percent of the revised VCFs developed a mechanical failure and could not be retrieved. Overall prevalence of TED recurrence, post-thrombotic syndrome and hemorrhage was 33%, 15% and 4.5%, respectively. Spinal surgeries were a risk factor for developing TED recurrences. Only 4% of patients died of a TED recurrence. Orthopaedic procedures had a high risk of mechanical and hematologic complications after using a retrievable VCF. However, mortality was low due to these complications.

The use of inferior vena cava filters in spine trauma: A nationwide study using the National Trauma Data Bank

Objective: To determine the prevalence and variation of inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) use in the spine trauma population and evaluate patient and facility level factors associated with their use.Study Design: Retrospective cohort.Participants/Outcome Measures: Patients with spinal injuries were identified by ICD-9 codes from the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB), the best validated national trauma database. Patients whose spine injuries were operatively treated and those who received IVCF were identified from procedure description fields. Additional information compiled included patient demographics, injury severity score (ISS), time until surgery, concomitant fractures, and facility level information. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine the relationship of associated factors for IVCF use.Results: Of the 120,920 patients identified with spinal injuries, 2.4% received prophylactic IVCF. Of the 13,273 patients with operatively treated spinal injuries, 8.2% received prophylactic IVCF. Of the 7,770 patients with spinal cord injury (SCI), 10.8% received prophylactic IVCF. The interquartile ranges of placement rates among centers demonstrated greater than 10 fold variation. Based on multivariate logistic regression, ISS score >12 demonstrated the strongest association with prophylactic IVCF (adjusted OR = 4.908). Concomitant pelvic and lower extremity fractures (adj OR 2.573 and 2.522) were also associated with their use.Conclusions: Currently the only data regarding existing IVCF use in the spine trauma population amounts to surveys. The present study provides the most detailed and objective information regarding their use in this setting. Even in the operatively treated and SCI subgroups, prophylactic filters were used in only a small percentage of cases but placement rates varied widely among centers. More severely injured patients (ISS >12) had highest odds of receiving prophylactic IVCF. Further study is needed to clarify their role in this vulnerable population.

Atypical use of ALN inferior vena cava filters as protection devices prior to embolization of a large portosystemic shunt with Amplatzer Vascular Plugs and Glubran 2 cyanoacrylate glue.

Spontaneous portosystemic shunts usually develop as a result of portal hypertension caused by liver cirrhosis, and may subsequently lead to hepatic encephalopathy (1,2). In cases of severe portal hypertension, a part of the portal blood may reverse direction and pass through the portosystemic anastomoses into the systemic venous system.

Trends in vena cava filter insertions and “prophylactic” use

BackgroundProphylactic vena cava filter (VCF) use in patients without venous thromboembolism is common practice despite ongoing controversy. Thorough analysis of the evolution of this practice is lacking. We describe trends in VCF use and identify events associated with changes in practice. MethodsUsing the National Inpatient Sample, we conducted a retrospective observational study of U.S. adult hospitalizations from 2000 to 2014. Trends in prophylactic VCF insertion were analyzed both across the entire study population and within subgroups according to trauma status and type of concurrent surgery. Annual percentage change (APC) was calculated, and trends were analyzed using Poisson regression. ResultsAmong 461,904,314 adult inpatients (median [interquartile range] age, 58.1 [38.5-74.3] years; 39.6% male), the incidence of VCF insertion increased rapidly at first (from 0.19% to 0.35%; APC, 11.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.3%-12.2%; P < .001), then at a slower rate after the publication of the Prévention du Risque d'Embolie Pulmonaire par Interruption Cave 2 (PREPIC2) trial in 2005 (from 0.35% to 0.42%; APC, 4.4%; 95% CI, 2.8%-6.0%; P < .001), and it began decreasing after the 2010 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) safety alert (from 0.42% to 0.32%; APC, −5.5%; 95% CI, −6.5% to −4.6%; P < .001). The percentage of total VCFs that had a prophylactic indication increased quickly before publication of the PREPIC2 trial (APC, 19.5%; 95% CI, 17.9%-21.0%; P < .001), increased at a slower rate after publication in 2005 (APC, 4.4%; 95% CI, 2.6%-6.2%; P < .001), and dropped after the FDA safety alert, stabilizing at 18.5% for the last 3 years (APC, −0.3%; 95% CI, −2.2% to 1.7%; P = .8). Subgroups most associated with prophylactic VCF insertion were operative trauma (odds ratio [OR], 10.9; 95% CI, 10.2-11.7), orthopedic surgery (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 4.3-5.2), and neurosurgical procedures (OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 3.6-4.2). All groups except orthopedic surgery experienced a deceleration in prophylactic VCF growth after the publication of PREPIC2. Meanwhile, the FDA safety alert was associated with a decrease in prophylactic VCF insertions for all groups except other major surgery. ConclusionsWhereas publication of the PREPIC2 trial led to a deceleration in prophylactic VCF insertion growth, the FDA alert had a bigger impact, leading to declining rates of prophylactic VCF use. Further investigations of prophylactic insertion of VCF in trauma, orthopedic, and neurosurgical patients are needed to determine whether current levels of use are justified.

