Association of Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement With Rates of Pulmonary Embolism in Patients With Cancer and Acute Lower Extremity Deep Venous Thrombosis

Inferior vena cava filter thromboprophylaxis in surgical cancer patients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the utilization and outcomes of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters as thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients undergoing surgery.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective study analyzed baseline patient characteristics and clinical outcomes of surgical cancer patients who received perioperative prophylactic IVC filters. Primary clinical endpoints included venous thromboembolism (VTE) incidence and filter complications. A statistical correlative analysis was conducted to identify risk factors related to pulmonary embolism (PE), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and filter thrombi, as well as advanced technique filter removal and mortality at 6 months.

RESULTS

A total of 252 surgical oncology patients (median age, 59; female 51%) received IVC filters for the perioperative prevention of PE. Primary surgical sites included spine (n = 91, 36%), orthopedic extremity/joint (n = 49, 19%), genitourinary (n = 47, 19%), brain/cranial (n = 40, 16%), abdominal (n = 18, 7%), multisite (n = 4, 2%), and chest (n = 3, 1%). Moreover, 15% of patients experienced DVTs in the postplacement preretrieval period, while 2% (n = 6) of patients experienced definitive PEs. A total of 36% of IVC filters were ultimately retrieved, with an average filter dwell time of 7.4 months. Complications occurred in one retrieval.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic perioperative IVC filters in surgical cancer patients resulted in minimal complications while ultimately resulting in a low incidence of PE.

Cancer-associated venous thrombosis in adults (second edition): A British Society for Haematology Guideline

A shared decision on the most appropriate agent for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis should consider the following factors, which should be reassessed as patients continue along their cancer care pathway: risk of bleeding; tumour site; suitability of oral medications; potential for drug-drug interactions; and patient preference and values regarding choice of drug. Continuing anticoagulation beyond 6 months in patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism and active cancer is recommended.

Appropriateness guidelines for inferior vena cava filter utilization: A contemporary review

Concern regarding the exponential increase in optional utilization of inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) in the early 2000s with a persistent low retrieval rate nationwide has resulted in increased scrutiny regarding clinical application of IVCFs. IVCFs are used in a variety of clinical scenarios, ranging from thromboembolic protection in patients with deep venous thrombosis and contraindication to anticoagulation to prophylactic deployment in multitrauma and critically ill patients. Evidence supporting IVCFs as mechanical thromboembolic protection in certain clinical scenarios has been established through evidenced-based guidelines. As an adjunct to evidence-based guidelines, appropriateness criteria to address specific clinical scenarios and facilitate clinical decision making when considering placement of an IVCF have been developed. In this review, current evidence-based and appropriateness guidelines are summarized.

Contemporary Management of Pulmonary Embolism: Review of the Inferior Vena Cava filter and Other Endovascular Devices

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters and endovascular devices are used to mitigate the risk of pulmonary embolism in patients presenting with lower extremity venous thromboembolism in whom long-term anticoagulation is not a good option. However, the efficacy and benefit of these devices remain uncertain, and controversies exist. This review focuses on the current use of IVC filters and other endovascular therapies in clinical practice. The indications, risks, and benefits are discussed based on current data. Further research and randomized controlled trials are needed to characterize the patient population that would benefit most from these interventional therapies.

Independent association between IVC filter placement and VTE risk in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding and isolated distal DVT: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The placement of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters often emerges as an alternative preventative measure against pulmonary embolism in patients with upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and isolated distal deep vein thrombosis (DVT). We aimed to investigate the association of IVC filter placement and the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence in this patient population.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study including 450 patients with upper GI bleeding and isolated distal DVT. Propensity score matching using logistic regression was conducted to mitigate potential selection bias. Logistic regression models and additional sensitivity analyses were conducted to estimate the association between IVC filter implantation and VTE recurrence. Interaction and stratified analyses were also performed according to the background covariates.

RESULTS

Patients who underwent IVC filter placement were significantly younger than patients in the surveillance group (55.8 ± 9.0 vs 58.4 ± 11.2 years, p = 0.034). Patients in the IVC filter group demonstrated a higher distal thrombus burden. The VTE recurrence composite was significantly higher in patients who underwent IVC filter placement (44.1% [45/102] vs 25% [87/348], p < 0.001). Unmatched crude logistic regression analysis identified a significant association between IVC filter placement and VTE recurrence composite (OR = 2.37; 95% CI, 1.50-3.75). Sensitivity analyses yielded congruent outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This study revealed an increased risk of VTE recurrence among patients receiving IVC filter placement, suggesting that IVC filter placement may not be suitable as a primary treatment for patients with upper GI bleeding and isolated distal DVT.

