Is There a Subgroup of PE Patients Who Benefit From Inferior Vena Cava Filters? ∗

Spanish multicenter real - life registry of retrievable vena cava filters (REFiVeC)

BACKGROUND

The treatment of venous thromboembolic disease the treatment of choice is systemic anticoagulation. However, the interruption of the inferior vena cava with filters has been recommended when anticoagulation fails or there is a contraindication. Due to the rising inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) complications, physicians are encouraged to retrieve them when there is no longer recommended. In daily practice, it may be a difficult close follow-up of these patients. In this study, the primary objective was to evaluate the IVCF retrieval rate of all implanted filters in a Spanish registry. Secondary objectives were to analyze the causes of failed retrieval, procedure-related complications, and outcomes at a 12-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Three hundred fifty-six vena cava filters were implanted in 355 patients. The types of filter were: Gunther Tulip (Cook Medical) 160 (44.9%), Optease (Cordis) 77 (21.6%), Celect (Cook Medical) 49 (13, 7%), Aegisy (Lifetech Scientific) 33 (9.2%), Option ELITE (Argon Medical devices) 16 (4.4%), Denali filter (BD Bard) 11 (3.08%), ALN filter (ALN) 10 (2.8%). Removal was achieved in 274/356 (76,9%). eighty-two (23,1%) IVCF were not retrieved due to the following: 41 (11,5%) patients required ongoing filtration, 24 IVCF (6,7%) patients died before retrieval, and 17 (4,7%) impossibility of retrieval because of a tilted and embedded filter apex. There were no major complications observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The global retrieval rate of IVCF was achieved in 76.9%, and the adjusted retrieval rate was of 94.15% with no major complications. IVCF tilting was associated with failure of filter removal in less than 5% of cases. This study demonstrates that the retrieval procedure of IVCF is controlled by the clinician and not by the interventional radiologist.

Inferior Vena Cava Filters in Hemodynamically Unstable Patients with Acute Pulmonary Embolism: How Often are They Used? Data from Multicenter Prospective Registries on Acute Pulmonary Embolism

The use of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters is recommended in patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) who have absolute contraindications to anticoagulant drugs and/or in those subjects with recurrent PE despite treated with an adequate anticoagulant regimen. During the last 2 decades, some investigations have demonstrated that the use of IVC filters in high-risk PE patients, treated or not with systemic thrombolysis, was able to reduce the short-term mortality rate if inserted early after the acute event. The aim of the present review is to analyze the use of IVC filters in high-risk PE patients enrolled in prospective multicenter registries between 1990 and 2018. After screening 3542 article in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane library and Goggle Scholar databases, we identified four registry studies meeting the inclusion criteria. In a prospective cohort of 39,056 patients, 1387 (3.5%) were hemodynamically unstable at admission. Among them, IVC filters were used only in 2.7% of cases. Conversely, IVC filters were inserted in 3.8% of hemodynamically stable patients. Over the years, a fluctuating trend in the use of IVC filters was observed. In the absence of randomized controlled trial on this issue, which would be difficult, if not impossible to realize, data obtained from the medical literature seem to suggest that IVC filters could represent a valid adjunctive therapy in hemodynamically unstable PE patients, able to prevent further hemodynamic deterioration. Further and larger subgroup analyses, obtained both by prospective and retrospective studies, are necessary to clarify this therapeutic approach.

Inferior Vena Cava Filters in Elderly Patients with Stable Acute Pulmonary Embolism

BACKGROUND

Patients aged >60 years with pulmonary embolism who were stable and did not require thrombolytic therapy were shown to have a somewhat lower in-hospital all-cause mortality with vena cava filters. In this investigation we further assess mortality with filters in stable elderly patients.

METHODS

In-hospital all-cause mortality according to use of inferior vena cava filters was assessed from the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample, 2003-2012, in: 1) All patients with pulmonary embolism; 2) All with pulmonary embolism who had none of the comorbid conditions listed in the Charlson Comorbidity Index; 3) Patients with a primary (first-listed) diagnosis of pulmonary embolism, and 4) Patients with a primary diagnosis of pulmonary embolism and none of the comorbid conditions listed in the Charlson Comorbidity Index.

RESULTS

From 2003-2012, 2,621,575 stable patients with pulmonary embolism were hospitalized in the US. Patients aged >80 years showed lower mortality with vena cava filters (all pulmonary embolism, 6.1% vs 10.5%; all pulmonary embolism with no comorbid conditions, 3.3% vs 6.3%; primary pulmonary embolism, 4.1% vs 5.7%; primary pulmonary embolism with no comorbid conditions, 2.1% vs 3.7%; all P <.0001). In the all-patient category, patients aged 71-80 years showed somewhat lower mortality with filters, 6.3% vs 7.4% (P <.0001), and those without comorbid conditions, 2.5% vs 2.8% (P = .04). Those aged 71-80 years with primary pulmonary embolism, irrespective of comorbid conditions, did not show lower mortality with filters.

CONCLUSION

At present, in the absence of a randomized controlled trial, it seems prudent to consider a vena cava filter in very elderly (aged >80 years) stable patients with acute pulmonary embolism.