Treatment of submassive and massive pulmonary embolism: a clinical practice survey from the second annual meeting of the Pulmonary Embolism Response Team Consortium.

There is a paucity of robust clinical trial data to guide the treatment of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) thus the clinical guidelines rely heavily on expert opinion. Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams (PERT) have been developed to streamline the care of patients with acute PE. We conducted asurvey among100 experts in the field of PEduring the second annual meeting of the PERT Consortium. Respondents were queried with respect to their demographic information, clinical practice questions and clinical vignettes. Clinical practice questions were focused questions about the risk stratification and treatment of patients with acute submassive PE, anticoagulation strategies for patients receiving thrombolysis and the use of inferior vena cava filters. Clinical vignettes were designed to assess participants' preferred choice of treatment for a variety of commonly encountered clinical scenarios. Among physicians affiliated with a PERT, there is overall agreement with regards to the criteria used for risk classification of patients with PE and its application to patients in the provided clinical vignettes. In contrast, there is substantial variability in the treatment strategies of patients presenting with commonly encountered clinical scenarios. The results of this survey highlight the need for more clinical trial data along with accepted algorithms for treatment of acute PE. In the absence of this, PERTs can facilitate multidisciplinary discussions in order to standardize treatment and provide evidence-based therapies to patients with acute PE.

Retrievable inferior vena cava filter utilization in obstetric patients

Objectives: The objective of this study is to evaluate patterns of use and outcomes of retrievable inferior vena cava filters (rIVCF) in obstetric patients.Methods: A single center review of consecutive patients who underwent rIVCF placement during pregnancy/postpartum in 2005–2016. A pooled analysis of the relevant cases in the English literature was conducted.Results: The current cohort comprised 24 women, median age 27 [interquartile range 24–30] years. Among 10 filters placed during pregnancy, the most common indication (n = 4) was the need to withhold anticoagulation therapy before delivery, in the presence of acute thrombosis. In the postpartum period, most filters (64%, 9/14) were an adjunct to catheter-directed thrombolytic therapy. Inferior vena cava filters (IVCF)-related complications occurred in seven (29.2%). Retrieval was attempted in 21 patients (87.5%), and was technically successful in 19 (90.5%), for an overall removal rate of 79.1%. Pooled analysis of the literature (n = 98) showed comparable rates for filter removal and complications (81.6%, p = .78 and 24.2%, p = .60, respectively). Suprarenal placement (p = .12) and elective cesarean section (p = .19) did not reduce overall complication and retrieval rates. The estimated radiation dose among pregnant patients who underwent rIVCF placement without adjunct catheter directed thrombolysis (CDT) (mean 695 Gy cm2) was significantly lower than the radiation dose used in postpartum patients (1863 Gy cm2) or in pregnant patients in whom adjunct CDT was utilized (4059 Gy cm2) (p = .001 for both comparisons).Conclusions: Frequent rIVCF-related complications, radiation exposure, and removal failure call for their cautious utilization in obstetric patients. The role of suprarenal placement and elective cesarean section to improve outcomes has yet to be established.

