The use of prophylactic inferior vena cava filters in trauma patients: a systematic review

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 use of pre-operative Inferior Vena Cava filters for thromboprophylaxis in ultra-high-risk patients undergoing total hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and narrative analysis

PURPOSE

Patients undergoing total hip (THA) or knee (TKA) arthroplasty are at high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). As the number performed annually increases, the population at risk of fatal pulmonary embolism (PE) also grows. Ultra-high-risk arthroplasty patients (UHRAPs) include those with additional comorbidities, or a history of VTE, for many of whom routine prophylaxis will previously have failed. Pre-operative insertion of Inferior Vena Cava filters (IVCFs) has been recommended for thromboprophylaxis in UHRAPs, and this review was performed to establish their results.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE and Embase databases was performed for studies reporting the use of Inferior Vena Cava filters in hip and knee arthroplasty patients.

RESULTS

Ten studies met the inclusion criteria, containing 718 IVCFs in Orthopaedic patients, 343 of which were permanent (47.8%), 369 potentially retrievable (51.4%), 5 absorbable (0.6%) and one of unknown design (0.1%). Patient age averaged 64.7yrs (17-95) and 56% were female. Pre-operatively, 415 prophylactic IVCFs were inserted in 409 UHRAPs, undergoing a total of 438 total joint arthroplasties (TJA). There were 11 cases of PE in the entire series (1.5%) only one of which was fatal (0.01%), with four non-fatal PE in the UHRAP group (0.96%). Removal was attempted for 283 of the retrievable filters (76.7%) and was successful in 280 (98.9%).

CONCLUSION

The use of IVCFs eliminated fatal PE in UHRAPs, but larger, high-quality studies, with standardised reporting, are still required to determine their absolute indications for use, complication profile, efficacy and optimum design.

Perioperative management of acetabular and pelvic fractures: evidence-based recommendations

PURPOSE

The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons does not currently provide clinical practice guidelines for management of PAF. Accordingly, this article aims to review and consolidate the relevant historical and recent literature in important topics pertaining to perioperative management of PAF.

METHODS

A thorough literature review using PubMed, Cochrane and Embase databases was performed to assess preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative management of PAF fracture. Topics reviewed included: time from injury to definitive fixation, the role of inferior vena cava filters (IVCF), tranexamic acid (TXA) use, intraopoperative cell salvage, incisional negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT), intraoperative antibiotic powder use, heterotopic ossification prophylaxis, and pre- and postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis.

RESULTS

A total of 126 articles pertaining to the preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative management of PAF were reviewed. Articles reviewed by topic include 13 articles pertaining to time to fixation, 23 on IVCF use, 14 on VTE prophylaxis, 20 on TXA use, 10 on cell salvage, 10 on iNPWT 14 on intraoperative antibiotic powder and 20 on HO prophylaxis. An additional eight articles were reviewed to describe background information. Five articles provided information for two or more treatment modalities and were therefore included in multiple categories when tabulating the number of articles reviewed per topic.

CONCLUSION

The literature supports the use of radiation therapy for HO prophylaxis, early (< 5 days from injury) surgical intervention and the routine use of intraoperative TXA. The literature does not support the routine use of iNPWT or IVCF. There is inadequate information to make a recommendation regarding the use of cell salvage and wound infiltration with antibiotic powder. While the routine use of chemical VTE prophylaxis is recommended, there is insufficient evidence to recommend the optimal agent and duration of therapy.

