Impact of vena cava filters on in-hospital case fatality rate from pulmonary embolism.

BACKGROUND: The effects of vena cava filters on case fatality rate are not clear, although they are used increasingly in patients with pulmonary embolism. The purpose of this investigation is to determine categories of patients with pulmonary embolism in whom vena cava filters reduce in-hospital case fatality rate. METHODS: In-hospital all-cause case fatality rate according to the use of vena cava filters was determined in patients with pulmonary embolism discharged from short-stay hospitals throughout the United States using data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. RESULTS: In-hospital case fatality rate was marginally lower in stable patients who received a vena cava filter: 21,420 of 297,700 (7.2%) versus 135,240 of 1,712,800 (7.9%) (P<.0001). Filters did not improve in-hospital case fatality rate if deep venous thrombosis was diagnosed in stable patients. A few stable patients (1.4%) received thrombolytic therapy. Such patients who received a vena cava filter had a lower case fatality rate than those who did not: 550 of 8550 (6.4%) versus 2950 of 19,050 (15%) (P<.0001). Unstable patients who received thrombolytic therapy had a lower in-hospital case fatality rate with vena cava filters than those who did not: 505 of 6630 (7.6%) versus 2600 of 14,760 (18%) (P<.0001). Unstable patients who did not receive thrombolytic therapy also had a lower in-hospital case fatality rate with a vena cava filter: 4260 of 12,850 (33%) versus 19,560 of 38,000 (51%) (P<.0001). CONCLUSION: At present, it seems prudent to consider a vena cava filter in patients with pulmonary embolism who are receiving thrombolytic therapy and in unstable patients who may not be candidates for thrombolytic therapy. Future prospective study is warranted to better define in which patients a filter is appropriate.

Modest response in translation to home management of deep venous thrombosis.

BACKGROUND: years may elapse between the publication of results of rigorous randomized trials and changes in clinical practice. It is not often that a definitive time interval can be identified that shows the time taken for published clinical trials to affect clinical practice. In the present study, we track the timelines of evidence for home treatment of deep venous thrombosis and its eventual impact on hospitalizations and early discharge. METHODS: the number of patients discharged from short-stay hospitals throughout the United States between 1979 and 2006 with a principal diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis and the proportion discharged in ≤ 2 days was determined from The National Hospital Discharge Survey. We also attempted to identify all published articles that reported home treatment of deep venous thrombosis in unselected populations. RESULTS: eleven years after demonstration of the safety and efficacy of home treatment, there was only a 21% decrease in the population-based incidence of hospitalizations of patients with a principal diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis. The proportion of patients with a principal diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis who were discharged in ≤ 2 days began to increase prominently after the 1996 publication of trials showing the safety and efficacy of home treatment, and continued to increase through 2006. However, the proportion discharged early remained modest (21% to 25%). CONCLUSIONS: whether the slow implementation of home treatment reflects a cautious approach accompanied by a gradual testing of shortened hospitalization for deep venous thrombosis or other factors is uncertain.