Temporal trends in vena cava filter implantation in public health system inpatients: an 11-year analysis of the largest city in Brazil / Tendência temporal do implante de filtro de veia cava em pacientes internados no SUS em São Paulo: análise de 11 anos da maior cidade do Brasil

Abstract Background Vena cava filter implantation is considered a simple procedure, which can lead to overuse and over-indication. It is nevertheless associated with short and long-term complications. Objectives The goals of this study were to evaluate rates of vena cava filter implantation conducted by Brazil's Unified Public Health System, analyzing in-hospital mortality and migration of patients from other cities seeking medical attention in São Paulo. Methods This study analyzed all vena cava filter procedures conducted from 2008 to 2018 in the city of São Paulo and registered on the public database using a big data system to conduct web scraping of publicly available databases. Results A total of 1324 vena cava filter implantations were analyzed. 60.5% of the patients were female; 61.7% were under 65 years old; 34.07% had registered addresses in other cities or states; and there was a 7.4% in-hospital mortality rate. Conclusions We observed an increase in the rates of use of vena cava filters up to 2010 and a decrease in rates from that year onwards, which coincides with the year that the Food and Drug Administration published a recommendation to better evaluate vena cava filter indications.

Resumo Contexto O implante de filtro de veia cava é considerado um procedimento de baixa complexidade, o que pode resultar em indicação excessiva. No entanto, não é isento de complicações a curto e longo prazo. Objetivos Avaliar as taxas de implantes de filtro de veia cava realizados pelo Sistema Único de Saúde e a origem geográfica e mortalidade intra-hospitalar dos pacientes. Métodos Foi conduzida uma análise em um banco de dados públicos referente às taxas de implantes de filtro de veia cava realizados de 2008 a 2018 na cidade de São Paulo, utilizando o sistema de big data. Resultados Foram analisados 1.324 implantes de filtro de veia cava financiados pelo Sistema Único de Saúde. Identificou-se tendência de aumento da taxa de implantação até 2010 e de redução dos números após esse período. Do total de pacientes, 60,5% eram do sexo feminino; 61,75% tinham menos de 65 anos; e 34,07% possuíam endereço oficial em outra cidade ou estado. A taxa de mortalidade intra-hospitalar foi de 7,4%. Conclusões Observamos aumento das taxas de implante de filtro de veia cava até 2010 e redução das taxas após esse período, o que coincide com o ano em que a organização norte-americana Food and Drug Administration publicou uma recomendação para melhor avaliar as indicações de filtros.

IVC filter placement in patients undergoing surgical treatment of bone or soft-tissue tumors.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Patients with cancer to bone or soft tissues undergoing orthopedic procedures may be unable to receive pharmacologic prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters may be an effective method to prevent fatal pulmonary embolism (PE) in these patients. METHODS: Retrospective chart review performed for patients surgically treated for malignant disease of bone or soft tissue who had IVC filter placement. Type of surgery, anatomic region, and development of wound complications requiring repeat surgery were analyzed. RESULTS: From 2007 to 2018, 286 patients received IVC filters. Ten (3.5%) patients suffered deep vein thrombus (DVT) postoperatively. There was no acute fatal PE. Two patients suffered PE at 2 and 99 days postoperatively. Risk of DVT was comparable following surgery with endoprosthesis versus open reduction and internal fixation (p = 0.056) and with soft tissue versus bone involvement (p = 0.620). Three filter-related complications occurred. Patients disease at the femur had the highest rate of DVT. CONCLUSIONS: Following treatment of malignant disease of bone or soft-tissues, two patients with IVC filter placement experienced nonfatal PE and three patients experienced filter-related complications. No patients in this series experienced a fatal PE.

