Vena Cava Filter Use in Trauma and Rates of Pulmonary Embolism, 2003-2015

Perioperative ultrasound screening of lower extremity veins is effective in the prevention of fatal pulmonary embolism in orthopedic patients

Patients at high risk of deep vein thrombosis are recommended to undergo lower-extremity ultrasonography to screen for pulmonary embolism (PE); however, there are few reports on whether this can effectively reduce the occurrence of fatal pulmonary embolism (FPE). This study aimed to assess the risk factors associated with PE and to investigate whether perioperative ultrasound screening of lower extremity veins in orthopedic patients can effectively reduce the incidence of FPE. We enrolled 137 patients with PE who underwent orthopedic surgery between 2013 and 2020. Patients were divided into survival and non-survival groups based on whether FPE occurred during hospitalization. Demographic and clinical data were compared between groups. Ultrasound screening was effective in reducing the incidence of FPE in orthopedic patients. Thrombolytic therapy and computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) were highlighted factors that protect against FPE. Coronary heart disease was found to be independent risk factors for FPE. Proximal thrombus associated with an FPE. Ultrasound screening of the lower limb veins should be routinely performed in orthopedic patients during the perioperative period. Prophylactic inferior vena cava filter implantation, thrombolytic therapy, and CTPA can be performed in patients with suspected PE to reduce its incidence.

Updated Trends in Inferior Vena Cava Filter Use by Indication in the United States After Food and Drug Administration Safety Warnings: A Decade Analysis From 2010 to 2019

BACKGROUND

Overall inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) utilization has decreased in the United States since the 2010 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) safety communication. The FDA renewed this safety warning in 2014 with additional mandates on reporting IVCF-related adverse events. We evaluated the impact of the FDA recommendations on IVCF placements for different indications from 2010 to 2019 and further assessed utilization trends by region and hospital teaching status.

METHODS

Inferior vena cava filter placements between 2010 and 2019 were identified in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database using the associated International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification, and Tenth Revision codes. Inferior vena cava filter placements were categorized by indication for venous thromboembolism (VTE) "treatment" in patients with VTE diagnosis and contraindication to anticoagulation and "prophylaxis" in patients without VTE. Generalized linear regression was used to analyze utilization trends.

RESULTS

A total of 823 717 IVCFs were placed over the study period, of which 644 663 (78.3%) were for VTE treatment and 179 054 (21.7%) were for prophylaxis indications. The median age for both categories of patients was 68 years. The total number of IVCFs placed for all indications decreased from 129 616 in 2010 to 58 465 in 2019, with an aggregate decline rate of -8.4%. The decline rate was higher between 2014 and 2019 than between 2010 and 2014 (-11.6% vs -7.2%). From 2010 to 2019, IVCF placement for VTE treatment and prophylaxis trended downward at rates of -7.9% and -10.2%, respectively. Urban nonteaching hospitals saw the highest decline for both VTE treatment (-17.2%) and prophylactic indications (-18.0%). Hospitals located in the Northeast region had the highest decline rates for VTE treatment (-10.3%) and prophylactic indications (-12.5%).

CONCLUSION

The higher decline rate in IVCF placements between 2014 and 2019 compared with 2010 and 2014 suggests an additional impact of the renewed 2014 FDA safety indications on national IVCF utilization. Variations in IVCF use for VTE treatment and prophylactic indications existed across hospital teaching types, locations, and regions.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) are associated with medical complications. The 2010 and 2014 FDA safety warnings appeared to have synergistically contributed to a significant decline in IVCF utilization rates from 2010 - 2019 in the US. IVC filter placements in patients without venous thromboembolism (VTE) declined at a higher rate than VTE. However, IVCF utilization varied across hospitals and geographical locations, likely due to the absence of universally accepted clinical guidelines on IVCF indications and use. Harmonization of IVCF placement guidelines is needed to standardize clinical practice, thereby reducing the observed regional and hospital variations and potential IVC filter overutilization.

The role of emergency department thoracotomy in patients with cranial gunshot wounds

BACKGROUND

Although several society guidelines exist regarding emergency department thoracotomy (EDT), there is a lack of data upon which to base guidance for multiple gunshot wound (GSW) patients whose injuries include a cranial GSW. We hypothesized that survival in these patients would be exceedingly low.

METHODS

We used Pennsylvania Trauma Outcomes Study data, 2002 to 2021, and included EDTs for GSWs. We defined EDT by International Classification of Diseases codes for thoracotomy or procedures requiring one, with a location flagged as emergency department. We defined head injuries as any head Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score of ≥1 and severe head injuries as head AIS score of ≥4. Head injuries were "isolated" if all other body regions have an AIS score of <2. Descriptive statistics were performed. Discharge functional status was measured in five domains.