Non-retrieval of\xa0inferior vena cava filters as a patient safety concern: evaluation of a new process improvement project to increase retrieval rates in a vascular and interventional radiology clinic

BackgroundRetrieval of inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) is important to decrease the long-term risk of complications associated with indwelling devices. Our hospital experienced low retrieval rates and implemented a low-cost intervention and evaluation for quality improvement. The working hypothesis was that a simple, mailed letter intervention could increase retrieval rates by increasing patient and primary care provider knowledge of the need for retrieval.MethodsFor all prospective patients who received a retrievable IVCF during the intervention period from January 1, 2014 to February 29, 2016, patients and their primary care providers were mailed letters encouraging contact with the clinic for evaluation of eligibility for retrieval. The main outcome was retrieval of the IVCF if clinically indicated with a secondary outcome of time-to-retrieval. A pre-intervention control group from October 1, 2011 to December 31, 2013 was used to evaluate the impact of the intervention. Competing risks, time-to-event analysis was used to compare the pre- and post-intervention period retrieval rates correcting for patients who died during follow-up.ResultsBetween the pre- and post-intervention periods, crude retrieval rates increased from 4.4% to 8.1% with a 12-fold change at comparable time points. The time-to-retrieval in the pre-intervention period was a mean (SD) of 503 (207) days with a median (IQR) of 505 (301–742). In the post-intervention period, time-to-retrieval was a mean (SD) of 119 (83) days and with median (IQR) of 128 (38–164) days.ConclusionsThis low-cost intervention significantly increased retrieval rates in a single clinic. However, retrieval rates remain low and can be further improved. Ongoing interventions, including improved patient follow-up and physician education, are being implemented to further improve retrieval and use of inferior vena cava filters. Implanting clinics should implement quality improvement initiatives to improve patient care and follow-up with IVCFs to ensure retrievals occur once clinically relevant in order to minimize long-term complications.

European guidelines on perioperative venous thromboembolism prophylaxis: Intensive care.

: Venous thromboembolism is a common and potentially life-threatening complication that occurs in 4 to 15% of patients admitted to ICUs despite the routine use of pharmacological prophylaxis. We therefore recommend an institution-wide protocol for the prevention of venous thromboembolism (Grade 1B). The routine use of ultrasonographic screening for deep vein thrombosis is not recommended when thromboprophylactic measures are in place (Grade 1B), as the detection of asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis may prompt therapeutic anticoagulation that may increase bleeding risk but has no proven reduction of clinically significant thrombotic events. In critically ill patients, we recommend pharmacological prophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin over low-dose heparin (Grade 1B). For critically ill patients with severe renal insufficiency, we suggest the use of low-dose heparin (Grade 2C), dalteparin (Grade 2B) or reduced doses of enoxaparin (Grade 2C). Monitoring of anti-Xa activity may be considered when low molecular weight heparin is used in these patients (Grade 2C). No study has prospectively evaluated the efficacy and safety of deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis in critically ill patients with severe liver dysfunction. Thus, the use of pharmacological prophylaxis in these patients should be carefully balanced against the risk of bleeding. For critically ill patients, we recommend against the routine use of inferior vena cava filters for the primary prevention of venous thromboembolism (Grade 1C). When the diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopaenia is suspected or confirmed, all forms of heparin must be discontinued (Grade 1B). In these patients, immediate anticoagulation with a nonheparin anticoagulant rather than discontinuation of heparin alone is recommended (Grade 1C).

European guidelines on perioperative venous thromboembolism prophylaxis: Inferior vena cava filters.

: The indications for the use of an inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) in the context of deep venous thrombosis to prevent pulmonary embolism remain controversial. Despite wide use in clinical practice, great variation exists in national and international guidelines in regard to the indications. In addition, clinical practice is based on poor-quality data from trauma and bariatric surgery with a high incidence of complications. It is often difficult to assess their efficacy and lack of filter retrieval appears to be a substantial issue compared with a potential benefit by insertion of these devices. Complications usually refer to increased risk of deep venous thrombosis, filter perforation, filter penetration, filter migration, inferior vena cava occlusion and subsequently failure in pulmonary embolism prevention. Evidence from low-quality studies or registries, with small numbers of patients and conflicting findings, does not allow for a strong recommendation for or against the use of IVCFs. IVCFs should only be considered in cases of very high risk of pulmonary embolism and in perioperative situations at very high risk of bleeding, resulting in a prolonged contra-indication to pharmacological prophylaxis.