Prophylactic Inferior Vena Cava Filters : Outcomes in Severely Injured Trauma Patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients with major trauma and contraindications to anticoagulation are often considered candidates for a prophylactic inferior vena cava filter (IVCF). Prophylactic IVCFs are controversial in trauma and backed by varying levels of evidence. This study aims to analyze outcomes in severely injured patients who receive IVCFs. METHODS: A retrospective review of trauma patients aged ≥ 16 years with ISS ≥ 15 admitted to our level 1 trauma center from years 2013 through 2018. Patients were divided into 2 groups: prophylactic IVCF versus VTE chemoprophylaxis. The analysis evaluated demographics, stratified by ISS (15-24, 25-34, ≥35), and subgrouped those with AIS-Head ≥3. Adjusted outcome measures included DVT, PE, mortality, and ICU length-of-stay (ICU-LOS). RESULTS: The study sample included 413 patients with prophylactic IVCFs and 2487 on VTE chemoprophylaxis. IVCF placement was associated with higher severity injuries: ISS 28 versus 25 and lower GCS 10.0 versus 11.8, TBI prevalence 83% versus 68% (P < .001). Patients with IVCFs had increased ICU-LOS (23.2 days vs 12.2 days), DVT (14.8% vs 4.3%), and PE (5.8% vs 1.6%) for patients with ISS <35 (P < .001). ISS ≥35 was not associated with intergroup DVT or PE rate differences (P = .81 and .43). No intergroup mortality differences were observed, including after ISS stratification. Among patients with AIS-Head ≥3, prophylactic IVCF was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (8.4% vs 15.7%, P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic IVCF placement was associated with higher rates of DVT and nonfatal PE, and prolonged ICU-LOS. Prophylactic IVCF placement was not associated with increased in-hospital mortality for severely injured trauma patients. Among patients with concomitant critical head injuries (AIS-Head ≥3), prophylactic IVCF placement was associated with lower in-hospital mortality than VTE chemoprophylaxis.

Racial disparities in inferior vena cava filter use in metabolic and bariatric surgery patients: Nationwide insights from the MBSAQIP database.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic inferior vena cava (IVC) filter use in bariatric surgery patients is a physician- and patient-dependent practice pattern with unclear safety and efficacy. Factors that mediate physicians' decisions for IVC filter placement preoperatively remain unclear. The role of race in decision-making also remains unclear. METHODS: From the 2015-2016 MBASQIP database, patient characteristics leading to IVC filter use and outcomes after IVC filter placement were compared between Black and White primary bariatric surgery patients. RESULTS: Prophylactic IVC filter was used in 0.66% of Black and White patients. IVC filter use was three-fold higher in Black patients, despite this cohort having a lower venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk profile than White counterparts. Black race was an independent predictor for IVC filter placement on multivariate analysis. After receiving an IVC filter, Black patients had higher rates of 30-day adverse outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, Black race was independently associated with the likelihood of receiving a prophylactic IVC filter, despite lower rates of VTE risk factors and lack of recommendations for its use. Further research is needed to explore why this disparity in clinical practice exists.

Excimer Laser Sheath-Assisted Retrieval of "Closed-Cell" Design Inferior Vena Cava Filters.

Background Numerous reports have shown that inferior vena cava filters are associated with clinically significant adverse events. Complicating factors, such as caval incorporation, may lead to technical challenges at retrieval. The use of advanced techniques including the laser sheath have increased technical success rates; however, the data are limited on which filter types necessitate and benefit from its use. Methods and Results From October 2011 to September 2019, patients with inferior vena cava filter dwell times >6 months or with prior failed retrievals were considered for laser sheath-assisted retrieval. Standard and nonlaser advanced retrieval techniques were attempted first; if the filter could not be safely or successfully detached from the caval wall using these techniques, the laser sheath was used. Technical success, filter type, necessity for laser sheath application based on "open" versus "closed-cell" filter design, dwell times, and adverse events were evaluated. A total of 441 patients (216 men; mean age, 54 years) were encountered. Mean dwell times for all filters was 56.6 months, 54.4 among closed-cell filters and 58.5 among open-cell filters (P=0.63). Technical success of retrieval was 98%, with the laser sheath required in 143 cases (40%). Successful retrieval of closed-cell filters required laser sheath assistance in 60% of cases as compared with 7% of open-cell filters (odds ratio, 20.1; P<0.01). In closed-cell inferior vena cava filters, dwell time was significantly associated with need for laser, requiring it in 64% of retrievals with dwell times >6 months (P=0.01). One major adverse event occurred among laser sheath retrievals when a patient required a 2-day inpatient admission for a femoral access site hemorrhage. Conclusions Closed-cell filters may necessitate the use of the laser sheath for higher rates of successful and safe retrieval.

A warning for warming catheters: interventional radiology's role.

