Surgical Management of Perforated Inferior Vena Cava Filters

Timing of Prophylactic Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement and Trauma Outcomes : Does Early Placement Matter?

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) are often placed in trauma patients who cannot receive prophylactic anticoagulation. IVCFs are utilized in an effort to reduce the risk of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) and mortality. This study aims to investigate whether time-to-filter placement is associated with differences in trauma outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center retrospective review of adult trauma patients who underwent prophylactic IVCF placement. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on time-to-filter: 0-48 hours and >48 hours. Outcome measures included post-filter deep vein thrombosis (DVT), post-filter PE, in-hospital mortality, and ICU length of stay (ICU-LOS). Significance was defined as P < .05.

RESULTS

During the 6-year study period, 513 patients underwent prophylactic IVCF placement. Both groups were similar with respect to injury severity score (ISS) (P = .540), percent of patients on home anticoagulation (38% and 39%, P = .845), abbreviated injury scale (AIS) by anatomic region (P = .899), and traumatic brain injury (TBI) prevalence (P = .182). Time-to-filter was not associated with significant differences in DVT, PE, or in-hospital mortality (P > .05 for all). Filter placement in the first 48 hours was associated with shorter ICU-LOS and hospital-LOS.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there are no investigations in the trauma literature looking at the impact of time-to-filter on complications related to venous thromboembolism and potential survival benefit. Results of this investigation showed that IVCF placement within the first 48 hours was significantly associated with shorter ICU- and hospital- LOS.

Costs and complications of hospital admissions for inferior vena cava filter malfunction

OBJECTIVE

Inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) malfunction can result from penetration, fracture, or migration of the device necessitating retrieval. Endovascular and open retrieval of IVCF have been described in institutional series without comparison. This study examines national hospital admissions for IVCF malfunction and compares the outcomes of open and endovascular retrieval.

METHODS

The National Inpatient Sample database (2016-2017) was reviewed for admissions with International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes specific for IVCF malfunction. All ICD-10 procedural codes were reviewed, and patients were divided based on open or endovascular IVCF retrieval. Patient characteristics, outcomes, and costs of hospitalization were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

There were 665 patients admitted with a diagnosis of IVCF malfunction. Open IVCF retrieval was performed in 100 patients and endovascular removal in 90 patients. Of those undergoing open surgery, 45 patients (45%) required median sternotomy and 55 (55%) required abdominal surgeries. Most patients were white females with a mean age of 54.4 years (range, 49.3-59.6 years) with a history of deep venous thrombosis (55.3%) or pulmonary embolism (31.6%). Most patients with IVCF malfunction were treated in large (81.6%) or urban teaching (94.7%) hospitals situated most commonly in the South (42.1%) and Northeast (29.0%) with no difference in characteristics of the patients or the centers between the two groups. Patients undergoing open IVCF retrieval were more likely to undergo surgery on an elective basis compared with endovascular IVCF retrieval (75.0% vs 11.1%; P < .001). Open IVCF retrieval was associated with a higher likelihood of thromboembolic complication compared with endovascular retrieval (20% vs 0%; P = .04). There was a trend toward higher infectious complications and overall complications with endovascular removal, but this difference did not reach statistical significance. Open retrieval was associated with a mortality of 5.0% compared with no inpatient mortality with endovascular retrieval (P = .33). The mean hospital length of stay was no difference between the two groups. Open retrieval was associated with significantly higher hospital costs than endovascular retrieval ($34,276 vs $19,758; P = .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Filter removal for patients with IVCF malfunction is associated with significant morbidity and cost, regardless of modality of retrieval. The introduction of specific ICD-10 codes for IVCF malfunction allows researchers to study these events. The development of effective tools for outpatient retrieval of malfunctioning IVCF could decrease related hospitalization and have potential savings for the healthcare system.

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.