RESULTS

Over 20 years in Pennsylvania, 3,546 EDTs were performed; 2,771 (78.1%) were for penetrating injuries. Most penetrating EDTs (2,003 [72.3%]) had suffered GSWs. Survival among patients with isolated head wounds (n = 25) was 0%. Survival was 5.3% for the non-head injured (n = 94 of 1,787). In patients with combined head and other injuries, survival was driven by the severity of the head wound-0% (0 of 81) with a severe head injury ( p = 0.035 vs. no severe head injury) and 4.5% (5 of 110) with a nonsevere head injury. Of the five head-injured survivors, two were fully dependent for transfer mobility, and three were partially or fully dependent for locomotion. Of 211 patients with a cranial injury who expired, 2 (0.9%) went on to organ donation.

CONCLUSION

Although there is clearly no role for EDT in patients with isolated head GSWs, EDT may be considered in patients with combined injuries, as most of these patients have minor head injuries and survival is not different from the non-head injured. However, if a severe head injury is clinically apparent, even in the presence of other body cavity injuries, EDT should not be pursued.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Anticoagulant Management and Outcomes in Nontraumatic Intracranial Hemorrhage Complicated by Venous Thromboembolism: A Retrospective Chart Review

BACKGROUND

 There are limited data on anticoagulant management of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) after spontaneous intracranial hemorrhage (ICH).

METHODS

 We reviewed retrospectively all cases diagnosed with VTE during hospitalization for spontaneous ICH at our center during 15 years. Anticoagulation management outcomes were (1) timing after ICH of anticoagulant initiation for VTE treatment, (2) use of immediate therapeutic dosing or stepwise dose escalation, and (3) the proportion achieving therapeutic dose. Primary clinical effectiveness outcome was recurrent VTE. Primary safety outcome was expanding ICH.

RESULTS

 We analyzed 103 cases with VTE after 11 days (median; interquartile range [IQR]: 7-22) from the diagnosis of ICH. Forty patients (39%) achieved therapeutic anticoagulation 21.5 days (median; IQR: 14-34 days) from the ICH. Of those, 14 (35%; 14% of total) received immediately therapeutic dose and 26 (65%; 25% of total) had stepwise escalation. Anticoagulation was more aggressive in patients with VTE >14 days after admission versus those with earlier VTE diagnosis. Twenty-two patients (21%) experienced recurrent/progressive VTE-less frequently among patients with treatment escalation within 7 days or with no escalation than with escalation >7 days from the VTE. There were 19 deaths 6 days (median; IQR: 3.5-15) after the index VTE, with significantly higher in-hospital mortality rate among patients without escalation in anticoagulation.

CONCLUSION

 Prompt therapeutic anticoagulation for acute VTE seems safe when occurring more than 14 days after spontaneous ICH. For VTE occurring earlier, it might also be safe with therapeutic anticoagulation, but stepwise dose escalation to therapeutic within a 7-day period might be preferable.

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

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

Approaches for optimizing venous thromboembolism prevention in injured patients: Findings from the consensus conference to implement optimal venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in trauma

ABSTRACT

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major issue in trauma patients. Without prophylaxis, the rate of deep venous thrombosis approaches 60% and even with chemoprophylaxis may be nearly 30%. Advances in VTE reduction are imperative to reduce the burden of this issue in the trauma population. Novel approaches in VTE prevention may include new medications, dosing regimens, and extending prophylaxis to the postdischarge phase of care. Standard dosing regimens of low-molecular-weight heparin are insufficient in trauma, shifting our focus toward alternative dosing strategies to improve prophylaxis. Mixed data suggest that anti-Xa-guided dosage, weight-based dosing, and thromboelastography are among these potential strategies. The concern for VTE in trauma does not end upon discharge, however. The risk for VTE in this population extends well beyond hospitalization. Variable extended thromboprophylaxis regimens using aspirin, low-molecular-weight heparin, and direct oral anticoagulants have been suggested to mitigate this prolonged VTE risk, but the ideal approach for outpatient VTE prevention is still unclear. As part of the 2022 Consensus Conference to Implement Optimal Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Trauma, a multidisciplinary array of participants, including physicians from multiple specialties, pharmacists, nurses, advanced practice providers, and patients met to attack these issues. This paper aims to review the current literature on novel approaches for optimizing VTE prevention in injured patients and identify research gaps that should be investigated to improve VTE rates in trauma.

