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.

Impact of COVID-19 on the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative Venous Procedure Registries (varicose vein and inferior vena cava filter).

In response to the pandemic, an abrupt pivot of Vascular Quality Initiative physician members away from standard clinical practice to a restrictive phase of emergent and urgent vascular procedures occurred. The Society for Vascular Surgery Patient Safety Organization queried both data managers and physicians in May 2020. Approximately three-fourths (74%) of physicians adopted restrictive operating policies for urgent and emergent cases only, whereas one-half proceeded with "time sensitive" elective cases as urgent. Data manager case entry was negatively affected by both low case volumes and staffing due to reassignment or furlough. Venous registry volumes were reduced fivefold in the first quarter of 2020 compared with a similar period in 2019. The consequences of delaying vascular procedures for ambulatory venous practice remain unknown with increased morbidity likely. Challenges to determine venous thromboembolism mortality impact exist given difficulty in verifying "in home and extended care facility" deaths. Further ramifications of a pandemic shutdown will likely be amplified if postponement of elective vascular care extends beyond a short window of time. It will be important to monitor disease progression and case severity as a result of policy shifts adopted locally in response to pandemic surges.

Inferior Vena Cava Filters: Past, Present, and Future.

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters have existed as a treatment option for VTE for decades. Advances in medical technology have provided physicians with several options for devices that can be placed on either a permanent or temporary basis; however, there are limited data from randomized, controlled trials on the appropriate use of IVC filters. This contemporary review summarizes the history of IVC filters and the types that are available in clinical practice. It reviews the literature on the use of IVC filters and discusses the indications that professional societies have endorsed for their use. In addition, it outlines the complications of IVC filter placement and future research directions.

Effectiveness of Inferior Vena Cava Filters in Patients With Stable and Unstable Pulmonary Embolism and Trends in Their Use.

BACKGROUND: Trends in the use of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters in patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) who are stratified according to whether they are stable or unstable (in shock or ventilator dependent) may show where improvements of management could be made according to the best evidence that we now have. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study based on administrative data, 1999-2014, from the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample. RESULTS: In-hospital all-cause mortality in unstable patients who received an IVC filter was lower in each year of investigation and in all age groups. Mortality from 1999 to 2014 was 10,140 of 35,230 (28.8%) with an IVC filter compared with 54,018 of 116,642 (46.3%) without a filter (P <0.0001). In stable patients from 1999 to 2014, mortality with an IVC filter was 31,909 of 546,858 (5.8%) with an IVC filter compared with 220,443 of 3,367,783 (6.5%) without a filter (P <0.0001). In patients ages > 80 years, mortality in stable patients with an IVC filter was 7,438 of 114,457 (6.5%) with an IVC filter compared with 64,113 of 567,348 (11.3%) without an IVC filter (P <0.0001). The number of stable patients who received an IVC filter decreased from 2010 to 2014, but even in those years the largest number of IVC filters was inserted in stable patients, 194,502 of 212,611 (91.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Mortality is markedly reduced in unstable patients who receive an IVC filter. Despite this, the proportion of unstable patients who receive an IVC filter is decreasing. The largest number of IVC filters continues to be inserted in stable patients, although there is no evidence of a clinically meaningful reduced mortality with IVC filters in stable patients unless age >80 years.

Trends in inferior vena cava filter placement and retrieval at a tertiary care institution.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine practice patterns of inferior vena cava (IVC) filter insertion and retrieval at a tertiary care institution. METHODS: A retrospective review of all IVC filter procedures performed at the University of Pennsylvania and entered into the Penn cohort of the Vascular Quality Initiative registry between January 2013 and September 2017 was performed. Data collected included demographics, venous thromboembolism risk factors, indications for filter placement, and presence and timing of retrieval. Trend analysis and multivariable logistic regression were performed to evaluate factors associated with failure to retrieve the filter. RESULTS: During the study period, 627 IVC filters were inserted. The mean age was 52.8 ± 16.9 years, and 49.3% were male; 39.2% were placed for a major indication, whereas 58.1% were placed for prophylaxis. There was a significant decline in overall frequency of filter placement during the period observed, with a 33% decrease from 2015 to 2016 and a 26% decrease from 2016 to 2017 (P < .001), with an overall retrieval rate of 44.9%. In contrast, there was a corresponding increase in filter retrieval, with a 20% increase in 2015 and a 68% increase in 2016 (P = .02). In evaluating trends separated by indication, there was a significant decline in prophylactic filter placement (P < .001) and a trend toward an increase in retrieval of prophylactic filters (P = .09). Whereas there was not a significant change in number of filter insertions for major indication (P = .06), filter retrievals for major indication filters increased (P = .01). Multivariable regression analysis revealed that longer time to follow-up (odds ratio [OR], 1.08; P < .001) and discharge to rehabilitation facility (OR, 6.14; P < .001) were predictive of failure to retrieve the filter. In contrast, filter placement at a later date within our study period (OR, 0.90; P < .001) and prophylactic indication for filter placement (OR, 0.36; P < .001) were protective from filter nonretrieval. CONCLUSIONS: These results show both a decline in overall IVC filter placement and an increase in overall IVC filter retrieval at our institution. These trends are predominantly due to a decrease in prophylactic filter placement as well as an overall increase in filter retrieval. Further study should be dedicated to increasing the retrieval rate in this population of patients.

