Investigating the benefit of adding a vena cava filter to anticoagulation with fondaparinux sodium in patients with cancer and venous thromboembolism in a prospective randomized clinical trial

Inferior vena cava filters: Concept review and summary of current guidelines

Anticoagulation is the first-line approach in the prevention and treatment of pulmonary embolism. In some instances, however, anticoagulation fails, or cannot be administered due to a high risk of bleeding. Inferior vena cava filters are metal alloy devices that mechanically trap emboli from the deep leg veins halting their transit to the pulmonary circulation, thus providing a mechanical alternative to anticoagulation in such conditions. The Greenfield filter was developed in 1973 and was later perfected to a model that could be inserted percutaneously. Since then, this model has been the reference standard. The current class I indication for this device includes absolute contraindication to anticoagulants in the presence of acute thromboembolism and recurrent thromboembolism despite adequate therapy. Additional indications have been more recently proposed, due to the development of removable filters and of progressively less invasive techniques. Although the use of inferior vena cava filters has solid theoretical advantages, clinical efficacy and adverse event profile are still unclear. This review analyzes the most important studies related to such devices, open issues, and current guideline recommendations.

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.

[Translation into French and republication of: "Recurrent venous thromboembolism in anticoagulated cancer patients: diagnosis and treatment"]

Patients with cancer are at significantly increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), due both to the impact of malignant disease itself and to the impact of certain anticancer drugs on haemostasis. This is true both for first episode venous thromboembolism and recurrence. The diagnosis and management of VTE recurrence in patients with cancer poses particular challenges, and these are reviewed in the present article, based on a systematic review of the relevant scientific literature published over the last decade. Furthermore, it is uncertain whether diagnostic algorithms for venous thromboembolism, validated principally in untreated non-cancer patients, are also valid in anticoagulated cancer patients: the available data suggests that clinical decision rules and D-dimer testing perform less well in this clinical setting. In patients with cancer, computed tomography pulmonary angiography and venous ultrasound appear to be the most reliable diagnostic tools for diagnosis of pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis respectively. Options for treatment of venous thromboembolism include low molecular weight heparins (at a therapeutic dose or an increased dose), fondaparinux or oral direct factor Xa inhibitors. The choice of treatment should take into account the nature (pulmonary embolism or VTE) and severity of the recurrent event, the associated bleeding risk, the current anticoagulant treatment (type, dose, adherence and possible drug-drug interactions) and cancer progression.

Comparison of inferior vena cava filter use and outcomes between cancer and non-cancer patients in a tertiary hospital

BACKGROUND

While accepted indications for the use of inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) in patients with a venous thromboembolism (VTE) have remained stable, their use continues to be frequent. Retrieval rates are still low, being particularly notable in the population with cancer. This study aims to review the rate of adherence to guidelines recommendation and to compare retrieval rates and complications in both cancer and non-cancer patients.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed including 185 patients in whom an IVCF was placed in Hospital Clinic of Barcelona. Baseline characteristics, clinical outcomes, and IVCF-related outcomes were analyzed. A strongly recommended indication (SRI) was considered if it was included in all the revised clinical guidelines and non-strongly if it was included in only some.

RESULTS

Overall, 47 % of the patients had a SRI, without differences between groups. IVCF placement after 29 days from the VTE event was more frequent in the cancer group (46.1 vs. 17.7 %). Patients with cancer (48.1 % of the cohort) were older, with higher co-morbidity and bleeding risk. Anticoagulation resumption (75.3 % vs. 92.7 %) and IVCF retrieval (50.6 % vs. 66.7 %) were significantly less frequent in cancer patients. No significant differences were found regarding IVCF-related complications, hemorrhagic events and VTE recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

SRI of IVCF placement was found in less than half of the patients. Cancer patients had higher rates of IVCF placement without indication and lower anticoagulation resumption and IVCF retrieval ratios, despite complications were similar in both groups.

Recurrent venous thromboembolism in anticoagulated cancer patients: Diagnosis and treatment

Patients with cancer are at significantly increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), due both to the impact of malignant disease itself and to the impact of certain anticancer drugs on haemostasis. This is true both for first episode venous thromboembolism and recurrence. The diagnosis and management of VTE recurrence in patients with cancer poses particular challenges, and these are reviewed in the present article, based on a systematic review of the relevant scientific literature published over the last decade. Furthermore, it is uncertain whether diagnostic algorithms for venous thromboembolism, validated principally in untreated non-cancer patients, are also valid in anticoagulated cancer patients: the available data suggests that clinical decision rules and D-dimer testing perform less well in this clinical setting. In patients with cancer, computed tomography pulmonary angiography and venous ultrasound appear to be the most reliable diagnostic tools for diagnosis of pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis respectively. Options for treatment of venous thromboembolism include low molecular weight heparins (at a therapeutic dose or an increased dose), fondaparinux or oral direct factor Xa inhibitors. The choice of treatment should take into account the nature (pulmonary embolism or VTE) and severity of the recurrent event, the associated bleeding risk, the current anticoagulant treatment (type, dose, adherence and possible drug-drug interactions) and cancer progression.