Percutaneous interventions for pulmonary embolism

Pulmonary embolism (PE) ranks as a leading cause of in-hospital mortality and the third most common cause of cardiovascular death. The spectrum of PE manifestations varies widely, making it difficult to determine the best treatment approach for specific patients. Conventional treatment options include anticoagulation, thrombolysis, or surgery, but emerging percutaneous interventional procedures are being investigated for their potential benefits in heterogeneous PE populations. These novel interventional techniques encompass catheter-directed thrombolysis, mechanical thrombectomy, and hybrid approaches combining different mechanisms. Furthermore, inferior vena cava filters are also available as an option for PE prevention. Such interventions may offer faster improvements in right ventricular function, as well as in pulmonary and systemic haemodynamics, in individual patients. Moreover, percutaneous treatment may be a valid alternative to traditional therapies in high bleeding risk patients and could potentially reduce the burden of mortality related to major bleeds, such as that of haemorrhagic strokes. Nevertheless, the safety and efficacy of these techniques compared to conservative therapies have not been conclusively established. This review offers a comprehensive evaluation of the current evidence for percutaneous interventions in PE and provides guidance for selecting appropriate patients and treatments. It serves as a valuable resource for future researchers and clinicians seeking to advance this field. Additionally, we explore future perspectives, proposing "percutaneous primary pulmonary intervention" as a potential paradigm shift in the field.

2024 Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics: A Report of US and Global Data From the American Heart Association

BACKGROUND

The American Heart Association (AHA), in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health, annually reports the most up-to-date statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascular risk factors, including core health behaviors (smoking, physical activity, nutrition, sleep, and obesity) and health factors (cholesterol, blood pressure, glucose control, and metabolic syndrome) that contribute to cardiovascular health. The AHA Heart Disease and Stroke Statistical Update presents the latest data on a range of major clinical heart and circulatory disease conditions (including stroke, brain health, complications of pregnancy, kidney disease, congenital heart disease, rhythm disorders, sudden cardiac arrest, subclinical atherosclerosis, coronary heart disease, cardiomyopathy, heart failure, valvular disease, venous thromboembolism, and peripheral artery disease) and the associated outcomes (including quality of care, procedures, and economic costs).

METHODS

The AHA, through its Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee, continuously monitors and evaluates sources of data on heart disease and stroke in the United States and globally to provide the most current information available in the annual Statistical Update with review of published literature through the year before writing. The 2024 AHA Statistical Update is the product of a full year's worth of effort in 2023 by dedicated volunteer clinicians and scientists, committed government professionals, and AHA staff members. The AHA strives to further understand and help heal health problems inflicted by structural racism, a public health crisis that can significantly damage physical and mental health and perpetuate disparities in access to health care, education, income, housing, and several other factors vital to healthy lives. This year's edition includes additional global data, as well as data on the monitoring and benefits of cardiovascular health in the population, with an enhanced focus on health equity across several key domains.

RESULTS

Each of the chapters in the Statistical Update focuses on a different topic related to heart disease and stroke statistics.

CONCLUSIONS

The Statistical Update represents a critical resource for the lay public, policymakers, media professionals, clinicians, health care administrators, researchers, health advocates, and others seeking the best available data on these factors and conditions.

Inferior Vena Cava Filters and Complications: A Systematic Review

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters have been used since the 1960s to treat patients with acute risk of pulmonary embolism (PE) to prevent migration of thrombus by trapping it within the filter. Traditional usage has been in patients with contraindication to anticoagulation that carry a significant mortality risk. In this systematic review, we sought to evaluate complications associated with placement of inferior vena cava filters based on published data from the past 20 years. A search was performed on October 6th, 2022, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for systematic reviews, using three databases (ProQuest, PubMed and ScienceDirect) for articles published between the dates of February 1, 2002 and October 1, 2022. Results were filtered to include full-text, clinical studies, and randomized trials written in English pertaining to keywords "IVC filter AND complications", "Inferior Vena Cava Filter AND complications", "IVC filter AND thrombosis" and "Inferior Vena Cava Filter AND thrombosis". Articles identified by the three databases were pooled and further screened for relevance based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Initial search results yielded 33,265 hits from all three databases combined. Screening criteria were applied, with 7721 results remaining. After further manual screening, including removal of duplicate hits, a total of 117 articles were selected for review. While there are no consensus guidelines for best practice, there is compelling evidence that IVC filters can provide significant protection against PE with minimal complications if the treatment window is appropriate. Increase in the variety of filter models has led to broader availability, but skepticism remains about their efficacy and safety, with ongoing controversy surrounding appropriate indications. Further research is needed to establish clear guidelines on appropriate indications for IVC placement and to determine time course of complications versus benefits for indwelling filters.