Concerns have been raised in the literature, regarding the risk of venous thromboembolic events associated with the use of thermoregulatory catheters. Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are commonly used to prevent venous thromboembolic events. We demonstrate the usefulness of IVC filter placement prior to the removal of thermoregulatory warming catheters. The management of thermoregulatory warming catheter associated venous thromboembolism is outlined through a retrospective case series of three patients. In one case IVC thrombus was incidentally detected at ultrasonography one-week post removal. The second case describes the occurrence of pulseless electrical activity arrest secondary to massive pulmonary embolism immediately post removal of the thermoregulatory catheter, and subsequent interventional radiology management including pulmonary thrombectomy and caval filter placement. The third case is of a patient in whom the removal of the warming catheter was performed in the angiography suite, with placement of IVC filter prior to removal. Venography displayed a large thrombus burden within the IVC filter. There is limited data in the literature regarding the use of IVC filters as prophylaxis in patients with thermoregulatory catheters, particularly warming catheters. We advocate the placement of an IVC filter prior to the removal of warming catheters. We raise awareness regarding the potential risks of venous thromboembolism in this population and the key role interventional radiology has in the management of these patients.

Changes in Care for Acute Pulmonary Embolism Through A Multidisciplinary Pulmonary Embolism Response Team.

BACKGROUND: Optimal management of acute pulmonary embolism requires expertise offered by multiple subspecialties. As such, pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs) have increased in prevalence, but the institutional consequences of a PERT are unclear. METHODS: We compared all patients that presented to our institution with an acute pulmonary embolism in the 3 years prior to and 3 years after the formation of our PERT. The primary outcome was in-hospital pulmonary embolism-related mortality before and after the formation of the PERT. Sub-analyses were performed among patients with elevated-risk pulmonary embolism. RESULTS: Between August 2012 and August 2018, 2042 patients were hospitalized at our institution with acute pulmonary embolism, 884 (41.3%) pre-PERT implementation and 1158 (56.7%) post-PERT implementation, of which 165 (14.2%) were evaluated by the PERT. There was no difference in pulmonary embolism-related mortality between the two time periods (2.6% pre-PERT implementation vs 2.9% post-PERT implementation, P = .89). There was increased risk stratification assessment by measurement of cardiac biomarkers and echocardiograms post-PERT implementation. Overall utilization of advanced therapy was similar between groups (5.4% pre-PERT implementation vs 5.4% post-PERT implementation, P = 1.0), with decreased use of systemic thrombolysis (3.8% pre-PERT implementation vs 2.1% post-PERT implementation, P = 0.02) and increased catheter-directed therapy (1.3% pre-PERT implementation vs 3.3% post-PERT implementation, P = 0.05) post-PERT implementation. Inferior vena cava filter use decreased after PERT implementation (10.7% pre-PERT implementation vs 6.9% post-PERT implementation, P = 0.002). Findings were similar when analyzing elevated-risk patients. CONCLUSION: Pulmonary embolism response teams may increase risk stratification assessment and alter application of advanced therapies, but a mortality benefit was not identified.

Effect on Mortality With Inferior Vena Cava Filters in Patients Undergoing Pulmonary Embolectomy.

In the absence of a randomized controlled trial, it is important to obtain as much evidence as possible by other methods on whether inferior vena cava (IVC) filters reduce mortality in patients who undergo pulmonary embolectomy. Therefore, this retrospective cohort study based data from the National Inpatient Sample 2009 to 2014 was undertaken. We assessed in-hospital all-cause mortality in stable and unstable (in shock or on ventilator support) patients with acute pulmonary embolism who underwent pulmonary embolectomy. International Classification of Diseases-9-Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes were used to identify patients. Co-morbidities were assessed by the updated Charlson co-morbidity index. A time-dependent analysis was performed to control for immortal time bias. In stable patients who underwent pulmonary embolectomy, mortality with an IVC filter was 50 of 1,212 (4.1%) compared with 202 of 755 (27%) with no IVC filter (p <0.0001). In unstable patients, mortality with an IVC filter was 108 of 598 (18%) compared with 179 of 358 (50%) with no IVC filter (p <0.0001). Mortality was reduced with IVC filters only if the filters were inserted in the first 4 or 5 days. Co-morbid conditions and immortal time bias could not explain these results. We conclude that both stable and unstable patients who underwent pulmonary embolectomy had a lower mortality with IVC filters if inserted in the first 4 or 5 days.

Practice Variation in Vena Cava Filter Use Among Trauma Centers in the National Trauma Database.