Evaluation of hemodynamic effects of different inferior vena cava filter heads using computational fluid dynamics

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are used to prevent pulmonary embolism in patients with deep vein thrombosis for whom anticoagulation is unresponsive. The head is a necessary structure for an Inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) in clinic use. At present, there are various head configurations for IVCFs. However, the effect of head pattern on the hemodynamics of IVCF is still a matter of unclear. In this study, computational fluid dynamics is used to simulate non-Newtonian blood flows around four IVCFs with different heads inside an IVC model, in which the Denali filter with a solid and hooked head is employed as a prototype, and three virtual variants are reconstructed either with a no-hook head or with a through-hole head for comparison. The simulation results show that the through-hole head can effectively avoid the recirculation region and weaken the blood flow stasis closely downstream the IVCF head. The shape change of the filter head has no significant effect on the blood flow acceleration inside the IVCF cone as well as little influence on the wall shear stress (WSS) distribution on the filter wire surface and IVC wall. The structure pattern of filter head greatly affects the flow resistance of its own. However, the flow drag of filter head only occupies a small proportion of the total resistance of IVCF. Therefore, to reduce the flow resistance of an IVCF should optimize its whole structure.

Evaluation of Changing Vena Cava Filter Use and Inpatient Hospital Mortality from 2016-2019: A Single-Institution Quality Improvement Project

Objective

To evaluate the changing trends of vena cava filter (VCF) insertion and determine whether changes in VCF use affected inpatient mortality.

Patients and Methods

A quality improvement project at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, tracks the type and reason for VCF insertions from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2019, to facilitate appropriate retrieval. The rate of VCF insertions was compared with inpatient mortality rates, normalized for patient volumes using the number of hospital inpatient discharges.

Results

A total of 698 VCFs were placed in 695 patients: 2016 (n=243), 2017 (n=156), 2018 (n=156), and 2019 (n=120). The rate of VCF insertions (per 1000 inpatient discharges) was 4.02 in 2016, 2.91 in 2017, 2.54 in 2018, and 1.93 in 2019. Mean ± SD age at placement was 62±16.4 years and 59.2% (413/698) were men. Most VCFs were retrievable (85.1%; 594/698) and were placed for treatment (78.4%; 547/698) indications (acute venous thromboembolism within 3 months). The rate of VCF insertions was compared with the inpatient mortality rate (per 100 inpatient discharges) and remained stable (1.83 in 2016, 1.79 in 2017, 1.83 in 2018, and 1.76 in 2019) despite the significant decline in VCF use.

Conclusion

Data from this quality improvement study demonstrate a reduction of more than 50% in the use of VCFs from 2016 through 2019 at a large academic hospital. These changes are difficult to attribute to any single change in clinical use and there was no appreciable increase in the inpatient hospital mortality rate associated with this decrease in VCF filter use.

Retrievable inferior vena cava filter to prevent pulmonary embolism in patients with fractures and deep venous thrombosis of lower extremities: a single-center experience

Objective

To evaluate the effectiveness of inserting a retrievable inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) to prevent pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients with bone fractures and acute deep venous thrombosis (DVT) before major orthopedic surgery.

Methods

Clinical data of patients with fractures and acute DVT who underwent IVCF insertion were analyzed. The patients were divided into above-knee DVT (AKDVT), popliteal vein thrombosis (PVT), and below-knee DVT (BKDVT) groups.

Results

An IVCF was successfully implanted in 964 patients, among whom 929 were followed up (335, 470, and 124 in AKDVT, PVT, and BKDVT groups, respectively). There was no significant difference in the incidence of filter thrombosis among the groups (11.04%, 11.70%, and 8.06%, respectively). No symptomatic PE occurred during follow-up. The mean filter indwelling time was 18.4 ± 4.3 days, and the total filter removal rate was 76.87%. There was no significant difference in the rate of filter implantation, retrieval, complications, or mortality among the groups.

Conclusions

Retrievable filters can effectively prevent PE before orthopedic surgery in patients with fractures and acute DVT of the lower limbs. AKDVT more readily forms a ≥1-cm thrombus in the IVCF than does BKDVT, and PVT more readily forms a <1-cm thrombus than does AKDVT.