Clinical and imaging outcomes of OptionELITE vena cava filter placement procedures

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine the clinical and imaging outcomes after placement of the OptionELITE inferior vena cava (IVC) filter (Argon Medical Devices, Plano, TX).

METHODS

The clinical characteristics and imaging findings of patients who had undergone OptionELITE filter placement at six affiliated hospitals between January 1, 2013 and April 19, 2019, were analyzed. Data were obtained from the Radiology Information System, imaging database, and electronic medical records. The patients were followed up until 1 month after filter removal, death, or the first clinic visit and imaging study after June 1, 2019.

RESULTS

A total of 603 filter placement procedures in 594 patients were evaluated. Of the 603 procedures, 602 were technically successful (99.8%). Of the 594 patients, 356 had presented with acute pulmonary embolism and/or deep vein thrombosis. A total of 189 filters were retrieved from the 191 patients for whom retrieval had been attempted at 4.3 ± 6.3 months (median, 2.5 months) after placement. The 414 filters without removal procedures had been followed up for 14.8 ± 17.7 months (median, 6.9 months). During the follow-up period, 57 patients (9.5%) had developed new or worsening deep vein thrombosis caudal to the filter and 19 (3.2%) had experienced new symptomatic nonfatal pulmonary embolism after filter placement. One filter had migrated and fractured, and another filter had fractured and a strut was lost. Perforation was demonstrated equivocally in 12 (3%) and definitely in 17 (4.3%) of 399 patients with adequate imaging studies available, with penetration into surrounding structures in 13 patients (3.3%). Of 332 patients with adequate imaging studies, 12 (3.6%) had developed substantial IVC thrombosis and 4 (1.2%) had developed IVC occlusion.

CONCLUSIONS

The rates of symptomatic pulmonary embolism and filter-related complications were low after OptionELITE IVC filter placement, and filter retrieval, when attempted, was 99% successful.

Predicting the Safety and Effectiveness of Inferior Vena Cava Filters (PRESERVE): Outcomes at 12 months

OBJECTIVE

To determine the safety and effectiveness of vena cava filters (VCFs).

METHODS

A total of 1429 participants (62.7 ± 14.7 years old; 762 [53.3% male]) consented to enroll in this prospective, nonrandomized study at 54 sites in the United States between October 10, 2015, and March 31, 2019. They were evaluated at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months following VCF implantation. Participants whose VCFs were removed were followed for 1 month after retrieval. Follow-up was performed at 3, 12, and 24 months. Predetermined composite primary safety (freedom from perioperative serious adverse events [AEs] and from clinically significant perforation, VCF embolization, caval thrombotic occlusion, and/or new deep vein thrombosis [DVT] within 12-months) and effectiveness (composite comprising procedural and technical success and freedom from new symptomatic pulmonary embolism [PE] confirmed by imaging at 12-months in situ or 1 month postretrieval) end points were assessed.

RESULTS

VCFs were implanted in 1421 patients. Of these, 1019 (71.7%) had current DVT and/or PE. Anticoagulation therapy was contraindicated or had failed in 1159 (81.6%). One hundred twenty-six (8.9%) VCFs were prophylactic. Mean and median follow-up for the entire population and for those whose VCFs were not removed was 243.5 ± 243.3 days and 138 days and 332.6 ± 290 days and 235 days, respectively. VCFs were removed from 632 (44.5%) patients at a mean of 101.5 ± 72.2 days and median 86.3 days following implantation. The primary safety end point and primary effectiveness end point were both achieved. Procedural AEs were uncommon and usually minor, but one patient died during attempted VCF removal. Excluding strut perforation greater than 5 mm, which was demonstrated on 31 of 201 (15.4%) patients' computed tomography scans available to the core laboratory, and of which only 3 (0.2%) were deemed clinically significant by the site investigators, VCF-related AEs were rare (7 of 1421, 0.5%). Postfilter, venous thromboembolic events (none fatal) occurred in 93 patients (6.5%), including DVT (80 events in 74 patients [5.2%]), PE (23 events in 23 patients [1.6%]), and/or caval thrombotic occlusions (15 events in 15 patients [1.1%]). No PE occurred in patients following prophylactic placement.

CONCLUSIONS

Implantation of VCFs in patients with venous thromboembolism was associated with few AEs and with a low incidence of clinically significant PEs.

Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2023 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association

BACKGROUND

The American Heart Association, in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health, annually reports the most up-to-date statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascular risk factors, including core health behaviors (smoking, physical activity, diet, and weight) and health factors (cholesterol, blood pressure, and glucose control) that contribute to cardiovascular health. The Statistical Update presents the latest data on a range of major clinical heart and circulatory disease conditions (including stroke, congenital heart disease, rhythm disorders, subclinical atherosclerosis, coronary heart disease, heart failure, valvular disease, venous disease, and peripheral artery disease) and the associated outcomes (including quality of care, procedures, and economic costs).