BACKGROUND: Agreement regarding indications for vena cava filter (VCF) utilization in trauma patients has been in flux since the filter's introduction. As VCF technology and practice guidelines have evolved, the use of VCF in trauma patients has changed. This study examines variation in VCF placement among trauma centers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was performed using data from the National Trauma Data Bank (2005-2014). Trauma centers were grouped according to whether they placed VCFs during the study period (VCF+/VCF-). A multivariable probit regression model was fit to predict the number of VCFs used among the VCF+ centers (the expected [E] number of VCF per center). The ratio of observed VCF placement (O) to expected VCFs (O:E) was computed and rank ordered to compare interfacility practice variation. RESULTS: In total, 65,482 VCFs were placed by 448 centers. Twenty centers (4.3%) placed no VCFs. The greatest predictors of VCF placement were deep vein thrombosis, spinal cord paralysis, and major procedure. The strongest negative predictor of VCF placement was admission during the year 2014. Among the VCF+ centers, O:E varied by nearly 500%. One hundred fifty centers had an O:E greater than one. One hundred sixty-nine centers had an O:E less than one. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial variation in practice is present in VCF placement. This variation cannot be explained only by the characteristics of the patients treated at these centers but could be also due to conflicting guidelines, changing evidence, decreasing reimbursement rates, or the culture of trauma centers.

Effect of a dedicated inferior vena cava filter retrieval program on retrieval rates and number of patients lost to follow-up.

PURPOSE We aimed to assess the efficacy of a dedicated inferior vena cava (IVC) filter retrieval program on filter retrieval rates and number of patients lost to follow-up. METHODS A dedicated IVC filter retrieval program began in July 2016. This consisted of tracking all patients with retrievable filters placed by interventional radiology (IR). At the time of filter placement, patients were scheduled for a retrieval consult in the IR clinic. Any missed appointments were followed up by a physician assistant. The program was overseen by a single IR physician. To assess this program's efficacy, we reviewed the records of all patients who had retrievable IVC filters placed by IR nine months prior to and nine months after program initiation. Demographics and clinical factors were then collected and compared. A P value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS Prior to the program, 76 patients (31 males, 45 females; mean age, 64.2 years) had retrievable filters placed; 75% were placed due to a contraindication to anticoagulation. From this group, five filters were removed (6.6%), 42 patients were lost to follow-up (55.3%), 22 patients died (29.0%), and seven filters were deemed permanent by a physician after placement (9.2%). All five retrievals were successful and no complications were reported. After program initiation, 106 patients (59 males, 47 females; mean age, 58.8 years) had retrievable filters placed; 75.5% were placed due to a contraindication to anticoagulation. In this group, 30 filters were retrieved (retrieval rate 28.3%), 17 patients were lost to follow-up (16%), 23 patients died (21.7%), 28 filters were deemed permanent by a physician after placement (26.4%), and decisions were still pending in eight patients (7.5%). One patient (3.3%) had a minor complication during filter retrieval. Initiation of a filter retrieval program increased our retrieval rate (6.6% vs. 28.3%; P < 0.001) and reduced the number of patients with filters that were lost to follow-up (55.3% vs. 16%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION Dedicated filter retrieval program is effective in increasing filter retrieval rates and decreasing the number of patients lost to follow-up.

Continuing Use of Inferior Vena Cava Filters Despite Data and Recommendations Against Their Use in Patients With Deep Venous Thrombosis.

The purpose of the present investigation is to determine the response to the evidence and recommendations against the use of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters in patients with deep venous thrombosis (DVT). This was a retrospective cohort study based on administrative data from the National Hospital Discharge Survey 1979 to 2006 and from the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample 2007 to 2014. The number of IVC filters inserted in patients with lone DVT peaked in 2009 and then decreased from 2009 to 2014. The proportion of patients with lone DVT who received an IVC filter peaked in 2010 and then decreased from 2010 to 2014. Both the number of IVC filters inserted yearly and the proportion of patients who received an IVC filter remained higher than in 1998 when a randomized controlled trial showed no reduced mortality with permanent IVC filters in patients with DVT. In conclusion, large numbers of patients with lone DVT continue to receive IVC filters despite a randomized controlled trial that showed no reduced mortality with IVC filters in patients with DVT and despite clinical guideline recommendations against the use of IVC filters in such patients.

Impact of Multidisciplinary Pulmonary Embolism Response Team Availability on Management and Outcomes.