Venous Thromboembolism in Trauma: The Role of Anticoagulation and Inferior Vena Cava Filters

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a significant contributor to morbidity and mortality among patients with severe trauma. Historically, prophylactic inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) were used in high-risk trauma patients with suspected risk factors for VTE, including prolonged immobilization, and concurrent contraindication to anticoagulation. Mounting data regarding the efficacy of IVCF in this cohort, as well as concerns regarding morbidity of an in situ IVCF, have challenged this practice paradigm. In this review, we discuss the comanagement of VTE and trauma, including anticoagulation and the use of IVCF.

Guidelines for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients with pelvi-acetabular trauma

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism is a dreaded complication leading to increased morbidity and mortality in patients having pelvi-acetabular fractures.

OBJECTIVES

These evidence based guidelines aim to provide the decision making ability in the prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients with pelvi-acetabular trauma planned for operative or non operative treatment.

METHODS

The patients were subclassified into 5 categories. The PICO framework was used to devise research questions in each category. The systematic reviews were performed for each research question. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess outcomes of critical interest. The guideline panel consisting of expert members of different subspecialties, analyzed the evidence and made recommendations.

RESULTS

The guideline panel proposed 21 recommendations. There are five recommendations in category 1 to 3, two recommendations in category 4 and four recommendations in category 5.

CONCLUSION

In pelvi-acetabular fractures there is strong evidence to suggest that thromboprophylaxis should be given. It should be initiated as early as possible after control of hemorrhage. The chemical prophylaxis is the preferred mode and LMWH is the preferred agent of choice. The mechanical methods can be used as an adjunct. The routine prophylactic use of IVC filters is not recommended. However, the use of retrievable IVC filters in high risk patients with established VTE in preoperative period can be considered. The use of newer directly acting oral anticoagulants is gaining importance.

Inferior vena cava filter – comprehensive overview of current indications, techniques, complications and retrieval rates

Summary: Inferior vena cava (IVC) filter has been used to manage patients with pulmonary embolism and deep venous thrombosis. Its ease of use and the expansion of relative indications have led to a dramatic increase in IVC filter placement. However, IVC filters have been associated with a platitude of complications. Therefore, there exists a need to examine the current indications and identify the patient population at risk. In this paper, we comprehensively reviewed the current indications and techniques of IVC filter placement. Further, we examined the various complications associated with either permanent or retrievable IVC filters. Lastly, we examined the current data on filter retrieval.

Outcomes and Prognosis Factors in Patients With Vena Cava Filters in a Quaternary Medical Center: A 5-Year Retrospective Analysis

BACKGROUND

Indications for inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) placement are controversial. This study assesses the proportion of different indications for IVCF placement and the associated 30-day event rates and predictors for all-cause mortality, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism, and bleeding after IVCF placement.

METHOD

In this 5-year retrospective cohort observational study in a quaternary care center, consecutive patients with IVCF placement were identified through cross-matching of 3 database sets and classified into 3 indication groups defined as "standard" in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) and contraindication to anticoagulants, "extended" in patients with VTE but no contraindication to anticoagulants, and "prophylactic" in patients without VTE.

RESULTS

We identified 1248 IVCF placements, that is, 238 (19.1%) IVCF placements for standard indications, 583 (46.7%) IVCF placements for extended indications, and 427 (34.2%) IVCF placements for prophylactic indications. Deep vein thrombosis rates [95% confidence interval] were higher in the extended (8.06% [5.98-10.58]) and prophylactic (7.73% [5.38-10.68]) groups than in the standard group (3.36% [1.46-6.52]). Mortality rates were higher in the standard group (12.18% [8.31-17.03]) than in the extended group (7.55% [5.54-9.99]) and the prophylactic (5.85% [3.82-8.52]) group. Bleeding rates were higher in the standard group (4.62% [2.33-8.12]) than in the prophylactic group (2.11% [0.97-3.96]). Best predictors for VTE were acute medical conditions; best predictors for mortality were age, acute medical conditions, cancer, and Medicare health insurance.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic and extended indications account for the majority of IVCF placements. The standard indication is associated with the lowest VTE rate that may be explained by the competing risk of mortality higher in this group and related to the underlying medical conditions and bleeding risk. In the prophylactic group (no VTE at baseline), the exceedingly high DVT rate may be related to the IVCF placement.