Guideline Compliance and Indications for Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement at a Quaternary Care Medical Center

PURPOSE

This study investigated physician compliance with indications for inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement according to the 2012 American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) and the 2011 Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) guidelines.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective medical record review of 231 retrievable IVC filters placed between August 15, 2016, and December 28, 2017, at a large urban academic medical center. Guideline compliance to the 2012 ACCP and the 2011 SIR guidelines, and indications for IVC filter placements were assessed through an adjudication protocol. Filter retrieval and complication rates were also examined.

RESULTS

Compliance to guidelines was low (60.2% for ACCP; 74.0% for SIR), especially for non-intensive care unit (ICU) patients (ICU 74.6% vs non-ICU 54.8%, p=0.007 for ACCP; ICU 82.5% vs non-ICU 70.8%, p=0.092 for SIR). After adjudication, 8.2% (19/231) of filters were considered non-indicated but reasonable, 17.7% (41/231) non-indicated and unreasonable, and 13.9% (32/231) SIR-indicated but not ACCP-indicated. The most common indication was venous thromboembolism with contraindication to anticoagulation. The most common reasons for non-compliance were distal deep venous thrombosis with contraindication to anticoagulation (19/60, 31.6%) and clot burden (19/60, 31.6%). One-year filter retrieval and 90-day complication rates were 32.0% (74/231) and 6.1% (14/231), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Compliance to established guidelines was low. Reasons for non-compliance included limitations or discrepancies in guidelines, as well as non-evidence-based filter placements.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Despite increasing utilization of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters, guideline compliance for IVC filter placement among providers is unclear. The results of this study indicate that physician compliance to established guidelines is poor, especially in non-intensive-care-unit patients. Noncompliance stems from non-evidence-based filter placement as well as differences and limitations in guidelines. Avoiding non-indicated IVC filter placement and consolidation of guidelines may significantly improve guideline compliance. The critical insights gained from this study can help promote judicious use of IVC filters and highlight the role of venous thromboembolism experts in navigating complex cases and nuances of guidelines.

The Role of Injectables in the Treatment and Prevention of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis

Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is a leading cause of death among patients with cancer. CAT can manifest itself as venous thromboembolism (VTE), in the form of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, or arterial thromboembolism. The pathophysiology of CAT is complex and depends on cancer-, patient-, treatment- and biomarkers-related factors. Treatment of VTE in patients with cancer is complex and includes three major classes of anticoagulant agents: heparin and its derivatives, e.g., low molecular weight heparins, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), and vitamin K inhibitors. Given the tremendous heterogeneity of clinical situations in patients with cancer and the challenges of CAT, there is no single universal treatment option for patients suffering from or at risk of CAT. Initial studies suggested that patients seemed to prefer an anticoagulant that would not interfere with their cancer treatment, suggesting the primacy of cancer over VTE, and favoring efficacy and safety over convenience of route of administration. Recent studies show that when the efficacy and safety aspects are similar, patients prefer the oral route of administration. Despite this, injectables are a valid option for many patients with cancer.

Efficacy and safety of vena cava filters in preventing pulmonary embolism: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the treatment effectiveness of inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) versus non-IVCF for patients undergoing varies conditions.

METHODS

We systematically searched the databases to identify eligible RCTs from their inception up to 9/20/2020. The primary endpoint was pulmonary embolism (PE), while the secondary endpoints included deep-vein thrombosis (DVT), major bleeding, and all-cause mortality. The RRs with 95% CIs were applied as effect estimates for the treatment effectiveness of IVCF versus non-IVCF and calculated by using the random-effects model.

RESULTS

1,137 patients of 5 RCTs were enrolled. There were no significant differences between IVCF and non-IVCF for the risk of PE, major bleeding, and all-cause mortality, while the risk of DVT was significantly increased for patients treated with IVCF.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of IVCF did not yield any benefits on PE, major bleeding, and all-cause mortality risk for patients undergoing various conditions, while the risk of DVT was significantly increased for patients treated with IVCF.

A review of inferior vena cava filters

The care of patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) is delivered via a multidisciplinary team. The primary treatment for VTE is anticoagulation; however, placement of filter devices in the inferior vena cava (IVC) to prevent embolisation of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) is a well-established secondary treatment option. Many controversies remain regarding utilisation and management of filters.

Evidence-Based Minireview: Full dose, modified dose, or no anticoagulation for patients with cancer and acute VTE and thrombocytopenia

Co-incident venous thromboembolism and thrombocytopenia are frequent in patients with active malignancies. The optimal approach for anticoagulation in patients with cancer and thrombocytopenia is not established. Different strategies are often utilized including dose-reduced anticoagulation dictated by degree of thrombocytopenia or transfusing platelets in order to facilitate therapeutic anticoagulation. This minireview provides an overview of the data and we outline our approach toward anticoagulation in patients with venous thromboembolism and thrombocytopenia in the setting of cancer.

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.

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. .

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.