Persistently low inferior vena cava filter retrieval rates in a population-based cohort.

BACKGROUND: Practice patterns associated with inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement have seen considerable variation in the last decade. We used a statewide administrative database to examine trends in IVC filter placement and retrieval in the general population. METHODS: We reviewed Florida state inpatient and ambulatory surgery databases from 2004 to 2014. International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnosis and procedure codes and Current Procedural Terminology codes were searched for patients undergoing inpatient or outpatient IVC filter placement, and each patient was longitudinally tracked to the time of inpatient or outpatient filter retrieval. For inpatient filter placements, associated diagnoses were reviewed to identify indications for placement. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were constructed to identify factors associated with improved retrieval rates. RESULTS: During the 11-year period, 131,791 IVC filter placements were identified, with a 50% increase from 2004 to 2010 and a 24% decline from 2010 to 2014. Median age at filter placement was 71 years (interquartile range, 57-81 years). Mean follow-up after filter placement was 17.3 ± 25.5 months. Only 8637 filters (6.6%) were retrieved. The annual retrieval rate trended upward, from 3.4% in 2004 to 8.5% in 2013 (P < .001). Median filter dwell time was 96.5 days (interquartile range, 44-178 days). Diagnoses associated with filter placement included venous thromboembolism (75.9%), trauma (35.0%), hemorrhage (29.9%), malignant disease (29.4%), and stroke (5.1%). Retrieval rates were highest in younger patients (34.0% in patients younger than 20 years) and lowest in Medicare patients (2.5%). In a multivariate logistic regression model, Medicare was associated with decreased retrieval rates (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.35; P < .001) after adjusting for age and associated diagnoses. Weaker risk factors included increased age, white race, and diagnoses of deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and malignant disease. A trauma diagnosis was associated with improved retrieval. To further investigate the Medicare effect, a propensity score-matched model was created to better account for confounding effects. In this model, Medicare persisted as a risk factor for decreased filter retrieval (odds ratio, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.46; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: IVC filter placements, after a substantial increase between 2004 and 2010, have been declining since 2010. Retrieval rates in the general population are steadily improving but continue to lag behind those described in center-specific literature. Increased age and Medicare as the primary payer are the strongest risk factors for lack of filter retrieval. Widespread improvements on a national scale are needed to improve the appropriateness of filter placements and to enhance filter retrieval rates.

A survey of vascular specialists' practice patterns of inferior vena cava filter placement and retrieval.

OBJECTIVES: The placement of inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) continues to rise. Vascular specialists adopt different practices based on local expertise. This study was performed to assess the attitudes of vascular specialists towards the placement and retrieval of IVCF. METHODS: An online survey of 28 questions related to practice patterns regarding IVCF was administered to 1429 vascular specialists. Vascular specialists were categorized as low volume if they place less than three IVCF per month and high volume if they place at least three IVCF per month. The responses of high volume and low volume were compared using two-sample t-tests and Chi-square tests. RESULTS: A total of 259 vascular specialists completed the survey (18% response rate). There were 191 vascular surgeons (74%) and 68 interventional radiologists (26%). The majority of responders were in academic practice (67%) and worked in tertiary care centers (73%). The retrievable IVCF of choice was Celect (27%) followed by Denali (20%). Forty-two percent used a temporary IVCF and left it in situ instead of using a permanent IVCF. Eighty-two percent preferred placing the tip of the IVCF at or just below the lowest renal vein. Thirty-one percent obtained a venous duplex of the lower extremities prior to retrieval while 24% did not do any imaging. There were 132 (51%) low volume vascular specialists and 127 (49%) high volume vascular specialists. Compared to low volume vascular specialists, significantly more high volume vascular specialists reported procedural times of less than 30 min for IVCF retrieval (57% vs. 42%, P = 0.026). There was a trend for high volume to have fewer unsuccessful attempts at IVCF retrieval but that did not reach statistical significance ( P = .061). High volume were more likely to have attempted multiple times to retrieve an IVCF (66% vs. 33%, P < .001), and to have used bronchoscopy forceps (32% vs. 14%, P = .001) or a laser sheath (14% vs. 2%, P < .001) for IVCF retrieval. In general, vascular specialists were not comfortable using bronchoscopy forceps (65%) or a laser sheath (82%) for IVCF retrieval. CONCLUSIONS: This study underscores significant variability in vascular specialists practice patterns regarding IVCF. More studies and societal guidelines are needed to define best practices.