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.

The use of inferior vena cava filters in spine trauma: A nationwide study using the National Trauma Data Bank

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence and variation of inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) use in the spine trauma population and evaluate patient and facility level factors associated with their use.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort. Participants/Outcome Measures: Patients with spinal injuries were identified by ICD-9 codes from the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB), the best validated national trauma database. Patients whose spine injuries were operatively treated and those who received IVCF were identified from procedure description fields. Additional information compiled included patient demographics, injury severity score (ISS), time until surgery, concomitant fractures, and facility level information. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine the relationship of associated factors for IVCF use.

RESULTS

Of the 120,920 patients identified with spinal injuries, 2.4% received prophylactic IVCF. Of the 13,273 patients with operatively treated spinal injuries, 8.2% received prophylactic IVCF. Of the 7,770 patients with spinal cord injury (SCI), 10.8% received prophylactic IVCF. The interquartile ranges of placement rates among centers demonstrated greater than 10 fold variation. Based on multivariate logistic regression, ISS score >12 demonstrated the strongest association with prophylactic IVCF (adjusted OR = 4.908). Concomitant pelvic and lower extremity fractures (adj OR 2.573 and 2.522) were also associated with their use.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently the only data regarding existing IVCF use in the spine trauma population amounts to surveys. The present study provides the most detailed and objective information regarding their use in this setting. Even in the operatively treated and SCI subgroups, prophylactic filters were used in only a small percentage of cases but placement rates varied widely among centers. More severely injured patients (ISS >12) had highest odds of receiving prophylactic IVCF. Further study is needed to clarify their role in this vulnerable population.

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.

The high-risk polytrauma patient and inferior vena cava filter use

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the impact on practice of vena cava filter insertion guidelines (Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma: practice management guidelines).

DESIGN

The study was performed at a level 1 trauma centre with data from the 'Trauma Audit and Research Network' cross-referenced to hospital data.

RESULTS

A total of 1138 specific 'high-risk' major trauma patients were identified over a 6-year period. The mean age was 46 years (18-102) and the male to female ratio was 3.3:1. The average Injury Severity Score was 23.6 (4-75). The overall DVT rate was 2.6% and the PE rate was 1.8%. A retrievable IVC filter was inserted in 42 cases (3.8%). The filter retrieval rate was 23.8% at a mean of 68.5days (4-107). Only one complication was reported of a breakthrough PE despite filter. Applying the EAST guidelines to this cohort would have suggested filter insertion in 279 (24.6%) cases. The kappa concordance value between observed practice and the 'EAST filter group' was 0.103 (poor). The PE rate in the 'EAST filter group' was 2.2% vs 1.6% in the 'no filter group' (p=0.601, no statistical difference) and the observed odds ratio was 0.814 (95% CI 0.413, 1.602).

CONCLUSION

The EAST guidelines are useful but may be overestimating the need for filter insertion.

Evaluation of a Device Combining an Inferior Vena Cava Filter and a Central Venous Catheter for Preventing Pulmonary Embolism Among Critically Ill Trauma Patients

PURPOSE

To evaluate efficacy and safety of a novel device that combines an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter and central venous catheter (CVC) for prevention of pulmonary embolism (PE) in critically ill patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a multicenter, prospective, single-arm clinical trial, the device was inserted at the bedside without fluoroscopy and subsequently retrieved before transfer from the intensive care unit (ICU). The primary efficacy endpoint was freedom from clinically significant PE or fatal PE 72 hours after device removal or discharge, whichever occurred first. Secondary endpoints were incidence of acute proximal deep venous thrombosis (DVT), catheter-related thrombosis, catheter-related bloodstream infections, major bleeding events, and clinically significant thrombus (occupying > 25% of volume of filter) detected by cavography before retrieval.