The variable role of damage control laparotomy over 19 years of trauma care in Pennsylvania

BACKGROUND

Damage control laparotomy emphasizes physiologic stabilization of critically injured patients and allows staged surgical management. However, there is little consensus on the optimal criteria for damage control laparotomy. We examined variability between centers and over time in Pennsylvania.

METHODS

We analyzed the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcomes Study data between 2000 and 2018, excluding centers performing <10 laparotomies/year. Laparotomy was defined using International Classification of Diseases codes, and damage control laparotomy was defined by a code for "reopening of recent laparotomy" or a return to the operating room >4 hours from index laparotomy that was not unplanned. We examined trends over time and by center. Multivariable logistic regression models were developed to predict both damage control laparotomy and mortality, generate observed:expected ratios, and identify outliers for each. We compared risk-adjusted mortality rates to center-level damage control laparotomy rates.

RESULTS

In total, 18,896 laparotomies from 22 centers were analyzed; 3,549 damage control laparotomies were performed (18.8% of all laparotomies). The use of damage control laparotomy in Pennsylvania varied from 13.9% to 22.8% over time. There was wide variation in center-level use of damage control laparotomy, from 11.1% to 29.4%, despite adjustment. Factors associated with damage control laparotomy included injury severity and admission vital signs. Center identity improved the model as demonstrated by likelihood ratio test (P < .001), suggesting differences in center-level practices. There was minimal correlation between center-level damage control laparotomy use and mortality.

CONCLUSION

There is wide center-level variation in the use of damage control laparotomy among centers, despite adjustment for patient factors. Damage control laparotomy is both resource intensive and highly morbid; regional resources should be allocated to address this substantial practice variation to optimize damage control laparotomy use.

Do the benefits of prophylactic inferior vena cava filters outweigh the risks in trauma patients? A meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate whether the benefits of prophylactic inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) outweigh the risks thereof.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for records published from 1980 to 2018 by two independent researchers (MG, GG). The endpoints of interest were pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT) rates. Quality assessment, data extraction and analysis were performed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Mantel-Haenszel method with odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (OR (95%CI)) as the measure of effect size was utilized for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies (two randomized controlled trials and 13 observational studies) were included in the meta-analysis. PE rate was 0.9% (11/1183) in IVCF vs. 0.6% (240/39,417) in No IVCF. This difference was not statistically significant [OR (95%CI) = 0.31 (0.06, 1.51); p = 0.15]. DVT rate was 8.4% (77/915) in IVCF vs. 1.7% (653/38,807) in No IVCF. The difference was not statistically significant [OR (95%CI) = 2.67 (0.90, 7.98); p = 0.08]. In the subset of RCTs, PE rate was 0% (0/64) in IVCF vs. 12% (6/5) in No IVCF. This difference was statistically significant [OR (95%CI) = 0.12 (0.01, 1.03); p = 0.05].

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis found that prophylactic IVCF may be associated with decreased PE rates at the possible cost of increased DVT rates. Further observational and experimental clinical studies are needed to confirm the findings of this meta-analysis.

When is it safe to resume anticoagulation in traumatic brain injury?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

When to resume or initiate anticoagulation therapy following traumatic brain injury (TBI) is controversial. This summary describes the latest evidence to guide best practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

Following trauma, prophylactic, and therapeutic anticoagulation (TAC) have been widely encouraged to prevent major comorbidities such as pulmonary embolism and deep venous thrombosis. Increased rebleeding risk and potentially catastrophic outcome from initiation of anticoagulation treatment in TBI are mainly influenced by institutional guidelines or physician preference in the absence of level I or II recommendations. In recent years, there has been an increasing number of TBI in the elderly population on anticoagulation for other medical conditions; this complicates the decision and timing to restart anticoagulation after the injury.

SUMMARY

Strategies and timing to start prophylactic and TAC differ significantly between institutions and physicians. Each TBI patient should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis on when to start anticoagulation. More investigation is required to guide best practice.

Effect of inferior vena cava filters on pulmonary embolism-related mortality and major complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are often used. However, no clear consensus has been reached regarding the benefits and risks from randomized, controlled trials. Therefore, we investigated benefits and risks of IVC filter use.

METHODS

The PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to October 31, 2019 to identify randomized, controlled trials for inclusion in our meta-analysis. The primary outcome was mortality related to pulmonary embolism (PE). The secondary outcomes were overall mortality, PE, deep vein thrombosis, and major bleeding. Risk ratios were pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel method with the fixed effects model for low heterogeneity. Otherwise, the random effects model was used. Risk differences were considered candidates of effect size if some of the data could not be pooled in the calculations.