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).

National Trends in Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement and Retrieval Procedures in the Medicare Population Over Two Decades.

PURPOSE: To assess trends in inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement and retrieval procedures in Medicare beneficiaries over the last two decades. METHODS: Using Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files from 1994 through 2015, we calculated utilization rates for IVC filter placement and retrieval procedures in Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Services were stratified by provider specialty group and site of service. RESULTS: IVC filter placement rates increased from 1994 to 2008 (from 65.0 to 202.1 per 100,000 beneficiaries, compound annual growth rate [CAGR] +8.4%) and then decreased to 128.9 by 2015 (CAGR -6.2%). This decrease was observed across all specialty groups and sites of service. From 1994 to 2015, placement procedure market share increased for radiologists (from 45.1% to 62.7%) and cardiologists (from 2.5% to 6.7%) but decreased for surgeons (from 46.6% to 27.9%). Overall, procedures shifted slightly from the inpatient (from 94.5% to 86.5% of all procedures) to outpatient hospital (from 4.9% to 14.9%) settings. Between 2012 and 2015, retrieval rates increased from 12.0 to 17.7 (CAGR +13.9%). Retrievals as a percentage of placement procedures were similar across specialties in 2015 (range 13.0%-13.8%). CONCLUSION: Despite prior dramatic growth, the utilization of IVC filters in Medicare beneficiaries markedly declined over the last decade, likely relating to evolving views regarding efficacy and long-term safety. This decline was accompanied by several filter-related market shifts, including increasing placement by radiologists and cardiologists, increasing outpatient placement procedures, and increasing retrieval rates.

Contemporary Trends and Comparative Outcomes With Adjunctive Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement in Patients Undergoing Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Deep Vein Thrombosis in the United States: Insights From the National Inpatient Sample.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the contemporary trends and comparative effectiveness of adjunctive inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) placement in patients undergoing catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) for treatment of proximal lower extremity or caval deep vein thrombosis. BACKGROUND: CDT is being increasingly used in the management of proximal deep vein thrombosis. Although a significant number of patients treated with CDT undergo adjunctive IVCF placement, the benefit of this practice remains unknown. METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample database was used to identify all patients with proximal or caval deep vein thrombosis who underwent CDT (with and without adjunctive IVCF placement) in the United States between January 2005 and December 2013. A propensity score-matching algorithm was then used to derive 2 matched groups of patients (IVCF and no IVCF) for comparative outcomes (mortality and major and minor bleeding) and resource use analysis. RESULTS: Of the 7,119 patients treated with CDT, 2,421 (34%) received IVCFs. There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality (0.7% vs 1.0%; p = 0.20), procedure-related hemorrhage (1.4% vs. 1.0%; p = 0.23), or intracranial hemorrhage (0.7% vs. 0.6%; p = 0.70) between the IVCF (n = 2,259) and no-IVCF (n = 2,259) groups, respectively. Patients undergoing IVCF placement had higher rates of hematoma (3.4% vs 2.1%; p = 0.009), higher in-hospital charges ($104,049 ± 75,572 vs. $92,881 ± 80,194; p < 0.001) and increased length of stay (7.3 ± 5.6 days vs. 6.9 ± 6.9 days; p = 0.046) compared with the no-IVCF group. CONCLUSIONS: This nationwide observational study suggests that one-third of all patients undergoing CDT receive IVCFs. IVCF use was not associated with a decrease in in-hospital mortality but was associated with higher inpatient charges and longer length of stay.