METHODS

The American Heart Association, through its Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee, continuously monitors and evaluates sources of data on heart disease and stroke in the United States to provide the most current information available in the annual Statistical Update with review of published literature through the year before writing. The 2023 Statistical Update is the product of a full year's worth of effort in 2022 by dedicated volunteer clinicians and scientists, committed government professionals, and American Heart Association staff members. The American Heart Association strives to further understand and help heal health problems inflicted by structural racism, a public health crisis that can significantly damage physical and mental health and perpetuate disparities in access to health care, education, income, housing, and several other factors vital to healthy lives. This year's edition includes additional COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) publications, as well as data on the monitoring and benefits of cardiovascular health in the population, with an enhanced focus on health equity across several key domains.

RESULTS

Each of the chapters in the Statistical Update focuses on a different topic related to heart disease and stroke statistics.

CONCLUSIONS

The Statistical Update represents a critical resource for the lay public, policymakers, media professionals, clinicians, health care administrators, researchers, health advocates, and others seeking the best available data on these factors and conditions.

Predicting the Safety and Effectiveness of Inferior Vena Cava Filters (PRESERVE): Outcomes at 12 months

OBJECTIVE

To determine the safety and effectiveness of vena cava filters (VCFs).

METHODS

A total of 1429 participants (62.7 ± 14.7 years old; 762 [53.3% male]) consented to enroll in this prospective, nonrandomized study at 54 sites in the United States between October 10, 2015, and March 31, 2019. They were evaluated at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months following VCF implantation. Participants whose VCFs were removed were followed for 1 month after retrieval. Follow-up was performed at 3, 12, and 24 months. Predetermined composite primary safety (freedom from perioperative serious adverse events [AEs] and from clinically significant perforation, VCF embolization, caval thrombotic occlusion, and/or new deep vein thrombosis [DVT] within 12-months) and effectiveness (composite comprising procedural and technical success and freedom from new symptomatic pulmonary embolism [PE] confirmed by imaging at 12-months in situ or 1 month postretrieval) end points were assessed.

RESULTS

VCFs were implanted in 1421 patients. Of these, 1019 (71.7%) had current DVT and/or PE. Anticoagulation therapy was contraindicated or had failed in 1159 (81.6%). One hundred twenty-six (8.9%) VCFs were prophylactic. Mean and median follow-up for the entire population and for those whose VCFs were not removed was 243.5 ± 243.3 days and 138 days and 332.6 ± 290 days and 235 days, respectively. VCFs were removed from 632 (44.5%) patients at a mean of 101.5 ± 72.2 days and median 86.3 days following implantation. The primary safety end point and primary effectiveness end point were both achieved. Procedural AEs were uncommon and usually minor, but one patient died during attempted VCF removal. Excluding strut perforation greater than 5 mm, which was demonstrated on 31 of 201 (15.4%) patients' computed tomography scans available to the core laboratory, and of which only 3 (0.2%) were deemed clinically significant by the site investigators, VCF-related AEs were rare (7 of 1421, 0.5%). Postfilter, venous thromboembolic events (none fatal) occurred in 93 patients (6.5%), including DVT (80 events in 74 patients [5.2%]), PE (23 events in 23 patients [1.6%]), and/or caval thrombotic occlusions (15 events in 15 patients [1.1%]). No PE occurred in patients following prophylactic placement.

CONCLUSIONS

Implantation of VCFs in patients with venous thromboembolism was associated with few AEs and with a low incidence of clinically significant PEs.

Changes in perfusion angiography after IVC filter placement and retrieval

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are posited to effect flow dynamics, causing turbulence, vascular remodeling and eventual thrombosis; however, minimal data exists evaluating hemodynamic effects of IVC filters in vivo. The purpose of this study was to determine differences in hemodynamic flow parameters acquired with two-dimension (2D)-perfusion angiography before and after IVC filter placement or retrieval. 2D-perfusion images were reconstructed retrospectively from digital subtraction angiography from a cohort of 37 patients (13F/24M) before and after filter placement (n = 18) or retrieval (n = 23). Average dwell time was 239.5 ± 132.1 days. Changes in the density per pixel per second within a region of interest (ROI) were used to calculate contrast arrival time (AT), time-to-peak (TTP), wash-in-rate (WIR), and mean transit time (MTT). Measurements were obtained superior to, inferior to, and within the filter. Differences in hemodynamic parameters before and after intervention were compared, as well as correlation between parameters versus filter dwell time. A P value with Bonferroni correction of <.004 was considered statistically significant. After placement, there was no difference in any 2D-perfusion variable. After retrieval, ROIs within and inferior to the filter showed a significantly shorter TTP (1.7 vs 1.4 s, P = .004; 1.5 vs 1.3 s, P = .001, respectively) and MTT (1.7 vs 1.4 s, P = .003; 1.5 vs 1.2 s, P = .002, respectively). Difference in variables showed no significant correlation when compared to dwell time. 2D-perfusion angiography is feasible to evaluate hemodynamic effects of IVC filters in vivo. TTP and MTT within and below the filter after retrieval were significantly changed, without apparent correlation to dwell time, suggesting a functional hemodynamic delay secondary to filter presence.