Treatment strategies for complex patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) are often debated given patient heterogeneity, multitude of available treatment modalities, and lack of consensus guidelines. Although multidisciplinary Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams (PERT) are emerging to address this lack of consensus, their impact on patient outcomes is not entirely clear. This analysis was conducted to compare outcomes of all patients with PE before and after PERT availability. We analyzed all adult patients admitted with acute PE diagnosed on computed tomography scans in the 18 months before and after the institution of PERT at a large tertiary care hospital. Among 769 consecutive inpatients with PE, PERT era patients had lower rates of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (17.0% vs 8.3%, p = 0.002), shorter time-to-therapeutic anticoagulation (16.3 hour vs 12.6 hour, p = 0.009) and decreased use of inferior vena cava filters (22.2% vs 16.4%, p = 0.004). There was an increase in the use of thrombolytics/catheter-based strategies, however, this did not achieve statistical significance (p = 0.07). There was a significant decrease in 30-day/inpatient mortality (8.5% vs 4.7%, p = 0.03). These differences in outcomes were more pronounced in intermediate and high-risk patients (mortality 10.0% vs 5.3%, p = 0.02). The availability of multidisciplinary PERT was associated with improved outcomes including 30-day mortality. Patients with higher severity of PE seemed to derive most benefit from PERT availability.

Removal of retrievable inferior vena cava filters before discharge: Is it associated with increased incidence of pulmonary embolism?

BACKGROUND: Severely injured trauma patients are at high risk of developing deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary emboli (PE), and may have contraindications to prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation. Retrievable inferior vena cava filters (rIVCFs) are used to act as a mechanical obstruction to prevent PE in high risk populations and those with deep venous thrombosis who cannot be anticoagulated. The removal rate of rIVCFs is variable in trauma centers, including our previous published rate of 50% to 89%/year. Indwelling filters carry a risk of significant morbidity and the success of retrieval decreases as the dwell time increases. We hypothesized that once patients could receive appropriate prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation, rIVCF could be removed before hospital discharge without impact on occurrence or recurrence of PE. METHODS: All trauma patients with rIVCF placed and removed between January 2006 and August 2018 were reviewed. We collected data from record review from admission to 6 months postfilter removal, including demographics, filter indication, filter type, dwell time, placement and removal complications, antithrombosis medications, location of venous thromboembolism, complications, and discharge disposition. Exposure of interest was timing of filter removal: before (BEF) or after hospital discharge (AFT). The outcome of interest was whether the patient had a documented PE within 6 months of filter removal. RESULTS: A total of 281 rIVCFs were placed, 218 were eligible for removal, 72.4% (158/218) were retrieved with 63% (100/158) removed before discharge. Mean filter duration was 26 days and 103 days for the before and after groups, respectively. No differences (p > 0.05) were noted in the distribution of demographic and clinical factors except for filter indication (venous thromboembolism indication, 95% in AFT vs. 74% in BEF, p = 0.0043). Postremoval PE rates were 0% BEF and 1% AFT (Fisher's exact test, p = 1.000). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that removal of rIVCFs before discharge once patients are appropriately anticoagulated is a safe strategy to improve retrieval rates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, level V.

Vena cava filters in patients presenting with major bleeding during anticoagulation for venous thromboembolism.

The association between inferior vena cava filter (IVC) use and outcome in patients presenting with major bleeding during anticoagulation for venous thromboembolism (VTE) has not been thoroughly investigated. We used the RIETE registry to compare the 30-day outcomes (death, major re-bleeding or VTE recurrences) in VTE patients who bled during the first 3 months of therapy, regarding the insertion of an IVC filter. A propensity score matched (PSM) analysis was performed to adjust for potential confounders. From January 2001 to September 2016, 1065 VTE patients had major bleeding during the first 3 months of anticoagulation (gastrointestinal 370; intracranial 124). Of these, 122 patients (11%) received an IVC filter. Patients receiving a filter restarted anticoagulation later (median, 4 vs. 2 days) and at lower doses (95 ± 52 IU/kg/day vs. 104 ± 55 of low-molecular-weight heparin) than those not receiving a filter. During the first 30 days after bleeding (after excluding 246 patients who died within the first 24 h), 283 patients (27%) died, 63 (5.9%) had non-fatal re-bleeding and 19 (1.8%) had recurrent pulmonary embolism (PE). In PSM analysis, patients receiving an IVC filter (n = 122) had a lower risk for all-cause death (HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.31-0.77) or fatal bleeding (HR 0.16; 95% CI 0.07-0.49) and a similar risk for re-bleeding (HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.23-1.40) or PE recurrences (HR 1.57; 95% CI 0.38-6.36) than those not receiving a filter (n = 429). In VTE patients experiencing major bleeding during the first 3 months, use of an IVC filter was associated with reduced mortality rates.Clinical Trial Registration NCT02832245.

