Early experience with retrievable inferior vena cava filters in high-risk trauma patients

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.

Preoperative Optimization and Tips to Avoiding Surgical Complications Before the Incision

In preparation for surgery, it is important for surgeons to have a detailed discussion with patients about the risks, benefits, and alternatives to surgery. Patient optimization, ensuring the patient is in the best medical condition before surgery, is also an important aspect of patient care that the surgeon must consider. Although complications cannot be eliminated, there are often opportunities to optimize patients, so these risks can be minimized based on current evidence-based medicine. To minimize the risk of complications, the surgeon should take an active role in each step of the patient's care beginning with the history and physical examination, obtaining the correct preoperative labs, and continuing through positioning, draping, and prepping before making an incision.

Single center experience of inferior vena cava filter retrieval in trauma patients: contrast-enhanced CT-based retrieval within hospital stay

PURPOSE

To assess the safety and retrieval rate of a predischarge inferior vena cava (IVC) filter retrieval strategy based on contrast computed tomography (CT).

METHODS

IVC filter insertion for trauma patients from 2010 to 2018 were reviewed. An active filter retrieval strategy was established in March 2017. The strategy sought early evaluation of venous thromboembolism (VTE) status and filter retrieval before a patient's discharge. The possibility of early IVC filter retrieval was evaluated by a multidisciplinary team based on pre-filter retrieval VTE-CT findings. Overall VTE-CT findings, retrieval rate, indwelling time, and recurrence of venous thromboembolic events were compared before and after the filter retrieval strategy setup.

RESULTS

177 IVC filters were inserted in trauma patients. All patients underwent pre-filter retrieval VTE-CT. VTE-CT findings were as follows: completely resolved VTE, n = 108 (61%); partially improved, n = 58 (33%); no change, n = 8 (5%); aggravated, n = 3 (2%). The overall retrieval rate was 84% with a mean indwelling time of 32 days. In subgroup analyses, 95 (53%) had filter retrieval with the before strategy (BS) setup and 82 (47%) with the after strategy (AS) setup. The retrieval rate was significantly higher in the AS group [81/82 (99%) vs. 68/95 (72%), (p < 0.001)]. No patients had recurrent VTE during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

The active strategy of VTE-CT-based filter retrieval during the hospital stay markedly improved the filter retrieval rate from 72% to 99% without evidence of recurrence of VTE. Hazards of low retrieval rate versus CT-related radiation exposure should be studied in the future.

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.

Vena Cava Filters: A Synopsis of Complications and Related Topics

Deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism constitute common preventable causes of morbidity and mortality. The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) continues to increase. Standard anticoagulation therapy may reduce the risk of fatal PE by 75% and that of recurrent VTE by over 90%. For patients who are not candidates for anticoagulation, a vena cava filter (VCF) may be beneficial. Despite a good overall safety record, significant complications related to VCF are occasionally seen. This review discusses both procedural and non-procedural complications associated with VCF placement and use. We will also discuss VCF use in the settings of pregnancy, malignancy, and the clinical need for more than one filter.

Vena Cava Filter Use in Trauma and Rates of Pulmonary Embolism, 2003-2015

Importance

Vena cava filter (VCF) placement for pulmonary embolism (PE) prophylaxis in trauma is controversial. Limited research exists detailing trends in VCF use and occurrence of PE over time.

Objective

To analyze state and nationwide temporal trends in VCF placement and PE occurrence from 2003 to 2015 using available data sets.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A retrospective trauma cohort study was conducted using data from the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcome Study (PTOS) (461 974 patients from 2003 to 2015), the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) (5 755 095 patients from 2003 to 2014), and the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample (NIS) (24 449 476 patients from 2003 to 2013) databases.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Temporal trends in VCF placement and PE rates, filter type (prophylactic or therapeutic), and established predictors of PE (obesity, pregnancy, cancer, deep vein thrombosis, major procedure, spinal cord paralysis, venous injury, lower extremity fracture, pelvic fracture, central line, intracranial hemorrhage, and blood transfusion). Prophylactic filters were defined as VCFs placed before or without an existing PE, while therapeutic filters were defined as VCFs placed after a PE.