Dilemmas in anticoagulation and use of inferior vena cava filters in venous thromboembolism; a survey of Respiratory Physicians, Haematologists and Medical Oncologists and a review of the literature

Twenty percent of patients with Cancer Associated Thrombosis receive an inferior vena cava filter annually. Insertion is guided by practice guidelines, which do not specify or discuss the use of inferior vena cava filters in malignancy. Adherence to these guidelines is known to be variable. We aimed to see if there was consistent management of venous thromboembolism among Medical Oncologists/Haematologists and Respiratory Physicians, with respect to inferior vena cava filter use in the setting of suspected and confirmed malignancy. Medical Oncologists, Haematologists and Respiratory Physicians were surveyed with four theoretical cases. Case 1 concerns a patient who develops a pulmonary embolism following spinal surgery. Cases 2 and 4 explore the use of inferior vena cava filters in the setting of malignancy. Case 3 covers the role of inferior vena cava filters in recurrent thrombosis despite systemic anticoagulation. There were 56 responses, 32 (57%) Respiratory Physicians and 24 (43%) Haematologists/Oncologists. Respiratory Physicians were significantly more likely to insert an inferior vena cava filter in case 1 (p = 0.04) whilst Haematologists/Medical Oncologists were more likely to insert an inferior vena cava filter in case 3 (p = 0.03). No significant differences were found in cases 2 and 4. There were significant disparities in terms of type and timing of anticoagulation. Consistency of recommendations with guidelines was variable likely in part because guidelines are themselves inconsistent. The heterogeneity in responses highlights the variations in venous thromboembolism management, especially in Cancer Associated Thrombosis. International Societies should consider addressing inferior vena cava filter use specifically in the setting of Cancer Associated Thrombosis. Collaboration between interested specialities would assist in developing consistent, evidence-based guidelines for the use of inferior vena cava filters in the management of venous thromboembolism.

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.

Vena caval filters for the prevention of pulmonary embolism

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary emboli (PE), or blood clots in the lungs,can be potentially fatal. Anticoagulation is the first line therapy to prevent PE. In some instances anticoagulation fails to prevent more emboli, or cannot be given because the person has a high risk of bleeding. Inferior vena caval filters (VCFs) are metal alloy devices that mechanically trap fragmented emboli from the deep leg veins en route to the pulmonary circulation. Retrievable filters are designed to be introduced and removed percutaneously. Although their deployment seems of theoretical benefit, their clinical efficacy and adverse event profile is unclear. This is the third update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence for the effectiveness and safety of vena caval filters (VCFs) in preventing pulmonary embolism (PE).

SEARCH METHODS

For this review update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (last searched 10 September 2019) and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2019, Issue 8) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online. The CIS also searched MEDLINE Ovid, EMBASE Ovid, CINAHL, and AMED (1 January 2017 to 10 September 2019) and trials registries to 10 September 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that examined the efficacy of VCFs in preventing PE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For this update, studies were assessed and data extracted independently. We assessed study quality with Cochrane's 'Risk of bias' tool and used the GRADE approach to assess the overall certainty of the evidence. The outcomes of interest were PE, mortality, lower limb venous thrombosis, filter-related complications and major bleeding.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified four new studies for this update, bringing the total to six included studies involving 1388 participants. The six studies were clinically heterogeneous and we were unable to carry out meta-analysis. Only two studies were considered to be both applicable in current clinical settings and of good methodological quality. One was a randomised open-label trial studying the effect of a retrievable inferior vena caval filter plus anticoagulation versus anticoagulation alone on risk of recurrent pulmonary embolism (PE) in 399 participants over three months. There was no evidence of a difference in the rates of PE, death, lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT), or bleeding at three and six months after the intervention (moderate-certainty evidence). A filter was inserted in 193 people, but could only be successfully retrieved from 153. Minor filter complications were noted at six months. The second clinically relevant study was a randomised open-label trial of 240 participants who had sustained multiple traumatic injuries, allocated to a filter or no filter, three days after injury, in conjunction with anticoagulation and intermittent pneumatic compression. Prophylactic anticoagulation was initiated in both groups when it was thought safe to do so. There was no evidence of a difference in symptomatic PE, death, or lower limb venous thrombosis rates (moderate-certainty evidence). The only major filter complication was that one person required surgical removal of the filter. We are unable to draw any conclusions from the remaining four included studies. One study showed an increased incidence of long-term lower extremity DVT at eight years. Three studies are no longer clinically applicable because they utilised permanent filters which are seldom used now, or they did not use routine prophylactic anticoagulation which is current standard practice. The fourth study compared two filter types and was terminated prematurely as one filter group had a higher rate of thrombosis compared to the other filter type.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Two of the six identified studies were relevant for current clinical settings. One showed no evidence of a benefit of retrievable filters in acute PE for the outcomes of PE, death, DVT and bleeding during the initial three months in people who can receive anticoagulation (moderate-certainty evidence). The other study did not show any benefit for prophylactic filter insertion in people who sustained multiple traumatic injuries, with respect to symptomatic PE, mortality, or lower extremity venous thrombosis (moderate-certainty evidence). We can draw no firm conclusions regarding filter efficacy in the prevention of PE from the remaining four RCTs identified in this review. Further trials are needed to assess vena caval filter effectiveness and safety, and clinical differences between various filter types.

Society of Interventional Radiology Clinical Practice Guideline for Inferior Vena Cava Filters in the Treatment of Patients with Venous Thromboembolic Disease: Developed in collaboration with the American College of Cardiology, American College of Chest Physicians, American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma, American Heart Association, Society for Vascular Surgery, and Society for Vascular Medicine

PURPOSE

To provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters in the treatment of patients with or at substantial risk of venous thromboembolic disease.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A multidisciplinary expert panel developed key questions to address in the guideline, and a systematic review of the literature was conducted. Evidence was graded based on a standard methodology, which was used to inform the development of recommendations.