European Guidelines on perioperative venous thromboembolism prophylaxis: Executive summary.

European Guidelines on perioperative venous thromboembolism prophylaxis: Executive summary.

Utility of Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters: A Systematic Literature Review and Analysis of the Reasons for Nonretrieval of Filters with Temporary Indications.

To investigate the use of retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters in the current practice and analyze the causes of filter left in situ despite initial plans for retrieval. A systematic search of all English-language studies of retrievable IVC filters was conducted, including clinical trials and observational studies published between January 1984 and March 2016. A total of 103 studies were identified, including 10 filter models in 20,319 patients. Placement indications were reported for 11,128 (54.8%) patients, including therapeutic (n=6270; 56.3%) and prophylactic (n=4858; 43.7%) indications. A total of 13,224 (65.1%) filters were left as permanent devices; 7095 (34.9%) filters were removed. The reasons for filter nonretrieval among the 5308 (40.1%) reported cases were primary permanent indication (21.2%; 1127/5308), death (19.4%; 1031/5308), ongoing pulmonary embolism (PE) protection (19.0%; 1011/5308), failed retrieval (13.7%; 725/5308), loss to follow-up (13.0%; 689/5308), discontinued care (4.4%; 235/5308), physician oversight (4.0%; 213/5308), patient morbidity (2.8%; 149/5308), and patient refusal (2.4%; 128/5308). A total of 7820 patients presented for filter retrieval, and 7095 filters (90.7%) were successfully removed, with a mean indwelling time of 106.6±47.3days. Breakthrough PE was reported in 2.1% (191/9169) of patients. Filter tilt, recurrent deep vein thrombosis, penetration, IVC thrombosis, migration, and fracture occurred in 7.7% (798/10,348), 7.1% (362/5092), 5.4% (379/7001), 3.9% (345/8788), 1.4% (160/11,679), and 0.5% (50/9509) of patients, respectively. Approximately two-thirds of retrievable filters were not retrieved even though more than 85% of the filters were initially intended for temporary use. The major reasons for filter left in situ despite initial plans for retrieval were death, need for ongoing PE protection, failed retrieval, loss to follow-up, discontinued care, and physician oversight.

Deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis: Are we overdoing? An Asian survey on trends in bariatric surgery with a systematic review of literature.

Background:Obesity is a risk factor for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and venous thromboembolism (VTE). VTE is the most common cause of mortality in patients undergoing bariatric surgery. There is considerable variation in practice regarding methods, dosages and duration of prophylaxis in this patient population. Most of the literature is based on Western patients and specific guidelines for Asians do not exist.Methods:We conducted a web-based survey amongst 11 surgeons from high-volume centres in Asia regarding their DVT prophylaxis measures in patients undergoing bariatric surgery. We collected and analysed the data.Results:The reported incidence of DVT and VTE ranged from 0% to 0.2%. Most surgeons (63.64%) preferred to use both mechanical and chemoprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin being the most preferred form of chemoprophylaxis (81.82%). There was an equal distribution of weight-based, body mass index-based and fixed-dose regimens. Duration of chemoprophylaxis ranged from 3–5 days after surgery to 2 weeks after surgery. For high-risk patients, 60% surgeons preferred to start chemoprophylaxis at least 1 week before surgery. Routine use of inferior vena cava filters in high-risk patients was not preferred with some surgeons adopting a selective use (36.36%).Conclusion:The purpose of this survey was to understand the trends in DVT prophylaxis amongst different high-volume bariatric centres in Asia and to relate the same with the existing literature on the different steps in prophylaxis. There is, however, a need for consensus guidelines for DVT prophylaxis in Asian obese.

Practice Patterns of Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement and Factors That Predict Retrieval Rates: A Single-Center Institution and Review of the Literature.