RESULTS

The device was placed in 163 critically ill patients with contraindications to anticoagulation; 151 (93%) were critically ill trauma patients, 129 (85%) had head or spine trauma, and 102 (79%) had intracranial bleeding. The primary efficacy endpoint was achieved for all 163 (100%) patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 97.8%-100%, P < .01). Diagnosis of new or worsening acute proximal DVT was time dependent with 11 (7%) occurring during the first 7 days. There were no (0%) catheter-related bloodstream infections. There were 5 (3.1%) major bleeding events. Significant thrombus in the IVC filter occurred in 14 (8.6%) patients. Prophylactic anticoagulation was not initiated for a mean of 5.5 days ± 4.3 after ICU admission.

CONCLUSIONS

This novel device prevented clinically significant and fatal PE among critically ill trauma patients with low risk of complications.

Use of a dual lumen cannula for venovenous extra corporeal membrane oxygenation in a patient with acute respiratory distress syndrome and a previously inserted inferior vena cava filter: a case report

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is used in refractory hypoxemia in many clinical settings. Thoracic trauma patients usually develop acute respiratory distress syndrome. Due to high risk of bleeding, thrombotic complications present in this context are particularly difficult to manage and usually require insertion of an inferior vena cava filter to prevent embolism from the distal veins to the pulmonary circulation. Here, we present a case of a thoracic trauma patient with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome requiring venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation via a right internal jugular double lumen cannula due to a previously inserted inferior vena cava filter caused by distal bilateral calf muscle vein deep vein thrombosis.

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.

Retrievable IVC filters - Friend or foe

Venous thromboembolism is a common condition with widely varied outcomes. Pulmonary embolism is associated with a case-fatality rate of up to 8%, increasing up to 18-fold in massive PE. Pharmacological treatment of VTE with anticoagulant medication (AC) is the first line therapy of choice. Retrievable inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) are indicated as a short-term replacement for AC in certain circumstances. Most of the evidence concerning IVCF pertains to permanent filters and older filter models. Limited evidence for retrievable IVCF results in poor consensus regarding indications, follow-up and retrieval. Complications increase with dwell-time and retrieval success rates decline. Professional bodies advocate strict guideline adherence and robust strategies for filter monitoring to maximise retrieval rate.

Inferior Vena Cava Filters: Guidelines, Best Practice, and Expanding Indications

Vena caval interruption, currently accomplished by percutaneous image-guided insertion of an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter, is an important therapeutic option in the management of selected patients with venous thromboembolism. The availability of optional (or retrievable) filters, in particular, has altered the practice patterns for IVC filters, with a shift to these devices and expansion of indications for filter placement. As new devices have become available and clinicians have become more familiar and comfortable with IVC filters, the indications for filter placement have continued to evolve and expand. This article reviews current guidelines and expanding indications for IVC filter placement.

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters in children: A 10-year single center experience

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is an increasingly recognized problem among children and adolescents. Although inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement for pulmonary embolism prevention is well reported in adults, data regarding safety and efficacy in the pediatric age group are lacking.

PROCEDURE

At a large university hospital with a level I trauma center, medical records of children and adolescents who underwent IVC filter insertion were reviewed. Appropriateness of referral for retrieval was assessed in each case.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine children and adolescents (mean age 16 years) successfully underwent IVC filter insertion. All filters placed were retrievable. In 47 patients (79.7%), prophylactic filters were placed in the absence of acute VTE in the setting of trauma. In eight patients (13.5%), filters were placed due to contraindication to anticoagulation therapy with concomitant lower extremity deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. Filters were successfully retrieved in only 12 patients (20.3%), although an attempt at removal was appropriate and feasible in over 90% of cases. Mean duration of follow-up was 2.1 (range 0.4-7.3) years. A significantly higher retrieval rate was found in patients followed at our thrombosis clinic (P < 0.01). Ten patients (17%) experienced at least one filter-related complication.