RESULTS

The systematic review identified a total of 34 studies that provided the evidence base for the guideline. The expert panel agreed on 18 recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the evidence on the use of IVC filters in patients with or at risk of venous thromboembolic disease varies in strength and quality, the panel provides recommendations for the use of IVC filters in a variety of clinical scenarios. Additional research is needed to optimize care for this patient population.

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.

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.

Mortality risk associated with venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism is associated with increased mortality risk in some populations, but how frequently it is a direct cause of death is unclear. We used data from venous thromboembolism prevention trials to evaluate the causal effect of venous thromboembolism reduction on mortality.

METHODS

We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating venous thromboembolism prevention. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science starting from Jan 1, 1993, to March 19, 2018. We included studies of patients who were at elevated risk of venous thromboembolism and were randomly assigned to either anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy versus placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies with an active control agent (which might mitigate the lethality of venous thromboembolism) and those for which mortality data were unavailable. We modelled heterogeneity in a Bayesian framework, taking overall mortality as a primary endpoint, and pulmonary embolism, fatal pulmonary embolism, and major bleeding as secondary endpoints. We focused our analyses on studies reporting statistically significant effects of prevention on venous thromboembolism endpoints. We report treatment effects as median risk ratios (RRs), wherein a null effect equals 1, with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). This meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018089697.

FINDINGS

From 4229 studies screened, we identified 86 eligible RCTs; 52, with data from over 70 000 patients, were positive, with significantly increased venous thromboembolism risk in patients in control groups versus treatment groups (RR 2·74, 95% CrI 2·32-3·31, p<0·0001). The meta-analysis established that the causal effect of venous thromboembolism prevention on mortality was null (control group mortality was 3391 [9·8%] of 34 537 patients; treatment group mortality was 3498 [9·8%] of 35 795 patients [RR 1·01, 95% CrI 0·97-1·06; p=0·58]) with low heterogeneity (τ 0·02, 95% CrI 0·00-0·07, p=0·89). Patients in control groups had more pulmonary embolism (RR 2·22, 95% CrI 1·78-2·89, p<0·0001) and fatal pulmonary embolism (1·58, 1·14-2·19, p=0·01), but less major bleeding (0·60, 0·47-0·75, p<0·0001) than those in treatment groups. A meta-analysis with the additional 34 negative studies yielded similar results for all endpoints except fatal pulmonary embolism, where evidence of an effect was weaker (1·42, 1·05-1·91, p=0·02).

INTERPRETATION

The perception that venous thromboembolism is a common cause of mortality should be revised considering the null effect of venous thromboembolism prevention on mortality. Our findings call into question the use of composite endpoints in venous thromboembolism-prevention trials and provide rationale for de-escalation trials.

FUNDING

None.

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

IMPORTANCE

Venous thromboembolism is the second overall leading cause of death for patients with cancer, and there is an approximately 2-fold increase in fatal pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients with cancer. Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are designed to prevent PE, but defining the appropriate use of IVC filters in patients with cancer remains a substantial unmet clinical need.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association of IVC filters with the development of PE in patients with cancer and deep venous thrombosis (DVT).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A population-based cohort study was conducted using administrative data on 88 585 patients from the state inpatient databases for California (2005-2011) and Florida (2005-2014). Based on diagnostic and procedure codes, patients with cancer and acute lower extremity DVT were identified. All subsequent hospital visits for these patients were evaluated for the placement of an IVC filter, the development of new PE, the development of new DVT, and in-hospital mortality. Data analysis was performed from September 1 to December 1, 2019.

EXPOSURES

Placement of an IVC filter.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The association of IVC filter placement with rates of new PE and DVT was estimated using a propensity score matching algorithm and competing risk analysis.

RESULTS

The study cohort comprised 88 585 patients (45 074 male; median age, 71.0 years [range, 1.0-104.0 years]) with malignant neoplasms who presented to a health care institution with a diagnosis of acute lower extremity DVT. Of these patients, 33 740 (38.1%) underwent IVC filter placement; patients with risk factors such as upper gastrointestinal bleeding (odds ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.29-1.37), intracranial hemorrhage (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.19-1.24), and coagulopathy (odds ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.08-1.10) were more likely to receive an IVC filter. A total of 4492 patients (5.1%) developed a new PE after their initial DVT diagnosis. There was a significant improvement in PE-free survival for these patients compared with those who did not receive IVC filters across the full, unbalanced study cohort as well as after propensity score matching and competing risk analysis (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.64-0.75; P < .001). Furthermore, IVC filter placement reduced the development of PE in patients with very high-risk malignant neoplasms (eg, pancreaticobiliary cancer), high-risk malignant neoplasms (eg, lung cancer), and low-risk malignant neoplasms (eg, prostate cancer). After accounting for anticoagulation use and imbalanced risk factors, IVC filter placement did not increase the risk of new DVT development.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study suggests that, for patients with cancer and DVT and bleeding risk factors, IVC filter placement is associated with an increased rate of PE-free survival.

