Prophylactic Inferior Vena Cava Filters for Venous Thromboembolism in Adults With Trauma: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Trauma is an independent risk factor for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Due to contraindications or delay in starting pharmacological prophylaxis among trauma patients with a high risk of bleeding, the inferior vena cava (IVC) filter has been utilized as alternative prevention for pulmonary embolism (PE). Albeit, its clinical efficacy has remained uncertain. Therefore, we performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic IVC filters in severely injured patients. Methods: Three databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane) were searched from August 1, 2012, to October 27, 2021. Independent reviewers performed data extraction and quality assessment. Relative risk (RR) at 95% confidence interval (CI) pooled in a randomized meta-analysis. A parallel clinical practice guideline committee assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. The outcomes of interest included VTE, PE, deep venous thrombosis, mortality, and IVC filter complications. Results: We included 10 controlled studies (47 140 patients), of which 3 studies (310 patients) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 7 were observational studies (46 830 patients). IVC filters demonstrated no significant reduction in PE and fatal PE (RR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.06-1.28 and RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.01-7.84, respectively) by pooling RCTs with low certainty. However, it demonstrated a significant reduction in the risk of PE and fatal PE (RR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.12-0.55 and RR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.011-0.81, respectively) by pooling observational studies with very low certainty. IVC filter did not improve mortality in both RCTs and observational studies (RR, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.86-2.43 and RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.3-1.31, respectively). Conclusion: In trauma patients, moderate risk reduction of PE and fatal PE was demonstrated among observational data but not RCTs. The desirable effect is not robust to outweigh the undesirable effects associated with IVC filter complications. Current evidence suggests against routinely using prophylactic IVC filters.

Gone in 60 days: our first experience with a bioconvertible IVC filter.

The Sentry bioconvertible IVC filter (Boston Scientific, MA, USA) contains a bioabsorbable filament which hydrolyses after 60 days, allowing the arms of the filter to spring open, retract into the vessel wall and endothelialise, leaving an unobstructed IVC lumen.It is a novel treatment option for patients at transient risk of pulmonary emboli with a contraindication to anticoagulation. The device provides similar protection to other currently available devices against pulmonary emboli with minimal complications. It represents an effective alternative to retrievable filters, the removal of which is variously not attempted, not possible or associated with high complication rates.We review the literature which underpins the development of the bioconvertible filter. We describe our first deployment of the filter in an 85-year-old female with gastric malignancy (who subsequently underwent a subtotal gastrectomy) with a history of anaemia and previous pulmonary emboli. The availability of a bioconvertible filter constitutes a further step forward in the management of patients with potential or active thromboembolic disease.

Successful IVC thrombus extraction with the AngioVac device following five vessel coronary artery bypass graft: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Inferior vena cava thrombosis is cited to be a complication of inferior vena cava filter placement and post coronary artery bypass surgery. Often only mild symptoms arise from these thrombi; however, due to the chronic nature of some thrombi and the recanalization process, more serious complications can arise. Although anticoagulation remains the gold standard of treatment, some patients are unable to be anticoagulated. In this case, we present a 65-year-old male who underwent IVC filter placement and open-heart surgery who later developed extensive femoral and iliocaval thrombosis leading to right heart failure, which required thrombus extraction with an AngioVac suction device. CASE PRESENTATION: We present a 65-year-old male who presented with bilateral pulmonary emboli with extensive right lower extremity deep vein thrombosis. Upon investigation he had ischemic heart disease and underwent a five-vessel coronary artery bypass for which he had an IVC filter placed preoperatively. On post operative day 3 to 4, he was decompensated and was diagnosed with an IVC thrombus. He progressed to right heart failure and worsening cardiogenic shock despite therapeutic anticoagulation and was taken for a suction thrombectomy using the AngioVac (AngioDynamics, Latham, NY) aspiration thrombectomy device. The thrombectomy was successful and he was able to recover and was discharged from the hospital. CONCLUSION: Despite being a rare complication, IVC thrombosis can have detrimental effects. This case is an example of how IVC thrombus in the post-operative setting can lead to mortality. The gold standard is therapeutic anticoagulation but despite that, this patient continued to have worsening cardiogenic shock. Other therapies have been described but because of its rarity, they are only described in case reports. This case shows that the AngioVac device is a successful treatment option for IVC thrombus and can have the possibility of future use.

Current Controversies in Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review.

Despite inferior vena cava (IVC) filter practice spanning over 50 years, interventionalists face many controversies in proper utilization and management. This article reviews recent literature and offers opinions on filter practices. IVC filtration is most likely to benefit patients at high risk of iatrogenic pulmonary embolus during endovenous intervention. Filters should be used selectively in patients with acute trauma or who are undergoing bariatric surgery. Retrieval should be attempted for perforating filter and fractured filter fragments when imaging suggests feasibility and favorable risk-to-benefit ratio. Antibiotic prophylaxis should be considered when removing filters with confirmed gastrointestinal penetration. Anticoagulation solely because of filter presence is not recommended except in patients with active malignancy. Anticoagulation while filters remain in place may decrease long-term filter complications in these patients. Patients with a filter and symptomatic IVC occlusion should be offered filter removal and IVC reconstruction. Physicians implanting filters may maximize retrieval by maintaining physician-patient relationships and scheduling follow-up at time of placement. Annual follow-up allows continued evaluation for removal or replacement as appropriate. Advanced retrieval techniques increase retrieval rates but require caution. Certain cases may require referral to experienced centers with additional retrieval resources. The views expressed should help guide clinical practice, future innovation, and research.