CONCLUSIONS

Although in most cases, IVC filters were placed for prophylactic indications, the evidence to support their role in this setting is limited. Their low retrieval rate and high filter-related complication rate question their extensive utilization in children. Dedicated follow-up is necessary to detect complications and to ensure that an attempt at retrieval is made when feasible.

Internal jugular and common femoral venous access for the removal of a long-term embedded vena cava filter

We describe an inferior vena cava filter retrieval technique requiring triple venous access performed in a 35-year-old male who was referred for filter removal 16 months after its insertion. The filter showed a right-sided tilt with endothelialization of the distal filter struts into the caval wall. Access was required via both internal jugular veins to straighten the filter using a snared-loop technique. Further 18 F right common femoral vein access was required to snare and remove the filter, which could not be completely collapsed distally due to endothelialized tissue, precluding normal removal via the jugular venous route.

Peripartum Primary Prophylaxis Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement in a Patient with Stage IV B-Cell Lymphoma Presenting with a Pathologic Femur Fracture

Background Pulmonary embolus (PE) remains a leading etiology of maternal mortality in the developed world. Increasing utilization of retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement currently includes pregnant patients. Case A 22-year-old woman at 27 weeks' gestation was diagnosed with Stage IV high-grade malignant B cell lymphoma following pathologic femur fracture. Significant risk factors for PE led to placement of primary prophylaxis IVC filter before cesarean delivery, open reduction and internal fixation of the fractured femur, and chemotherapy. Conclusion This case supports that primary prophylaxis placement of IVC filters in highly selected pregnant patients may assist in decreasing PE-associated maternal mortality.

Methods and Guidelines for Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in Polytrauma Patients with Pelvic and Acetabular Fractures

Sequential compression devices and chemical prophylaxis are the standard venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention for trauma patients with acetabular and pelvic fractures. Current chemical pharmacological contemplates the use of heparins or fondaparinux. Other anticoagulants include coumarins and aspirin, however these oral agents can be challenging to administer and may need monitoring. When contraindications to anticoagulation in high-risk patients are present, prophylactic inferior vena cava filters can be an option to prevent pulmonary emboli. Unfortunately strong evidence about the most effective method, and the timing of their commencement, in patients with pelvic and acetabular fractures remains controversial.

Are retrievable vena cava filters placed in trauma patients really retrievable?

PURPOSE

Concerns have arisen regarding the use of retrievable inferior vena cava filters (rIVCFs) in trauma patients due to increasing reports of low retrieval rates. We hypothesized that complete follow-up with a dedicated trauma nurse practitioner would be associated with a higher rate of retrievability. This study was undertaken to determine the rate of retrievability of rIVCFs placed in a Canadian Lead Trauma Centre, and to compare the rate of retrievability in our trauma population to our non-trauma patients.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients with rIVCF placed between Jan 1 2000 and June 30 2014. Data were collected on demographics, indication for filter placement, retrieval status, and reasons for non-retrieval. Comparison was made between trauma patients and non-trauma patients.

RESULTS

A total of 374 rIVCFs were placed (61 in trauma patients and 313 in non-trauma patients) and follow-up was complete for the entire cohort. Filter retrieval was achieved in 86.9 % of trauma patients. Reasons for non-retrieval were technical in two patients, and death before retrieval in six patients. Retrieval was successful in 48.9 % of non-trauma patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that rIVCFs can be successfully retrieved amongst trauma patients. We demonstrated a higher rate of successful retrieval amongst trauma patients than non-trauma patients in our institution. Careful patient follow-up may play a role in successful retrieval of rIVCFs.

Procedural and indwelling complications with inferior vena cava filters: frequency, etiology, and management

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are commonly used in select high-risk patients for the prevention of pulmonary embolism. Potentially serious complications can arise from the use of IVC filters, including thrombosis of the filter itself and filter fragment embolization. This article discusses the utility of IVC filters and reviews the management of two cases of filter-related complications.