Safety and Outcomes of Permanent and Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters in the Oncology Population

Background

The role for inferior vena cava (IVC) filters in the oncology population is poorly defined.

Objectives

Our primary endpoint was to determine the rate of filter placement in cancer patients without an absolute contraindication to anticoagulation and the rate of recurrent VTE after filter placement in both retrievable and permanent filter groups. Patients/

Methods

A single-institution, retrospective study of patients with active malignancies and acute VTE who received a retrievable or permanent IVC filter between 2009-2013. Demographics and outcomes were confirmed on independent chart review. Cost data were obtained using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes.

Results

179 patients with retrievable filters and 207 patients with permanent filters were included. Contraindication to anticoagulation was the most cited reason for filter placement; however, only 76% of patients with retrievable filters and 69% of patients with permanent filters had an absolute contraindication to anticoagulation. 20% of patients with retrievable filters and 24% of patients with permanent filters had recurrent VTE. The median time from filter placement to death was 8.9 and 3.2 months in the retrievable and permanent filter groups, respectively. The total cost of retrievable filters and permanent filters was $2,883,389 and $3,722,688, respectively.

Conclusions

The role for IVC filters in cancer patients remains unclear as recurrent VTE is common and time from filter placement to death is short. Filter placement is costly and has a clinically significant complication rate, especially for retrievable filters. More data from prospective, randomized trials are needed to determine the utility of IVC filters in cancer patients.

Gastrointestinal Malignancies and Venous Thromboembolic Disease: Clinical Significance and Endovascular Interventions

Gastrointestinal malignancy encompasses a wide range of disease processes. Its incidence and mortality rate rank among the highest of all cancers. Venous thromboembolic disease is a common complication of gastrointestinal malignancy. Anticoagulation remains the first-line therapy. However, for patients who cannot tolerate or have failed anticoagulation, inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement may be an option. Furthermore, to improve symptom resolution and reduce the severity of postthrombotic syndrome, catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) may be an option. Recent randomized trials including the ATTRACT (Acute Venous Thrombosis: Thrombus Removal with Adjunctive Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis) trial have shed new light on the efficacy and safety of CDT and related methods. Overall, the decision to proceed with IVC filter placement or CDT must be individualized.

Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis and Treatment in Patients With Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update

PURPOSE

To provide updated recommendations about prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer.

METHODS

PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs published from August 1, 2014, through December 4, 2018. ASCO convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and revise previous recommendations as needed.

RESULTS

The systematic review included 35 publications on VTE prophylaxis and treatment and 18 publications on VTE risk assessment. Two RCTs of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for the treatment of VTE in patients with cancer reported that edoxaban and rivaroxaban are effective but are linked with a higher risk of bleeding compared with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in patients with GI and potentially genitourinary cancers. Two additional RCTs reported on DOACs for thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients with cancer at increased risk of VTE.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Changes to previous recommendations: Clinicians may offer thromboprophylaxis with apixaban, rivaroxaban, or LMWH to selected high-risk outpatients with cancer; rivaroxaban and edoxaban have been added as options for VTE treatment; patients with brain metastases are now addressed in the VTE treatment section; and the recommendation regarding long-term postoperative LMWH has been expanded. Re-affirmed recommendations: Most hospitalized patients with cancer and an acute medical condition require thromboprophylaxis throughout hospitalization. Thromboprophylaxis is not routinely recommended for all outpatients with cancer. Patients undergoing major cancer surgery should receive prophylaxis starting before surgery and continuing for at least 7 to 10 days. Patients with cancer should be periodically assessed for VTE risk, and oncology professionals should provide patient education about the signs and symptoms of VTE.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

Usefulness of Inferior Vena Cava Filters in Stable Patients with Acute Pulmonary Embolism

Retrospective cohort studies using administrative data from national databases or a registry suggest that there are subcategories of stable patients with acute pulmonary embolism who would show a reduced mortality with an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter in addition to anticoagulants. These subcategories are those who underwent pulmonary embolectomy, receiving thrombolytic therapy, suffering recurrent pulmonary embolism while on treatment, hospitalized with solid malignant tumors if aged >60 years, hospitalized with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) if aged >50 years, and very elderly (aged >80 years). The following is a review of these studies. It is important to be circumspect in inferring a lower mortality with IVC filters based on comparative effectiveness research that uses national observational data. On the other hand, the likelihood of a randomized controlled trial in any of these subcategories of stable patients is remote. Whether patients are better served by inserting an IVC filter on the basis of retrospective cohort studies, or by withholding IVC filters until a randomized controlled trial can be obtained is a matter for consideration.

Inferior Vena Cava Filters in Patients with Recurrent Pulmonary Embolism

BACKGROUND

There are sparse data to support the recommendation for inferior vena cava (IVC) filters in patients with recurrent pulmonary embolism while on anticoagulant therapy.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of administrative data from the Premier Healthcare Database, 2009-2014. All-cause mortality according to the use of IVC filters was evaluated in patients who suffered a recurrent pulmonary embolism within 3 months of an index pulmonary embolism. Patients were identified by International Classification of Disease, 9th Clinical Modification codes. A time-dependent analysis controlled for immortal time bias.

