Retrievable inferior vena cava filters in patients with cancer are safe but are they beneficial?

Inferior vena cava filter thromboprophylaxis in surgical cancer patients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

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.

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.

The Role of Inferior Vena Cava Filters in Cancer Patients

Cancer induces a hypercoagulable state and renders patients susceptible to venous thromboembolism. While anticoagulation remains the mainstay of treatment, many of these patients require placement of an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter, often due to a contraindication to or failure of anticoagulation. In this article, the available data on IVC filter usage in cancer patients will be reviewed.