Pulmonary Embolism in the Cancer Associated Thrombosis Landscape

In cancer patients, pulmonary embolism (PE) is the second leading cause of death after the cancer itself, most likely because of difficulties in diagnosing the disease due to its nonclassical presentation. The risk of PE recurrence and possibly the case-fatality rate depends on whether the patient presents a symptomatic PE, an unsuspected PE, a subsegmental PE, or a catheter-related PE. Choosing the best therapeutic option is challenging and should consider the risk of both the recurrence of thrombosis and the occurrence of bleeding. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the clinical characteristics and the treatment of cancer-associated PE, which could benefit clinicians to better manage the deadliest form of thrombosis associated with cancer. After a brief presentation of the epidemiological data, we will present the current attitude towards the diagnosis and the management of cancer patients with PE. Finally, we will discuss the perspectives of how the medical community can improve the management of this severe medical condition.

Concomitant Deep Vein Thrombosis in Cancer Patients with Unsuspected Pulmonary Embolism

Simple Summary

Cancer patients have a significantly higher risk of developing venous thromboembolism during their disease course when compared with the general population. During routine staging or follow-up imaging studies, incidental venous thromboemboli, including incidental pulmonary embolisms, can be identified. Identifying factors associated with incidental or unsuspected venous thromboembolism is important and can improve the management plan. In the current study, we found that 20.9% of patients with unsuspected pulmonary embolisms had concomitant deep vein thrombosis, and most of these patients were asymptomatic. In addition, we found that concomitant deep vein thrombosis increases the odds of venous thrombosis recurrence in cancer patients presenting with unsuspected pulmonary emboli. Therefore, for patients with isolated incidental subsegmental pulmonary embolism and concomitant deep vein thrombosis, initiating anticoagulants if no contraindications exist is recommended. In addition, the presence of concomitant deep vein thrombosis among cancer patients with unsuspected pulmonary embolisms is associated with poor short- and long-term outcomes in these patients.

Abstract

Incidental venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common in cancer patients and identifying factors associated with these events can improve the management plan. We studied the characteristics of concomitant deep vein thrombosis (C-DVT) in cancer patients presenting with unsuspected pulmonary embolism (PE) and the association of C-DVT with VTE recurrence and survival outcomes. Patients presenting to our emergency department with confirmed unsuspected/incidental PE between 1 January 2006 and 1 January 2016, were identified. Radiologic reports were reviewed to confirm the presence or absence of C-DVT. Logistic regression analyses and cox regression modeling were used to determine the effect of C-DVT on VTE recurrence and survival outcomes. Of 904 eligible patients, 189 (20.9%) had C-DVT. Patients with C-DVT had twice the odds of developing VTE recurrence (odds ratio 2.07, 95% confidence interval 1.21–3.48, p = 0.007). The mortality rates among C-DVT were significantly higher than in patients without. C-DVT was associated with reduced overall survival in patients with unsuspected PE (hazard ratio 1.33, 95% confidence interval 1.09–1.63, p = 0.005). In conclusion, C-DVT in cancer patients who present with unsuspected PE is common and is associated with an increased risk of VTE recurrence and poor short- and long-term survival. Identifying other venous thrombi in cancer patients presenting with unsuspected PE is recommended and can guide the management plan. For patients with isolated incidental subsegmental pulmonary embolism and concomitant deep vein thrombosis, initiating anticoagulants if no contraindications exist is recommended.

Inferior Vena Cava Filter Use in the Setting of Gastrointestinal Blood Loss, Malignancy, and Multiple Thromboembolisms: A Case Report

Cancer-associated thromboembolism (CAT) is a common yet serious condition that occurs due to the physiological changes brought about by malignancy. The two conditions that are the most prevalent are deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). Anticoagulation is the standard of care for these thrombotic problems, however, in the event these medications are contraindicated, other treatment modalities may be needed. One common example is in the setting of an active bleed, such as gastrointestinal (GI) cancer. A treatment that has been used more frequently in recent years is the inferior vena cava (IVC) filter. These can be placed to provide a physical barrier to prevent a thrombus from moving through the circulation and potentially embolizing critical organs. An advantage of these devices is that they can be placed and removed when the use of pharmacological agents is better indicated. This report is a good example of a situation where an active GI malignancy created a hypercoagulable state leading to multiple thromboembolisms. An IVC filter was placed in the perioperative setting to prevent further thrombus migration while the primary malignancy was cured with a hemicolectomy. 