RESULTS

An IVC filter was inserted in 603 of 814 (74.1%) of patients hospitalized for recurrent pulmonary embolism within 3 months of an index pulmonary embolism. Mortality with an IVC filter was 18 of 603 (3.0%) vs 83 of 211 (39.3%) (P < .0001) without a filter. Among patients with recurrent pulmonary embolism who were stable and did not receive thrombolytic therapy or undergo pulmonary embolectomy, mortality with an IVC filter was 15 of 572 (2.6%) vs 72 of 169 (42.6%) (P < .0001) without a filter.

CONCLUSION

In the United States, usual practice was to insert an IVC filter in patients with early recurrent pulmonary embolism. Mortality was lower in those who received an IVC filter. Even stable patients with early recurrent pulmonary embolism showed a decreased mortality with IVC filters, even though in other circumstances, IVC filters do not reduce mortality in stable patients. Additional cohort studies would be useful in the absence of a randomized controlled trial.

Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: Beyond Clinical Practice Guidelines-A Multidisciplinary (SEMI-SEOM-SETH) Expert Consensus

Despite the growing interest and improved knowledge about venous thromboembolism in cancer patients in the last years, there are still many unsolved issues. Due to the limitations of the available literature, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines are not able to give solid recommendations for challenging scenarios often present in the setting of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT). A multidisciplinary expert panel from three scientific societies—Spanish Society of Internal Medicine (SEMI), Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM), and Spanish Society Thrombosis and Haemostasis (SETH)—agreed on 12 controversial questions regarding prevention and management of CAT, which were thoroughly reviewed to provide further guidance. The suggestions presented herein may facilitate clinical decisions in specific complex circumstances, until these can be made leaning on reliable scientific evidence.

Importance of Early Insertion of Inferior Vena Cava Filters in Unstable Patients with Acute Pulmonary Embolism

BACKGROUND

Immortal time bias is a possible confounding factor in cohort studies. In this investigation, we assessed mortality with inferior vena cava (IVC) filters in unstable patients with pulmonary embolism using a design to control for immortal time bias.

METHODS

Data were from the Premier Healthcare Database, 2010-2014. International Classification of Diseases-Ninth Revision-Clinical Modification codes were used. Unstable patients with pulmonary embolism and an admitting diagnosis of pulmonary embolism, as well as a primary diagnosis of pulmonary embolism, were included. A time-dependent analysis was used according to the day of insertion of the IVC filter to control for immortal time bias.

RESULTS

Among all unstable patients, irrespective of the use of thrombolytic therapy, in-hospital all-cause mortality was 35 of 180 (19.4%) in those who received an IVC filter vs 122 of 299 (40.8%) with no filter (P < .0001). Mortality was lower in patients in whom the IVC filter was inserted on days 1 or 2 (on day 1, 21.4% compared with 40.8%, P = .017, and on day 2, 14.8% compared with 29.2%, P = .023), but it was not lower in those in whom the filter was inserted on subsequent days.

CONCLUSIONS

Mortality in unstable patients with pulmonary embolism appeared to be reduced with IVC filters only when the filter was inserted on the first or second day of admission. The design used for these analyses controlled for immortal time bias as a cause of the lower mortality with IVC filters.

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

BACKGROUND

Results from cohort studies evaluating the benefit in prevention of recurrent Venous Thromboembolism in cancer population are heterogeneous and controversial.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness and harms of vena cava filters alone or combined with anticoagulation to prevent the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer-related venous thromboembolism.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search strategy was conducted in the MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE and LILACS databases. Searches were also conducted in other databases and unpublished literature. Clinical trials were included without language restrictions. The risk of bias was evaluated with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and a modified version for cohort studies. An analysis of fixed effects was conducted. The primary outcome was recurrent venous thromboembolism. The secondary outcomes were overall survival and adverse effects. The measure of the effect was the risk ratio with a 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included in the qualitative and quantitative analysis. 35,333 patients were found among the seven studies. A low risk of bias was shown for most of the study items. The overall risk ratio (RR) for recurrent venous thromboembolism was 2.53 95%CI (1.35-4.75) favoring anticoagulation compared with vena cava filter.

CONCLUSION

Vena cava filter did not show benefits for recurrent venous thromboembolism prevention in the cancer-patients population.

Inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs): a review of uses and application to international guidelines at a single Australian center; implications of venous thromboembolism associated with malignancy

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a potentially lethal event. Anticoagulation is the cornerstone of treatment. Inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) may be used in circumstances when anticoagulation is contraindicated or as an adjunct to anticoagulation. IVCF use is not without controversy due to concerns over their safety profile, differences in guidelines from international societies, and a limited randomized control trial evidence. We retrospectively undertook a review of IVCF use over a three-year period (2014–2016) at our center, which has a large oncology service but no trauma unit. There were 44 patients with successful IVCF insertion and one patient with an unsuccessful attempt. Indications for insertion included: a contraindication to anticoagulation (n = 28); recurrent VTE on anticoagulation (n = 10); and extensive VTE (n = 7). There were 13 retrieval attempts, of which ten were successful. There were five documented IVCF complications (tilting: n = 2, IVC thrombus: n = 3) with one episode of IVCF failure and two episodes of deep vein thrombosis during the follow-up period. Of the patients, 71% had an active malignancy (of whom 71% had metastatic disease). Seventeen patients died due to progressive malignancy during the study period. There were no life-threatening VTEs or IVCF-associated mortalities. Adherence with published international guidelines was variable. Patients with malignancy were less likely to undergo IVCF retrieval and had a reduced rate of retrieval success. None of the international guidelines comment on the use of IVCFs in patients with malignancy despite being commonly used. IVCF use may be an underappreciated tool in this group.