Patterns of use and outcome of inferior vena cava filters in a tertiary care setting

BACKGROUND

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement is increasing although the evidence to justify their use is limited. Many filters are left in place indefinitely, thereby exposing patients to long-term complications.

OBJECTIVES

To review indications, complications, and follow-up data of patients undergoing IVC filter placement at our center.

METHODS

A retrospective review of consecutive admitted patients who underwent IVC filter insertion in a large university hospital with a level I trauma center. Thrombosis specialists retrospectively assessed the appropriateness of indication for IVC filter placement as well as referral for retrieval.

RESULTS

Overall, 405 filters were inserted between 2009 and 2013. All filters were retrievable. IVC filter was placed as a primary prevention in 42% of patients. Fifty-two patients (12.8%) experienced at least one filter-related complication. The most common complication was deep vein thrombosis occurring in 6.9% of cases. Almost a third of all complications occurred in filters originally placed for prophylactic indications. Only 13.6% of filters were successfully removed. Nevertheless, according to our reviewers, an attempt for filter retrieval should have been made in 57% of all cases and in 86% of trauma patients. A significantly higher retrieval rate was found in patients followed at our thrombosis clinic (P < 0.01). During follow-up, 95 patients (23.4%) died, most of them with active cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

IVC filters are placed in many cases for prophylactic indications. Their low retrieval rates together with relatively high risk of long-term complications, questions their extensive utilization. Prospective trials addressing the safety and efficacy of IVC filters are still warranted.

Thromboprophylaxis in patients with pelvic and acetabular fractures: A short review and recommendations

The management of thromboprophylaxis in patients with pelvic and acetabular fractures remains a highly controversial topic within the trauma community. Despite anticoagulation, venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains the most common cause of surgical morbidity and mortality in this high-risk patient group. Although various thromboprophylactic regimes are employed, evidence relating to the most effective method remains unclear. Controversies surrounding screening, the use of prophylactic inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) and chemothromboprophylaxis in polytraumatised patients, particularly those with pelvic and acetabular fractures, form the basis of considerable debate. With the absence of a well-designed clinical trial and the presence of ongoing controversies within the literature, this review will explore current treatment options available to trauma surgeons and highlight differing scientific opinions, providing an update on the role of screening and current available preventative measures. We cover existing as well as recent advances in chemical thromboprophylactic agents and discuss external mechanical compression devices, the usefulness of serial duplex ultrasonography and the role of extended chemothromboprophylaxis on discharge. The evidence behind prophylactic IVCF is also considered, along with reported complication profiles. We conclude with a proposed protocol for use in major trauma centres, which can form the basis of local policy for the prevention of VTE in trauma patients with pelvic and acetabular fractures.

Pilot study evaluating the safety of a combined central venous catheter and inferior vena cava filter in critically ill patients at high risk of pulmonary embolism

The objectives of this pilot trial were to assess the safety of a new device for pulmonary embolism (PE) prophylaxis. The device, the Angel Catheter, was placed in eight patients who were in the intensive care unit and were at high risk of PE. The device was inserted at the bedside without fluoroscopic guidance via a femoral venous approach. All eight devices were inserted and subsequently retrieved without complications (follow-up, 33-36 d). One filter trapped a large clot.

[Vena cava filter. Which indications remain in the era of differentiated anticoagulation?]

CLINICAL/METHODICAL ISSUE

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the third most common disease of the cardiovascular system. It is associated with a 30-day lethality in the range of 6  % in deep vein thrombosis and 12  % in pulmonary embolism (PE). There are various guidelines with sometimes controversial recommendations regarding the use of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters.

STANDARD RADIOLOGICAL METHODS

Implantation of IVC filters is a standard therapy in selected patients with an estimated 259,000 filters implanted in 2012.

METHODICAL INNOVATIONS

Optionally retrievable filters are increasingly being used in clinical routine practice. Future developments will include biodegradable and drug-eluting filters.

PERFORMANCE

When compared to anticoagulation as the reference therapy of VTE, IVC filters will significantly reduce the frequency of symptomatic PE; however, there is no advantage in overall survival for either therapy.