Effects of CDT on Hemodynamics and Quality of Life in a Subgroup of Patients with Lower Limb Deep Vein Thrombosis Carel: A Case-Control Study

Objective. To explore the effects of combined catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) on hemodynamics and quality of life in a subgroup of patients with lower limb deep vein thrombosis carel by using a case-control study. Methods. Eighty-four patients with deep venous thrombosis (DVT: acute DVT and chronic DVT) of lower extremities treated in our hospital from April 2017 to June 2021 were randomly assigned into the control group ( $n=42$ ) and the research group ( $n=42$ ). The control group only received routine nursing combined with CDT; the research group was treated with cluster nursing l combined with CDT. The clinical efficacy, the difference in limb circumference, hemorheology, hemodynamics, coagulation index and life quality before and after treatment, and the nursing satisfaction scores were calculated. The effects of cluster nursing l combined with CDT on hemodynamics and life quality in patients with DVT of lower extremities were analyzed. Results. The clinical curative effect of the research group was better than that of the control group ( $P<0.05$ ). After intervention, the difference in the thigh and leg perimeter in the research group was reduced, and the difference in the thigh and leg perimeter in the research group was significantly lower than that in the control group ( $P<0.05$ ). After intervention, the whole blood low shear viscosity, plasma viscosity, platelet aggregation rate, and fibrinogen in the research group were lower than those in the control group ( $P<0.05$ ). After intervention, segmental venous volume (SVC), maximum venous blood flow (MVO), and SVC/MVO in the research group were significantly higher than those before intervention, VRT was significantly prolonged, and MVO and venous pressure recovery time (VRT) were significantly higher than those in the control group. After intervention, D-dimer and fibrinogen decreased, prothrombin time and activated partial thromboplastin time increased in the research group, and the improvement of blood coagulation index in the research group was significantly better than that in the control group ( $P<0.05$ ). After intervention, the scores of quality of life in the research group decreased, and the scores of physiological function, psychological function, social function, and health self-cognition in the research group were lower than those in the control group ( $P<0.05$ ). The satisfaction of patients in the research group was significantly higher than that in the control group ( $P<0.05$ ). Conclusion. The application of cluster nursing l combined with CDT can effectively prevent lower limb venous thrombosis after operation and can enhance patients’ hemorheology, hemodynamics, and blood coagulation function and significantly promote their life quality, nursing satisfaction is high, and it is worth popularizing and applying in clinic.

EHA Guidelines on Management of Antithrombotic Treatments in Thrombocytopenic Patients With Cancer

In cancer patients, thrombocytopenia can result from bone marrow infiltration or from anticancer medications and represents an important limitation for the use of antithrombotic treatments, including anticoagulant, antiplatelet, and fibrinolytic agents. These drugs are often required for prevention or treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis or for cardioembolic prevention in atrial fibrillation in an increasingly older cancer population. Data indicate that cancer remains an independent risk factor for thrombosis even in case of thrombocytopenia, since mild-to-moderate thrombocytopenia does not protect against arterial or venous thrombosis. In addition, cancer patients are at increased risk of antithrombotic drug-associated bleeding, further complicated by thrombocytopenia and acquired hemostatic defects. Furthermore, some anticancer treatments are associated with increased thrombotic risk and may generate interactions affecting the effectiveness or safety of antithrombotic drugs. In this complex scenario, the European Hematology Association in collaboration with the European Society of Cardiology has produced this scientific document to provide a clinical practice guideline to help clinicians in the management of patients with cancer and thrombocytopenia. The Guidelines focus on adult patients with active cancer and a clear indication for anticoagulation, single or dual antiplatelet therapy, their combination, or reperfusion therapy, who have concurrent thrombocytopenia because of either malignancy or anticancer medications. The level of evidence and the strength of the recommendations were discussed according to a Delphi procedure and graded according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.