Inferior Vena Cava Filters: Current Indications, Techniques, and Recommendations

The vena cava filter (VCF) is intended to prevent the progression of deep venous thrombosis to pulmonary embolism. Recently, the indications for VCF placement have expanded, likely due in part to newer retrievable inferior vena caval filters and minimally invasive techniques. This article reviews the available VCFs, the indications for use, the techniques for placement, and possible outcomes and complications.

Management of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism - a case-based practical approach

In patients with solid tumours or haematological malignancies, venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of death and significantly contributes to morbidity and healthcare resource utilization. Current practice guidelines recommend long-term anticoagulation with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) as the treatment of choice for cancer-associated VTE, based on clinical trial data showing an overall improved safety and efficacy profile of LMWH compared to vitamin K antagonists. However, several open questions remain, e. g. with regard to the intensity and duration of LMWH therapy; moreover, recent real-world evidence indicates that adherence to parenteral anticoagulation with LMWH over the course of treatment is poor in clinical practice. In this regard, the direct oral factor Xa or thrombin inhibitors (DOACs) have emerged as potential alternatives in the management of patients with cancer-associated VTE, albeit findings from randomized controlled studies with a direct head-to-head comparison of DOACs with LMWH, the current standard of care, are still lacking. Based on the case of a lymphoma patient experiencing symptomatic pulmonary embolism during immunochemotherapy, this article aims at both highlighting the current state-of-the-art approach to cancer-associated VTE and pointing out some of the unresolved, controversial issues clinicians have to face when taking care of haematology and oncology patients with already established or with high risk of developing VTE. These issues include the management of patients with incidental pulmonary embolism or thrombocytopenia, the use of DOACs, and the initiation of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in non-surgical cancer patients.

Medical literature, vena cava filters and evidence of efficacy

Up to 15% of all patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) receive an inferior vena cava filter, and prophylactic placements are increasing. To determine whether current use of filters is based on robust evidence, a global review of the recent (2001–2012) literature on filters was undertaken. The MEDLINE database was searched for articles related to filters appearing during the period 2001–2012, updating a prior search of literature from 1975–2001. All retrieved articles were analysed, classified into predetermined categories and compared to the prior analysis; randomised and large (>100 patients with a filter) comparative non-randomised clinical studies were read in full. The 651 articles, vs 568 in the period 1975–2000, consisted mainly of retrospective series (37.8%), case reports (31.7%), reviews (14.7%, vs 6.7%, p<0.001), animal and/or in vitro studies (7.5%, vs 12.9%, p=0.002), and prospective series or trials (4.9%, vs 7.4%, p=0.07). Of 4 new randomised trials (RCT), none were designed to test the efficacy of the device; to date, only one RCT has attempted to ascertain efficacy, occurring during the period 1975–2000. Eleven large non-randomised studies compared clinical outcomes of patients with and without filters, in VTE patients (n=5) or prophylactic indications (n=6); two studies found statistically significant relationships between filter use and lower mortality rates, though none could demonstrate a causal relationship. Hence, the plethoric literature on filters parallels growing experience with these devices, but still fails to provide reliable evidence that filter use improves relevant clinical outcomes. No indication for filter placement is based on appropriate scientific evidence.

Inferior Vena Cava Filters to Prevent Pulmonary Embolism: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are widely used for prevention of pulmonary embolism (PE). However, uncertainty persists about their efficacy and safety.

OBJECTIVES

The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the published reports on the efficacy and safety of IVC filters.

METHODS

The authors searched PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov through October 3, 2016, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective controlled observational studies of IVC filters versus none in patients at risk of PE. Inverse variance fixed-effects models with odds ratio (OR) as the effect measure were used for primary analyses. Main outcomes included subsequent PE, PE-related mortality, all-cause mortality, and subsequent deep vein thrombosis (DVT).

RESULTS

The authors' search retrieved 1,986 studies, of which 11 met criteria for inclusion (6 RCTs and 5 prospective observational studies). Quality of evidence for RCTs was low to moderate. Overall, patients receiving IVC filters had lower risk for subsequent PE (OR: 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.33 to 0.75); increased risk for DVT (OR: 1.70; 95% CI: 1.17 to 2.48); nonsignificantly lower PE-related mortality (OR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.05); and no change in all-cause mortality (OR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.70 to 1.19). Limiting the results to RCTs showed similar results. Findings were substantively similar across a wide range of sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Very few prospective controlled studies, with limited quality of evidence, exist regarding the efficacy and safety of IVC filters. Overall, filters appear to reduce the risk of subsequent PE, increase the risk for DVT, and have no significant effect on overall mortality.