ACHIEVEMENTS

Despite different guidelines in clinical routine practice the use of IVC filters appears to depend on the individual clinical experience and assessment of the interventionalist.

PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Nowadays retrievable filters should be used although there are relevant differences between the various devices. As a matter of principle all IVC filters should be removed as soon as adequate anticoagulation can be established.

Inferior vena cava filters: Some evidence from the past and a look to the future

Venous thromboembolism is a national health concern. Up to 58% of patients suffering from major multisystem trauma will experience venous thromboembolism if no measures are taken to prevent it. Of those, 10% to 30% will be fatal. The appropriate use of lower extremity compression, anticoagulation, and the use of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters has helped reduce the overall morbidity and mortality from this disease. The development of lower-profile devices and the ability to retrieve IVC filters has led to a liberalization of their use. The majority of the filters used today have achieved U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval through the 510K mechanism (approval based on prior similar devices rather than safety studies of the proposed device), and therefore, no rigorous investigations have been performed on them. Initially seeming safe, a recent increase in reports of filter migration, vena cava perforation, and vena cava thrombosis has prompted the Food and Drug Administration to ask for more information on their patterns of use, safety, efficacy, and retrievability. This report details some of the available data on the subject of IVC filters and the discussion surrounding the topic of prophylactic IVC filters in trauma patients.

Venous thromboembolism

Extended treatment

Duodenal penetration of an inferior vena cava filter: case report and literature review

The insertion of inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) is a well-known therapy used in the prevention of pulmonary embolism (PE). The incidence of IVCF-related complications is low and complete caval penetration of a filter with adjacent organ injury has a reported incidence of 0–1%. We report the case of an 18-year-old male who sustained a spinal cord injury after a motor vehicle crash. The patient received a prophylactic IVCF and subsequently presented with right flank pain, postprandial nausea, and vomiting. His exam was benign and a computed tomography scan revealed extra-caval penetration of the filter with struts within the duodenal lumen and psoas muscle. The patient underwent an exploratory laparotomy with extraction of the filter, inferior vena cava venorrhaphy, and repair of the duodenal injury. This complication illustrates the potential morbidity of a common procedure and emphasizes the importance of investigating the IVCF as a possible source of abdominal pain.

The impact of intensivists' base specialty of training on care process and outcomes of critically ill trauma patients

BACKGROUND

The care of the critically ill trauma patients is provided by intensivists with various base specialties of training. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of intensivists' base specialty of training on the disparity of care process and patient outcome.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of an institutional trauma registry at an academic level 1 trauma center. Two intensive care unit teams staffed by either board-certified surgery or anesthesiology intensivists were assigned to manage critically ill trauma patients. Both teams provided care, collaborating with a trauma surgeon in house. We compared patient characteristics, care processes, and outcomes between surgery and anesthesiology groups using Wilcoxon tests or chi-square tests, as appropriate.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 620 patients. Patient baseline characteristics including age, sex, transfer status, injury type, injury severity score, and Glasgow coma scale were similar between groups. We found no significant difference in care processes and outcomes between groups. In a logistic regression model, intensivists' base specialty of training was not a significant factor for mortality (odds ratio, 1.46; 95% confidence interval; 0.79-2.80; P = 0.22) and major complication (odds ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.67; P = 0.63).

CONCLUSIONS

Intensive care unit teams collaborating with trauma surgeons had minimal disparity of care processes and similar patient outcomes regardless of intensivists' base specialty of training.

Excessive venous bleeding in a patient with acetabular pelvic fracture secondary to inferior vena cava filter occlusion

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters can be used to prevent pulmonary embolism in cases where anticoagulation is contraindicated. Filter obstruction remains one of the major complications after its insertion. This is the rare case demonstrating excessive venous bleeding during attempted open reduction internal fixation of an acetabular fracture secondary to subcomplete IVC filter thrombosis day 1 postinsertion of the device.