2022 international clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer, including patients with COVID-19

The International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer is an independent academic working group of experts aimed at establishing global consensus for the treatment and prophylaxis of cancer-associated thrombosis. The 2013, 2016, and 2019 International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer clinical practice guidelines have been made available through a free, web-based mobile phone application. The 2022 clinical practice guidelines, which are based on a literature review up to Jan 1, 2022, include guidance for patients with cancer and with COVID-19. Key recommendations (grade 1A or 1B) include: (1) low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) for the initial (first 10 days) treatment and maintenance treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis; (2) direct oral anticoagulants for the initial treatment and maintenance treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis in patients who are not at high risk of gastrointestinal or genitourinary bleeding, in the absence of strong drug-drug interactions or of gastrointestinal absorption impairment; (3) LMWHs or direct oral anticoagulants for a minimum of 6 months to treat cancer-associated thrombosis; (4) extended prophylaxis (4 weeks) with LMWHs to prevent postoperative venous thromboembolism after major abdominopelvic surgery in patients not at high risk of bleeding; and (5) primary prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism with LMWHs or direct oral anticoagulants (rivaroxaban or apixaban) in ambulatory patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer who are treated with anticancer therapy and have a low risk of bleeding.

Factors Associated With Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement and Retrieval for Patients With Cancer-Associated Thrombosis

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism is a leading cause of death in patients with cancer. Inferior vena cava filters are utilized to mitigate the risk of pulmonary embolism for patients who have contraindication to, or failure of, anticoagulation.

METHODS

We reviewed an insurance claims database to identify adults receiving cancer-directed therapy and had a new diagnosis of venous thromboembolism. We then evaluated clinical and sociodemographic characteristics in patients with and without filter placement and retrieval.

RESULTS

There were 25,788 patients (mean [SD] age: 68.3 [12.7] years) who met the study inclusion criteria, with 2111 individuals (8.2%) undergoing filter placement. Filter placement was associated with the type of thrombosis, malignancy, recent surgery, comorbidities, and income. A total of 137 patients (6.5%) newly started anticoagulation within 3 days of filter placement, and 612 (29%) patients received anticoagulation within 30 days after filter placement. Despite this, only 159 (7.5%) patients had their filters retrieved during the study period. Patients with income of $75-99K (odds ratio 2.13, P = .012) or above $100K (odds ratio 1.8, P = .038) were more likely to have filter retrieval compared with those with income <$50K. Filter retrieval was also more likely in younger patients and those with fewer comorbidities or without central nervous system or lung malignancies.

CONCLUSIONS

Inferior vena cava filter placement and retrieval are associated with several sociodemographic factors. Filter retrieval rates are low despite re-initiation of anticoagulation in many patients. Efforts are needed to address disparities in filter use and improve retrieval rates.

Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2022 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association

BACKGROUND

The American Heart Association, in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health, annually reports the most up-to-date statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascular risk factors, including core health behaviors (smoking, physical activity, diet, and weight) and health factors (cholesterol, blood pressure, and glucose control) that contribute to cardiovascular health. The Statistical Update presents the latest data on a range of major clinical heart and circulatory disease conditions (including stroke, congenital heart disease, rhythm disorders, subclinical atherosclerosis, coronary heart disease, heart failure, valvular disease, venous disease, and peripheral artery disease) and the associated outcomes (including quality of care, procedures, and economic costs).

METHODS

The American Heart Association, through its Statistics Committee, continuously monitors and evaluates sources of data on heart disease and stroke in the United States to provide the most current information available in the annual Statistical Update. The 2022 Statistical Update is the product of a full year's worth of effort by dedicated volunteer clinicians and scientists, committed government professionals, and American Heart Association staff members. This year's edition includes data on the monitoring and benefits of cardiovascular health in the population and an enhanced focus on social determinants of health, adverse pregnancy outcomes, vascular contributions to brain health, and the global burden of cardiovascular disease and healthy life expectancy.

RESULTS

Each of the chapters in the Statistical Update focuses on a different topic related to heart disease and stroke statistics.

CONCLUSIONS

The Statistical Update represents a critical resource for the lay public, policymakers, media professionals, clinicians, health care administrators, researchers, health advocates, and others seeking the best available data on these factors and conditions.

An expert spotlight on inferior vena cava filters

Introduction: Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are mechanical filtration devices designed as an alternative to surgical ligation/plication of the IVC. Their use has been controversial, especially with the introduction of retrievable filters and expanded/prophylactic indications.Areas covered: Authors discuss the types of available IVC filters, indications for placement, evidence on their effectiveness in general and specific patient populations, procedural considerations, off-label use, complications, and filter retrieval. This review is based on manuscripts/abstracts published from 1960 to 2021 on venous thromboembolism and IVC filters.Expert opinion: Despite the limited data on their effectiveness and survival benefit, IVC filters continue to play an important role in the treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) who cannot receive standard anticoagulation. There is no role of IVC filters in patients without VTE. While retrievable filters are desirable for short-term use, a dedicated team-based approach, and advanced training are required for their successful removal. Newer devices are promising in improving patient safety . The device manufacturers and regulatory agencies should consider specific approaches to track device-related adverse events. Population-based studies are required to establish optimal patient population who would benefit from these devices. .