BackgroundThere is a wide variability in practice patterns on the use of inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) among institutions, which is likely due to contrasting indication guidelines published by different professional societies. The aim of the present study is to report our healthcare system use of IVCF to: 1) determine practice patterns, 2) determine factors that may predict IVCF retrieval and 3) identify areas for improvement.MethodsA retrospective review of 180 consecutive IVCF placement performed between July 2014 and December 2015 was conducted.ResultsOne hundred nine (60.6%) IVCFs were placed for absolute indications, 27 (15.0%) for relative indications, 26 (14.4%) prophylactically and 18 (10.0%) for unknown indications. Average age was 59.3 years. Ninety-five had active cancer. Surgical and medical services requested filter placement in 112 (62.2%) and 68 (37.8%) patients, respectively. Thirteen (7.2%) patients had a hematology consult prior to IVCF placement. Documentation of the presence of an IVCF was present in 118/127 (92.9%) discharge summaries, and outlined instructions for filter retrieval post-discharge were present in 20/124 (16.1%) cases. Only 33 (25.0%) IVCF were retrieved at a median interval of 162 days (range: 4 - 1,053 days). None of the factors of interest was found to be significantly associated with IVCF retrieval.ConclusionA root cause analysis identified that the lack of a structured system for IVCF tracking resulted in poor IVCF retrieval rates. This study resulted in the development of a hospital-initiated multidisciplinary team to address these issues.

Inferior vena cava filter use and patient safety: legacy or science?

There has been a dramatic increase in vena cava filter (VCF) use over the past 20 years in the absence of evidence that filters provide a net patient benefit or are required in most cases. This increase is largely attributable to the availability of retrievable filters and expanded indications, particularly as primary prophylaxis in patients thought to be at high risk of pulmonary embolism. Substantial variability in VCF use, unrelated to patient clinical factors, has been shown between hospitals, from region to region, and among various countries. Despite the lack of direct evidence for the benefit of VCFs for any indication, it is appropriate to insert a retrievable VCF in patients with a recent proximal deep vein thrombosis and an absolute contraindication to therapeutic anticoagulation and then to remove the filter once the bleeding risk decreases and the patient has been anticoagulated. Unfortunately, a high proportion of retrievable filters are not removed, even after the reason for their placement has long passed. Retrievable filters are associated with substantial rates of complications if they are not removed, including penetration of the vena caval wall, fracture and embolization of filter fragments, and caval occlusion. Patient safety priorities and medical-legal concerns mandate careful selection of patients for VCF placement and removal shortly after anticoagulation has been initiated.

Evaluating the Utilization of Prophylactic Inferior Vena Cava Filters in Trauma Patients

The lack of evidence-based guidelines on the use of prophylactic inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) in patients after trauma has led to variation of its application. We seek to understand the national trend of the use of prophylactic IVCF in trauma population. A retrospective review of the National Trauma Databank (2002-2014) was performed to identify patients who received an IVCF after trauma. Those without a preexisting venous thromboembolism or discharge diagnosis of VTE were classified as receiving prophylactic IVCF. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to examine associations between the use of prophylactic IVCF and risk factors for VTE. P value ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant. Among the 2,189,994 patients evaluated, 41,155 (2%) received a prophylactic IVCF. The rate of overall IVCF placement (2.9% in 2002-2006 to 1.6% in 2014, P<0.001) and prophylactic IVCF placement (2.5% in 2002-2006 to 1.2% in 2014, P<0.001) decreased over the study period. In multivariable analysis, significant risk factors associated with the use of prophylactic IVCF were male gender (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.1-1.2), African-American race (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.1-1.2), injury severity score≥24 (OR 4.4, 95% CI 4.2-4.5), Glasgow Coma Scale <8 (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.4-1.5), spinal cord injury with paraplegia (OR 5.1, 95% CI 4.7-5.6), pelvic fracture (OR 2.9, 95% CI 2.7-3.0), long bone fracture (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.3-1.4), and solid organ injury (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.2-1.3) (P<0.001). Patients who were treated at a level-II trauma center (OR 1.1, 95% CI 1.1-1.2, P<0.001), at a facility with ≥200 beds (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.2-1.4, P<0.001), and those with medical insurance coverage (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.6-1.8, P<0.001) were also more likely to receive a prophylactic IVCF. The utilization of prophylactic IVCF in trauma patients has decreased over time between 2008 and 2014. Considerable variation exists in its use, which is not fully accounted for by the VTE rate. Further study is required to evaluate appropriate indications for placement of prophylactic IVCF in trauma patients.