RESULTS

Seven articles with 1274 patients were included. We found no significant difference in mortality related to PE between the IVC filter and control groups within 3 months (risk difference, -0.01; 95% confidence interval, -0.03 to 0.00; P = .11) nor during the entire follow-up period with low heterogeneity (I² = 0%). The new occurrence of PE within 3 months and during the whole follow-up period was lower in the IVC filter group than in the control group (0.81% vs 5.98%; risk ratio, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.04-0.65; P = .01; and 3.2% vs 7.79%; risk ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.25-0.71; P = .001, respectively). No significant differences were found in the rates of the new occurrence of deep vein thrombosis, major bleeding, and mortality during the whole follow-up period between the two groups (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

We found insufficient evidence to conclude that the use of IVC filters can reduce mortality. However, the use of IVC filters decreased the new occurrence of PE without increasing deep vein thrombosis or major bleeding.

Persistent Abdominal Pain as Rare Complication of Duodenal Perforation From an Inferior Vena Cava Filter

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) continues to be a significant source of morbidity for surgical patients. Inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement is indicated for DVT in patients who have contraindications to anticoagulation or anticoagulation failure. Over the last decade, there is an exponential increase in IVC filter placement with increased complications reported. These include IVC penetration, IVC occlusion, insertion complication and filter migration. We report a rare case of symptomatic duodenal perforation by an IVC filter migration. This case illustrates that even though IVC migration and perforation is a rare complication, it should be recognized as a potential cause for gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms in these patients.

Inferior vena cava filters: a framework for evidence-based use

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality. Although most patients can be managed safely with anticoagulation, inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) represent an important alternative to anticoagulation in a small subset of patients. IVCF use has expanded exponentially with the advent of retrievable filters. Indications for IVCFs have liberalized despite limited evidence supporting this practice. Because indiscriminate use of IVCFs can be associated with net patient harm, knowledge of the risks and benefits of these devices is essential to optimal evidence-based practice. Patients with acute VTE and absolute contraindications to anticoagulation or major complications from anticoagulation are universally agreed indications for IVCFs. However, the reliance on IVCFs for primary VTE prophylaxis in high-risk patients is not substantiated by the available literature. This review examines trends in IVCF use, practice-based recommendations on IVCF use in various clinical scenarios, complications associated with indwelling IVCFs, and indications for IVCF retrieval.

Worth looking! venous thromboembolism in patients who undergo preperitoneal pelvic packing warrants screening duplex

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with major pelvic fractures who undergo preperitoneal pelvic packing (PPP) has not been investigated. We hypothesized that patients who undergo PPP are at high risk for VTE, thus early prophylactic anticoagulation and screening duplex are warranted.

STUDY DESIGN

All patients requiring PPP from 2015 to 2019 were reviewed. Management and outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

During the study period, 79 patients underwent PPP. Excluding the early deaths, 17 patients had deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and 6 had pulmonary emboli (PE); 4 patients had both DVT/PE. Overall mortality was 15%. Thirty-two patients underwent screening duplex within 72 h of admission and 10 were positive for DVT.

CONCLUSION

Patients with complex pelvic trauma undergoing PPP have a 23% incidence of DVT and an additional 8% incidence of PE. 31% of screening ultrasounds are positive. The overall mortality was 15%. With a high incidence of VTE in this patient population, we recommend screening duplex ultrasounds.

Inferior vena cava filters reduce symptomatic but not fatal pulmonary emboli after major trauma: a meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

INTRODUCTION

The prophylactic use of inferior vena cava filters among patients with major trauma is researched by several controlled studies with contradicting results. We performed an updated meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis of controlled studies probing the prophylactic use of inferior cava filters on the development of symptomatic and fatal pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients with major trauma.

METHODS

A systematic electronic search across PubMed, Cochrane and DARE databases was executed from the debut of the databases up to September 15, 2019 for pertinent articles. The inclusion criteria being, controlled trials (randomized/ observational) investigating the prophylactic inferior vena cava filter placement among patients with major trauma juxtaposed to controls and reporting PE. Major trauma was defined as an injury severity score (ISS) > 15 or any trauma delaying the initiation of pharmacological venous thromboembolic [VTE] prophylaxis.

RESULTS

A total of ten studies were included in the final analysis, of which two were randomized control trials. The use of prophylactic inferior vena cava filters was associated with a reduced risk of symptomatic PE among subjects with major trauma, RR: 0.27, CI 0.12-0.58, P value < 0.05, I² = 0%, χ² p-value = 0.85, the evidence was further reinforced by a trial sequential analysis. However, the use of inferior vena cava filters was not associated with a decreased risk of fatal PE among subjects with major trauma, RR: 0.29, CI 0.08-1.10, P value = 0.07, I² = 0%, χ² p-value = 0.73.