Efficacy of modified pressure cuff for thrombolytic treatment on lower extremity deep venous thrombosis

ABSTRACT

To compare the effectiveness and patient comfort between two methods that block superficial venous blood flow during the thrombolytic treatment of lower extremity deep venous thrombosis (DVT) to provide evidence that informs clinical choice.One hundred twenty patients with lower extremity DVT were randomly divided into sphygmomanometer (group A, n = 40), tourniquet (group B, n = 40), and control group (no blocking, n = 40). All the patients were treated with a daily dosage of urokinase using a dial sphygmomanometer cuff and tourniquet to block lower extremity superficial vein blood flow. The pressure of the dial sphygmomanometer blocking lower extremity superficial vein blood flow was measured during lower extremity venography. Leg swelling reduction rate, venous patency, thrombus removal rate, and average comfort index were observed during the blocking process.The average pressure value for group A was 70  ± 10 mm Hg. The differences in the swelling reduction rate and venous patency were significant between the groups. Comparing the two groups at different time points, the average thrombus clearance rate of group A was higher than that of group B and control group. The leg pain scores of group A were lower than those of group B and control group. The postoperative comfort ratio of group A was higher than that of group B, and the proportion of severe discomfort in group A was lower than that in group B.Compared with the tourniquet, using a dial sphygmomanometer cuff to block lower extremity superficial vein blood flow achieved a better thrombolytic effect on DVT and provided higher patient comfort during treatment.

Current status of treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism

Patients with cancer are prone to develop venous thromboembolism (VTE) that is the second leading cause of mortality among them. Cancer patients with VTE may encounter higher rates of VTE recurrence and bleeding complications than patients without cancer. Treatment of established VTE is often complex in patients with cancer. Treatment of cancer-associated VTE basically comprises initial treatment, long-term treatment, treatment within 6 months, treatment beyond 6 months, treatment of recurrent VTE, and treatment in special situations. Decision of antithrombotic therapy, selection of anticoagulants, duration of anticoagulation, decision of adjuvant therapy, and adjustment of regimen in special situations are the major problems in the treatment of cancer-associated VTE. Therapeutic anticoagulation is the key of the key in the treatment of cancer-associated VTE. In addition to the efficacy and safety of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) that has been fully demonstrated, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are increasingly showing its advantages along with the accompanying concern in the treatment of cancer-associated VTE. The latest ASCO, ITAC and NCCN guidelines agree with each other on most aspects with respect to the treatment of cancer-associated VTE, whereas differ on a few issues. Encompassing recent randomized controlled trials, clinical trials, and meta-analyses, as well as the comparison of the latest authoritative guidelines including the NCCN, ASCO, and ITAC guidelines in this field, the objective of this review is to present current overview and recommendations for the treatment of cancer-associated VTE.

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.

Inferior Vena Cava Filter in Cancer Patients: On Whom Should We Be Placing Them?

BACKGROUND

Standard treatment for venous thromboembolism is anticoagulation; vena cava filter placement is an alternative in special situations. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes in patients with cancer undergoing filter placement in a cancer center during a 10-year period and assess which preoperatory variables were associated with poorer survival.

METHODS

Retrospective unicenter analysis during a 10-year period was carried out in patients with cancer who had undergone placement of vena cava filter. Early deaths were those that occurred less than 30 days after the filter placement or that occurred during the same hospital stay of the placement.

RESULTS

About 250 patients were analyzed. About 51.6% were females; 77.2% had proximal lower limb deep vein thrombosis; 34.8% had contraindications to anticoagulation; 32.8% presented bleeding after the onset of anticoagulation; and 18.4% had the filter implanted because they were going to undergo surgery and could not be anticoagulated immediately after. About 51.2% of the filters were removable. However, only 2 had the filter removed. About 59.2% had metastatic disease at the time of filter placement. About 31.2% fulfilled criteria for early death. Of those, 34 patients were put in palliative care after filter insertion (median, 13.5 days). Body mass index >18 kg/m², the absence of metastatic disease, and filter placement during the same anesthesia of another surgery (especially if elective and curative) were associated with a higher chance of survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Multidisciplinary evaluation (and possibly consideration for palliation) should take place before the decision to insert a vena cava filter in severe oncologic cases depending on overall status. Patients with a greater chance of survival at a 3 or 5 years interval seem to be those whose filters were placed in the perioperative context of other surgeries (specially elective and curative), who were not undernourished, and whose disease was not metastatic at that time. For patients who survived, an active investigation protocol for filter removal should be implemented.