Results

Of the 461 974 patients in PTOS, the mean (SD) age was 47.2 (26.4) and 61.6% (284 621) were men; of the 5 755 095 patients in NTDB, the mean age (SD) was 42.0 (24.3) and 63.7% (3 666 504) were men; and of the 24 449 476 patients in NIS, the mean (SD) age was 58.0 (25.2) and 49.7% (12 160 231) were men. Of patients receiving a filter (11 405 in the PTOS, 71 029 in the NTDB, and 189 957 in the NIS), most were prophylactic VCFs (93.6% in the PTOS, 93.5% in the NTDB, and 93.3% in the NIS). Unadjusted and adjusted temporal trends for the PTOS and NTDB showed initial increases in filter placement followed by significant declines (unadjusted reductions in VCF placement rates, 76.8% in the PTOS and 53.3% in the NTDB). The NIS demonstrated a similar unadjusted trend, with a slight increase and modest decline (22.2%) in VCF placement rates over time; however, adjusted trends showed a slight but significant increase in filter rates. Adjusted PE rates for the PTOS and NTDB showed significant initial increases followed by slight decreases, with limited variation during the declining filter use periods. The NIS showed an initial increase in PE rates followed by a period of stagnation.

Conclusions and Relevance

Despite a precipitous decline of VCF use in trauma, PE rates remained unchanged during this period. Taking this association into consideration, VCFs may have limited utility in influencing rates of PE. More judicious identification of at-risk patients is warranted to determine individuals who would most benefit from a VCF.

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.

Trends in nonoperative management of traumatic injuries - A synopsis

Nonoperative management of both blunt and penetrating injuries can be challenging. During the past three decades, there has been a major shift from operative to increasingly nonoperative management of traumatic injuries. Greater reliance on nonoperative, or "conservative" management of abdominal solid organ injuries is facilitated by the various sophisticated and highly accurate noninvasive imaging modalities at the trauma surgeon's disposal. This review discusses selected topics in nonoperative management of both blunt and penetrating trauma. Potential complications and pitfalls of nonoperative management are discussed. Adjunctive interventional therapies used in treatment of nonoperative management-related complications are also discussed.

REPUBLISHED WITH PERMISSION FROM

Stawicki SPA. Trends in nonoperative management of traumatic injuries - A synopsis. OPUS 12 Scientist 2007;1(1):19-35.

Optional Vena Cava Filters: What, Why, and When

Optional vena cava filters can used to provide either short-term or permanent protection from pulmonary embolism. These devices have recently become available for clinical use in the United States. However, there remains a paucity of data about these devices and their outcomes. This article reviews current and future devices, the rationale behind non-permanent caval filtration, and the generally accepted guidelines for their clinical application.

Inferior vena cava filtration in the management of venous thromboembolism: filtering the data

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality. This is especially true for hospitalized patients. Pulmonary embolism (PE) is the leading preventable cause of in-hospital mortality. The preferred method of both treatment and prophylaxis for VTE is anticoagulation. However, in a subset of patients, anticoagulation therapy is contraindicated or ineffective, and these patients often receive an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter. The sole purpose of an IVC filter is prevention of clinically significant PE. IVC filter usage has increased every year, most recently due to the availability of retrievable devices and a relaxation of thresholds for placement. Much of this recent growth has occurred in the trauma patient population given the high potential for VTE and frequent contraindication to anticoagulation. Retrievable filters, which strive to offer the benefits of permanent filters without time-sensitive complications, come with a new set of challenges including methods for filter follow-up and retrieval.

Improving retrieval rates for retrievable inferior vena cava filters

The introduction of retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters was an important step in the evolution of deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism management. Their removability makes them preferred to permanent filters in many cases. IVC filter retrieval often occurs at a suboptimal rate, leading to complications associated with long-term placement. Improving retrievability includes solutions for patients being lost to follow-up, filter malpositioning, need arising for permanent IVC filtration, filtration requiring longer than the filter's window of retrievability, and filter compromise by the presence of a large trapped clot. This review explores these strategies for retrieval in detail in hopes of improving IVC filter retrieval rates.

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

INTRODUCTION

Pulmonary embolisms (PE) are an often preventable cause of late morbidity and mortality after trauma. Although there is evidence for the use of therapeutic inferior vena cava (IVC) filters (defined as IVC filters implanted in those with proven deep venous thrombosis [DVT] in order to prevent PE), there is not as much evidence to support the use of prophylactic IVC filters. Thus, we undertook a systematic review of the literature to assess the following in prophylactic IVC filters: efficacy in PE reduction, prevalence of filter-related complications and the indications for use.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After screening 249 studies, 24 studies met inclusion criteria for qualitative synthesis.

RESULTS

Overall, the literature is supportive of the use of prophylactic IVC filters in high-risk poly-trauma patients who may have contraindications to DVT prophylaxis. Filter-associated complications are uncommon and, when they do occur, tend to be of limited clinical significance. Limited data, mostly in the form of case series, supports a reduction in PE and PE-related mortality. There has been increasing use of retrievable filters as well as the ability to safely retrieve them at longer intervals.