Éxito en la recuperación de filtro de vena cava inferior opcional: Análisis de 246 pacientes / Success in Optional Vena Cava Filter Retrieval. An Analysis of 246 Patients

Objetivo: El objetivo de este estudio fue calcular el porcentaje de filtros de vena cava inferior (FVCI) opcionales finalmente recuperados y las variables asociadas a la imposibilidad para su recuperación en una cohorte de pacientes con enfermedad tromboembólica venosa (ETEV). Métodos: Se realizó un estudio observacional retrospectivo. La variable principal fue el porcentaje de FVCI recuperables finalmente extraídos. Se realizó regresión logística para identificar las variables asociadas al fracaso de la recuperación del FVCI. Resultados: Durante el período de estudio se implantaron 246 FVCI, 151 (61%) en pacientes con contraindicación para la anticoagulación, 69 (28%) para la prevención de tromboembolia de pulmón en pacientes de alto riesgo y 26 (11%) en pacientes con recurrencia trombótica a pesar de anticoagulación correcta. De los 236 pacientes que sobrevivieron el primer mes, se intentó la retirada del FVCI en todos ellos y fue posible en 226 pacientes (96%). La tasa más baja de retirada se produjo en el grupo de pacientes con recurrencias trombóticas mientras estaban anticoagulados, comparados con los pacientes con contraindicación para anticoagular y con los pacientes de alto riesgo (79 vs. 97 vs. 100%, respectivamente; p < 0,01). El tiempo de retraso hasta el intento de retirada fue significativamente mayor para los pacientes a los que no se les pudo retirar el FVCI (137,8 ± 65,3 días) comparados con los pacientes a los que se les pudo retirar el FVCI (46,3 ± 123,1 días; p < 0,001). Conclusiones: En este estudio de un único centro se consiguió la retirada del FVCI en el 96% de los casos. El retraso en el intento de retirada del FVCI se asoció de manera significativa al fracaso en su extracción

Objective: This study assessed vena cava filter (VCF) retrieval rates and factors associated with retrieval failure in a single center cohort. Methods: We conducted an observational retrospective cohort study. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients whose VCF was retrieved. We performed logistic regression to identify variables associated with retrieval failure. Results: During the study period, 246 patients received a VCF and met the eligibility requirements to be included in the study; 151 (61%) patients received a VCF due to contraindication to anticoagulation, 69 (28%) patients had venous thromboembolism (VTE) and a high risk of recurrence, and 26 (11%) patients received a filter due to recurrent VTE while on anticoagulant therapy. Of 236 patients who survived the first month after diagnosis of VTE, VCF was retrieved in 96%. Retrieval rates were significantly lower for patients with recurrent VTE while on anticoagulation, compared with patients with contraindication to anticoagulation or patients with a high risk of recurrence (79% vs. 97% vs. 100%, respectively; P<0.01). Mean time to retrieval attempt was significantly associated with retrieval failure (137.8 ± 65.3 vs. 46.3 ± 123.1 days, P<0.001). Conclusions: In this single center study, VCF retrieval success was 96%. A delay in the attempt to retrieve the VCF correlated significantly with retrieval failure

Hospitalization metrics associated with hospital-level variation in inferior vena cava filter utilization for patients with venous thromboembolism in the United States: Implications for quality of care.

Variation in the use of inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) across hospitals has been observed, suggesting differences in quality of care. Hospitalization metrics associated with venous thromboembolism (VTE) patients have not been compared based on IVCF utilization rates using a national sample. We conducted a descriptive retrospective study using the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) to delineate the variability of hospitalization metrics across the hospital quartiles of IVCF utilization for VTE patients. The NRD included all-payer administrative inpatient records drawn from 22 states. Adult (≥ 18 years) patients with VTE hospitalizations with or without IVCF were identified from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2014 and hospitals were divided into quartiles based on the IVCF utilization rate as a proportion of VTE patients. Primary outcome measures were observed rates of in-hospital mortality, 30-day all-cause readmissions and VTE-related readmissions, cost, and length of stay. Patient case-mix characteristics and hospital-level factors by hospital quartiles of IVCF utilization rates, were compared. Overall, 12.29% of VTE patients had IVCF placement, with IVCF utilization ranging from 0% to 46.84%. The highest quartile had fewer pulmonary embolism patients relative to deep vein thrombosis patients, and older patient ages were present in higher quartiles. The highest quartile of hospitals placing IVCFs were more often private, for-profit, and non-teaching. Patient and hospital characteristics and hospitalization metrics varied by IVCF utilization rates, but hospitalization outcomes for non-IVCF patients varied most between quartiles. Future work investigating the implications of IVCF utilization rates as a measure of quality of care for VTE patients is needed.