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.

"Death Knell" for Prophylactic Vena Cava Filters? A 20-Year Experience with a Venous Thromboembolism Guideline.

The role of prophylactic vena cava filters (pVCFs) in trauma patients remains controversial. After 20 years of data collection and experience, we reviewed our venous thromboembolism guideline for the efficacy of pVCFs in preventing pulmonary embolism (PE). A retrospective cohort study was performed using our Level I trauma center registry from January 1997 thru December 2016. This population was then divided by the presence of pVCFs. Univariate analysis was performed comparing the incidence of PEs, deep vein thrombosis, and mortality between those with and without a pVCF. There were 35,658 patients identified, of whom 2 per cent (n = 847) received pVCFs. The PE rate was 0.4 per cent in both groups. The deep vein thrombosis rate for pVCFs was 3.9 per cent compared with 0.6 per cent in the no-VCF group (P < 0.0001). Given that there was no difference in the rates of PEs between the cohorts, the subset of patients with a PE were analyzed by their risk factors. Only ventilator days > 3 were associated with a higher risk in the no-pVCF group (0.2 vs 1.5%, P = 0.033). pVCFs did not confer benefit reducing PE rate. In addition, despite their intended purpose, pVCFs cannot eliminate PEs in high-risk trauma patients, suggesting a lack of utility for prophylaxis in this population.

Inferior Vena Cava Filters in Patients with Recurrent Pulmonary Embolism.

BACKGROUND: There are sparse data to support the recommendation for inferior vena cava (IVC) filters in patients with recurrent pulmonary embolism while on anticoagulant therapy. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of administrative data from the Premier Healthcare Database, 2009-2014. All-cause mortality according to the use of IVC filters was evaluated in patients who suffered a recurrent pulmonary embolism within 3 months of an index pulmonary embolism. Patients were identified by International Classification of Disease, 9th Clinical Modification codes. A time-dependent analysis controlled for immortal time bias. RESULTS: An IVC filter was inserted in 603 of 814 (74.1%) of patients hospitalized for recurrent pulmonary embolism within 3 months of an index pulmonary embolism. Mortality with an IVC filter was 18 of 603 (3.0%) vs 83 of 211 (39.3%) (P < .0001) without a filter. Among patients with recurrent pulmonary embolism who were stable and did not receive thrombolytic therapy or undergo pulmonary embolectomy, mortality with an IVC filter was 15 of 572 (2.6%) vs 72 of 169 (42.6%) (P < .0001) without a filter. CONCLUSION: In the United States, usual practice was to insert an IVC filter in patients with early recurrent pulmonary embolism. Mortality was lower in those who received an IVC filter. Even stable patients with early recurrent pulmonary embolism showed a decreased mortality with IVC filters, even though in other circumstances, IVC filters do not reduce mortality in stable patients. Additional cohort studies would be useful in the absence of a randomized controlled trial.

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

BACKGROUND: 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? METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: Orthopaedic procedures had a high risk of mechanical and hematologic complications after using a retrievable VCF. However, mortality was low due to these complications.

Role of vena cava filters for the management of cancer-related venous thromboembolism: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Results from cohort studies evaluating the benefit in prevention of recurrent Venous Thromboembolism in cancer population are heterogeneous and controversial. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness and harms of vena cava filters alone or combined with anticoagulation to prevent the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer-related venous thromboembolism. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search strategy was conducted in the MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE and LILACS databases. Searches were also conducted in other databases and unpublished literature. Clinical trials were included without language restrictions. The risk of bias was evaluated with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and a modified version for cohort studies. An analysis of fixed effects was conducted. The primary outcome was recurrent venous thromboembolism. The secondary outcomes were overall survival and adverse effects. The measure of the effect was the risk ratio with a 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: Seven studies were included in the qualitative and quantitative analysis. 35,333 patients were found among the seven studies. A low risk of bias was shown for most of the study items. The overall risk ratio (RR) for recurrent venous thromboembolism was 2.53 95%CI (1.35-4.75) favoring anticoagulation compared with vena cava filter. CONCLUSION: Vena cava filter did not show benefits for recurrent venous thromboembolism prevention in the cancer-patients population.