Inferior Vena Cava Filters in Stable Patients with Acute Pulmonary Embolism Who Receive Thrombolytic Therapy

BackgroundThere is a need for further analyses of subgroups of patients with pulmonary embolism who might benefit from vena cava filters. In the present investigation, we analyze mortality with vena cava filters in the subgroup of stable patients with pulmonary embolism who received thrombolytic therapy. We use a different database than used previously, and we analyze data in more recent years. MethodsAdministrative data were analyzed from the Premier Healthcare Database, 2010-2014, in hospitalized stable patients with pulmonary embolism who received thrombolytic therapy and may or may not have received a vena cava filter. Patients were identified on the basis of International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes. ResultsIn-hospital all-cause mortality in stable patients who received a vena cava filter in addition to thrombolytic therapy was 139 of 2660 (5.2%), compared with 697 of 4332 (16.1%) who did not receive a filter (P < .0001) (relative risk .32). Mortality was lower with a filter every decade of age ≥ 31 years. ConclusionAmong stable patients with acute pulmonary embolism who receive thrombolytic therapy, irrespective of the reason, the additional use of an inferior vena cava filter results in a lower in-hospital mortality.

Retrievable IVC Filters: Comprehensive Review of Device-related Complications and Advanced Retrieval Techniques.

Use of retrievable inferior vena cava filters (RIVCFs) has grown exponentially since their introduction into clinical practice, but many of these devices are not retrieved. Some are not retrieved due to poor clinical follow-up, but other devices remain in situ for extended periods because they present significant technical challenges during retrieval. Because of these and other factors, many of these devices were thus left in place permanently. However, recent data have placed a renewed emphasis on device retrieval due to increased risk of RIVCF-related complications, which are positively correlated with filter dwell time. Development of advanced filter retrieval techniques has had a significant impact on the removal of embedded RIVCFs, permitting retrieval of the majority of devices. The purpose of this article is to present an imaging and data review of the dominant device-related factors that complicate RIVCF retrieval and to describe the relevant advanced retrieval techniques to manage these factors. RIVCF imaging is frequently encountered in daily clinical practice via various imaging modalities. Therefore, diagnostic radiologists can play a vital role in identifying filter-related issues. Familiarity with the context for managing these issues in the interventional suite is essential for improving triage and care of patients with RIVCFs. © RSNA, 2017.

Implementation of an institutional protocol to improve inferior vena cava utilization and outcomes.

To evaluate the impact of an institutional protocol on patterns of use and outcomes of inferior vena cava filters (IVCF). Following a multidisciplinary effort, an institutional protocol involving dedicated follow-up of patients receiving IVCF and a physician education program regarding IVCF utilization, was established. We prospectively collected data of patients who received IVCF during 2015-2016, following protocol implementation (POST group). For comparison, we reviewed records of patients who received IVCF during 2009-2014, before implementation of the institutional protocol (PRE group). In the PRE and POST groups, 76 and 38 IVCF per year were inserted respectively, with an overall decrease of 50%. IVCF were more likely to be placed for therapeutic rather than prophylactic indications in the POST compared to the PRE group (P = 0.003). Follow-up rates at our coagulation clinic were significantly higher in the POST than the PRE group (100 vs. 22.9%, P < 0.0001), as were rates of attempted retrieval: 60.5% (23/38) vs. 16.7% (76/455), P < 0.0001. Failed retrieval occurred at similar rates: 15.8% (12/76) vs. 18.2% (4/22), P = 0.75. There was a trend towards a lower thrombotic complication rate in the POST than the PRE group: 2.6 vs. 11.2%, P = 0.16. Implementation of an institutional protocol significantly decreased the use of IVCF and increased the retrieval rate. Such intervention could potentially lead to lower rates of IVCF-related complications in the future.