Trends in vena cava filter insertions and "prophylactic" use.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic 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. METHODS: Using 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. RESULTS: Among 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. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas 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.

Endovascular Iliocaval Stent Reconstruction for Iliocaval Thrombosis: A Multi-Institutional International Practice Pattern Survey.

BACKGROUND: Limited guidelines for the treatment and management of acute and chronic iliocaval thrombosis are published in the literature. The purpose of this report is to present global iliocaval stent reconstruction practices by interventionalists. METHODS: A 45-question survey focusing on iliocaval stent reconstruction evaluation was distributed through the Open Forum and Venous Disease Service Line of the Society of Interventional Radiology Connect website from June 20, 2017 until September 7, 2017 and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe electronic newsletter on August 11, 2017. RESULTS: One hundred seven complete responses were received from interventional radiologists in the United States, 2 from South America, and 2 from Central America. 92.5% performed iliocaval reconstruction, and 79.8% performed the procedure for both acute and chronic iliocaval thrombosis. 82.8% completed a standardized physician assessment tool, and 91.9% obtained computed tomography (CT) venography before the procedure. 64.6% used intravascular ultrasound to guide reconstruction. 41.4% found blunt recanalization successful for >75% of patients. 63.6% used sharp recanalization for <25% of patients. 97.0% and 90.9% used uncovered and self-expanding stents, respectively. Wallstents were used most commonly. Most common stent diameters were 24-mm in the inferior vena cava, 14-mm in the common iliac vein, and 12-mm in the external iliac vein. 48.5% and 21.2% prescribed 2 and 3 anticoagulants after stent placement, respectively. 62.6% found iliocaval reconstruction provided symptomatic clinical improvement for iliocaval thrombosis in >75% of patients. 72.7% estimated their 1-year primary stent patency to be >75%. CONCLUSIONS: Iliocaval reconstruction is performed by many interventionalists; however, there are global inconsistencies in practices, suggesting a need for further research and guideline development.

Practice patterns of retrievable inferior vena cava filters and predictors of filter retrieval in patients with pulmonary embolism.

Retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are increasingly used in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) who have contraindications to anticoagulant therapy. However, previous studies have shown that many retrievable filters are left permanently in patients. This study aimed to identify the common indications for IVC filter insertion, the filter retrieval rate, and the predictive factors for filter retrieval attempts. To this end, a retrospective cohort study was performed at a tertiary care center in South Korea between January 2010 and May 2016. Electronic medical charts were reviewed for patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) who underwent IVC filter insertion. A total of 439 cases were reviewed. The most common indication for filter insertion was a preoperative/procedural aim, followed by extensive iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Retrieval of the IVC filter was attempted in 44.9% of patients. The retrieval success rate was 93.9%. History of cerebral hemorrhage, malignancy, and admission to a nonsurgical department were the significant predictive factors of a lower retrieval attempt rate in multivariate analysis. With the increased use of IVC filters, more issues should be addressed before placing a filter and physicians should attempt to improve the filter retrieval rate.

Decreasing Utilization of Inferior Vena Cava Filters in Post-FDA Warning Era: Insights From 2005 to 2014 Nationwide Inpatient Sample.

BACKGROUND: To determine the impact, if any, of the 2010 FDA safety communication on the rate of inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) placement over time. METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was interrogated for the most recent years preceding and after the FDA safety communication-from 2005 to 2014. IVCF placements and associated diagnoses were identified using corresponding International Classification of Diseases, version nine codes. Trends in number of IVCF placement were evaluated in aggregate and by associated diagnoses, both of which were further stratified by hospital geographic cluster, hospital teaching status, and patient demographics. Generalized linear regression models were used to determine statistical significance of trends over time. RESULTS: IVCF placements steadily increased between 2005 and 2010 (100,434 in 2005 versus 129,614 in 2010, growth rate 5.81%). Aggregate IVCF placements subsequently declined between 2010 and 2014 (96,005 in 2014, decline rate -6.48%). IVCF placements peaked in 2010, the year of the FDA advisory. The proportion of filter placements for therapeutic indication of venous thromboembolism increased significantly during the study period (69.8% in 2005 versus 80.4% in 2014, P < .001). Neither trend varied significantly by patient demographics or hospital characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: IVCF placements have declined significantly since 2010, when the FDA advisory was released. The proportion of IVCFs placed in patients with venous thromboembolism, as opposed to prophylactic indications, is increasing.