International clinical practice guidelines including guidance for direct oral anticoagulants in the treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the second leading cause of death in patients with cancer. These patients are at an increased risk of developing VTE and are more likely to have a recurrence of VTE and bleeding while taking anticoagulants. Management of VTE in patients with cancer is a major therapeutic challenge and remains suboptimal worldwide. In 2013, the International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer (ITAC-CME), established to reduce the global burden of VTE in patients with cancer, published international guidelines for the treatment and prophylaxis of VTE and central venous catheter-associated thrombosis. The rapid global adoption of direct oral anticoagulants for management of VTE in patients with cancer is an emerging treatment trend that needs to be addressed based on the current level of evidence. In this Review, we provide an update of the ITAC-CME consensus recommendations based on a systematic review of the literature ranked according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation scale. These guidelines aim to address in-hospital and outpatient cancer-associated VTE in specific subgroups of patients with cancer.

Inferior vena cava filters

Use of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters has increased dramatically in recent decades, despite a lack of evidence that their use has impacted venous thromboembolism (VTE)-related mortality. This increased use appears to be primarily driven by the insertion of retrievable filters for prophylactic indications. A growing body of evidence, however, suggests that IVC filters are frequently associated with clinically important adverse events, prompting a closer look at their role. We sought to narratively review the current evidence on the efficacy and safety of IVC filter placements. Inferior vena cava filters remain the only treatment option for patients with an acute (within 2-4 weeks) proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism and an absolute contraindication to anticoagulation. In such patients, anticoagulation should be resumed and IVC filters removed as soon as the contraindication has passed. For all other indications, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of IVC filters and high-quality trials are required. In patients where an IVC filter remains, regular follow-up to reassess removal and screen for filter-related complications should occur.

The short-term efficacy of vena cava filters for the prevention of pulmonary embolism in patients with venous thromboembolism receiving anticoagulation: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Objectives

To perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of inferior vena cava filters in patients with deep vein thrombosis for preventing pulmonary embolism.

Method

Relevant randomized controlled trials of inferior vena cava filters for the prevention of pulmonary embolism were identified by searching electronic databases updated in February 2016. Relative risks of recurrent pulmonary embolism, recurrent deep vein thrombosis, and mortality at three months were analyzed.

Results

Three published randomized controlled trials were included involving a total of 863 deep vein thrombosis patients. No significant differences were detected with inferior vena cava filters placement with regard to the incidence of recurrent pulmonary embolism or fatal pulmonary embolism. There were also no significant differences in the incidence of recurrent deep vein thrombosis or mortality with inferior vena cava filters placement at three months.

Conclusions

Inferior vena cava filter in addition to anticoagulation was not associated with a reduction in the incidence of recurrent pulmonary embolism as compared with anticoagulation alone in patients with deep vein thrombosis in the short term.

The safety of fondaparinux sodium for the treatment of venous thromboembolism

INTRODUCTION

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common and potentially fatal disease. Fondaparinux is a synthetic agent able to act on single factors involved in the coagulation network, which could be administered at fixed doses and with a more predictable response.

AREAS COVERED

This review will focus on the efficacy and safety of fondaparinux in the treatment of major VTE (deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism) and in the treatment of superficial vein thrombosis (SVT).

EXPERT OPINION

Results of high quality randomized controlled trials have clearly shown the efficacy and safety of fondaparinux in comparison to conventional treatment in patients with a major VTE. There are limited evidences on the safety and efficacy of different options in patients presenting with SVT. Fondaparinux has been evaluated in a large population of patients presenting with a SVT. Results of this high quality RCT provided the evidence on the efficacy and safety of fondaparinux 2.5 mg s.c./day for 45 days in this setting. Thus, considering the evidence of the literature and thanks to its pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics, fondaparinux represent a valid treatment option for both the acute management of patients with major VTE, and for the treatment of SVT.

Vena Caval Filter Utilization and Outcomes in Pulmonary Embolism: Medicare Hospitalizations From 1999 to 2010

BACKGROUND

Inferior vena caval filters (IVCFs) may prevent recurrent pulmonary embolism (PE). Despite uncertainty about their net benefit, patterns of use and outcomes of these devices in contemporary practice are unknown.

OBJECTIVES

The authors determined the trends in utilization rates and outcomes of IVCF placement in patients with PE and explored regional variations in use in the United States.

METHODS

In a national cohort study of all Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries ≥65 years of age with principal discharge diagnoses of PE between 1999 and 2010, rates of IVCF placement per 100,000 beneficiary-years and per 1,000 patients with PE were determined. The 30-day and 1-year mortality rates after IVCF placement were also investigated.

RESULTS

Among 556,658 patients hospitalized with PE, 94,427 underwent IVCF placement. Between 1999 and 2010, the number of PE hospitalizations with IVCF placement increased from 5,003 to 8,928, representing an increase in the rate per 100,000 beneficiary-years from 19.0 to 32.5 (p < 0.001 for both). As the total number of PE hospitalizations increased (from 31,746 in 1999 to 54,392 in 2010), the rate of IVCF placement per 1,000 PE hospitalizations did not change significantly (from 157.6 to 164.1, p = 0.11). Results were consistent across demographic subgroups, although IVCF use was higher in blacks and patients ≥85 years of age. IVCF utilization varied widely across regions, with the highest rate in the South Atlantic region and the lowest rate in the Mountain region.

CONCLUSIONS

In a period of increasing PE hospitalizations among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, IVCF placement increased as utilization rates in patients with PE remained greater than 15%. Mortality associated with PE hospitalizations is declining, regardless of IVCF use.