CONCLUSION

The use of inferior vena cava filters curtailed the risk of symptomatic PE, the result further strengthened by trial sequential analysis. However, the present evidence fails to delineate a beneficial role of prophylactic inferior vena cava filter placement in reducing fatal PE among patients with major trauma. The possibility of Type II error cannot be excluded from this estimate.

Treating Venous Thromboembolism Post Intracranial Hemorrhage: A Case Report

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a significant issue occurring due to genetic, acquired and circumstantial risk factors. Treatment is according to the clinical situation and judgment for long term anticoagulation based on individual risk. Anticoagulation after a history of a hemorrhagic stroke poses a therapeutic dilemma. We present a case of a 68-year-old male who presented with right-sided chest pain and shortness of breath. Workup included a CT that was positive for multiple right-sided pulmonary emboli (PE). The patient has a past medical history of Factor V Leiden Mutation, recurrent PE, and deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Two months prior he was diagnosed with a 1.3-cm intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) from multiple cavernous angiomas. At that time his warfarin was discontinued and an inferior vena cave (IVC) filter was placed. Facing the recent ICH and now multiple and recurrent PE, it was decided to resume anticoagulation based on ICH location. ICH from a deep source is likely a better characteristic that favors a resumption of anticoagulation. Our case will highlight that IVC filters cannot be solely relied upon in patients that are at high risk for thrombotic events with underlying genetic thrombophilia.

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.

A Multicenter Trial of Vena Cava Filters in Severely Injured Patients

BACKGROUND

Whether early placement of an inferior vena cava filter reduces the risk of pulmonary embolism or death in severely injured patients who have a contraindication to prophylactic anticoagulation is not known.

METHODS

In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, we assigned 240 severely injured patients (Injury Severity Score >15 [scores range from 0 to 75, with higher scores indicating more severe injury]) who had a contraindication to anticoagulant agents to have a vena cava filter placed within the first 72 hours after admission for the injury or to have no filter placed. The primary end point was a composite of symptomatic pulmonary embolism or death from any cause at 90 days after enrollment; a secondary end point was symptomatic pulmonary embolism between day 8 and day 90 in the subgroup of patients who survived at least 7 days and did not receive prophylactic anticoagulation within 7 days after injury. All patients underwent ultrasonography of the legs at 2 weeks; patients also underwent mandatory computed tomographic pulmonary angiography when prespecified criteria were met.

RESULTS

The median age of the patients was 39 years, and the median Injury Severity Score was 27. Early placement of a vena cava filter did not result in a significantly lower incidence of symptomatic pulmonary embolism or death than no placement of a filter (13.9% in the vena cava filter group and 14.4% in the control group; hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51 to 1.94; P = 0.98). Among the 46 patients in the vena cava filter group and the 34 patients in the control group who did not receive prophylactic anticoagulation within 7 days after injury, pulmonary embolism developed in none of those in the vena cava filter group and in 5 (14.7%) in the control group, including 1 patient who died (relative risk of pulmonary embolism, 0; 95% CI, 0.00 to 0.55). An entrapped thrombus was found in the filter in 6 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Early prophylactic placement of a vena cava filter after major trauma did not result in a lower incidence of symptomatic pulmonary embolism or death at 90 days than no placement of a filter. (Funded by the Medical Research Foundation of Royal Perth Hospital and others; Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12614000963628.).

Deep vein thrombosis and venous thromboembolism in trauma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolus are major causes of hospital-related morbidity and mortality, and are recognized as complications in patients with traumatic injury. Despite the significant morbidity and mortality associated with DVTs, prophylaxis and treatment are still not well understood and remain the subject of research and debate.

RECENT FINDINGS

Elements of the patient's history and physical examination, along with thromboelastography, can be used to predict patients who are at greatest risk of DVT and venous thromboembolism (VTE). Novel assays and biomarkers hold promise for more accurate evaluation of coagulation status. Patients with traumatic injury are routinely treated with either mechanical or pharmacological treatments to prevent DVT, and a growing body of evidence suggests that DVT prophylaxis should be initiated as early as possible in a patient's hospital course.

SUMMARY

In trauma patients with traumatic injury, early identification and targeted VTE prophylaxis in trauma patients may prevent this life-threatening complication.

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.

Inferior Vena Cava Filters: Current and Future Concepts

The inferior vena cava filter clinical environment is notable for the degree of controversy, uncertainty, and fear associated with these devices by both physicians and the public. This article reviews some of the more important current issues with these devices as well as emerging and future trends.