CONCLUSION

Despite the addition of a few matched-control studies, the literature is still plagued by a lack of high quality data, and therefore the true efficacy of prophylactic IVC filters for prevention of PE in trauma patients remains unclear. Further studies are required to determine the true role of prophylactic IVC filters in trauma patient.

Vena cava interruption

Anticoagulation has been proven to be effective in preventing and treating deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolus. However, many critically ill patients are unable to receive anticoagulation or suffer recurrent venous thromboembolism despite adequate treatment. This article examines the use of vena cava filters in the critically ill. Indications for, techniques, and complications of vena cava filter insertion are reviewed. The importance of vena cava filters with the option to be retrieved and bedside insertion in the intensive care unit is emphasized.

Pulmonary embolism prophylaxis with inferior vena cava filters in trauma patients: a systematic review using the meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines

Prophylactic inferior vena cava filters (pIVCFs) for the prevention of pulmonary embolism (PE) are controversial. Current practice guidelines (EAST and ACCP) are based on the critical appraisal of observational studies. As a result, their recommendations are conflicting and may account for practice pattern variation. The purpose of this study is to critically review the available literature and ascertain the level of evidence both for and against the use of pIVCFs for PE prophylaxis in trauma patients. We searched PubMed and Web of Science for publications from 1950 until July 2010 that assessed the efficacy of PE prevention with pIVCFs in the trauma population. We followed the MOOSE (Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) guidelines for design, implementation, and reporting. The Newcastle-Ottawa Score was used for quality and comparability assessment. Seven observational studies met inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis, representing 1,900 patients. Only one study was published in this decade. The rate of PE was statistically lower in the IVCF group compared to a matched control group without IVCFs (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.09-0.49). There was no significant difference in DVT. Using the MOOSE criteria these results show a decreased likelihood of PE among trauma patients who receive pIVCFs. Although these results could favor the placement of pIVCFs, the lack of contemporary use of pharmacologic prophylaxis across studies does not allow us to make firm conclusions either for or against the routine use of pIVCFs. Prospective randomized trials are needed to determine the role of pIVCFs in high-risk trauma patients.

The use of paired optionally retrievable günther tulip filters in trauma patients with anatomical variants

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filtration is commonly performed to protect against pulmonary embolism in acutely injured patients with contraindications for anticoagulation therapy. Increasingly, optionally retrievable IVC filters are utilized, particularly in younger patients with longer life expectancies. There are well-described anatomical variants that preclude the typical infrarenal deployment of IVC filters. We describe three cases in which trauma patients with congenital anomalies required temporary prophylaxis with IVC filters. One patient had a duplication of the IVC requiring filter deployment in each IVC limb. The second patient had a low inserting accessory left renal vein, and a third patient had a megacava. Both of these patients required filter deployment in each common iliac vein. In each case, a pair of optionally retrievable Günther Tulip filters was deployed and subsequently retrieved.

Optional inferior vena cava filters in the trauma patient

Trauma patients are at exceedingly high risk of development of venous thromboembolism (VTE) including deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism (PE). The epidemiology of VTE in trauma patients is reviewed. PE is thought to be the third major cause of death after trauma in those patients who survive longer than 24 hours after onset of injury. In fact, patients recovering from trauma have the highest rate of VTE among all subgroups of hospitalized patients. Various prophylactic and surveillance methods have been evaluated and found helpful in certain situations, but VTE complications can occur despite such measures. Therapeutic and prophylactic uses of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters in trauma patients are reviewed. Prophylactic IVC filter use is revealed to be a controversial subject with valid arguments on both sides of the issue. With the lack of prospective randomized trials of IVC filter use in trauma, it is impossible to make evidence-based recommendations. Unfortunately, two sets of guidelines are available for insertion of filters in trauma patients, with conflicting recommendations. The introduction of retrievable IVC filters seems to offer a unique solution for VTE protection in the trauma patient population, which often consists of younger members of our population. Lastly, current generations of FDA-approved retrieval filters are discussed.

A Policy of Dedicated Follow-Up Improves the Rate of Removal of Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters in Trauma Patients

Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters (IVCF) for prophylaxis against pulmonary embolus have been associated with low rates of removal. Strategies for improving the rates of retrieval have not been described. We hypothesized that a policy of dedicated follow-up would achieve a higher rate of filter removal. Trauma and Nontrauma patients who had a retrievable IVCF placed during 2006 were identified. A protocol existed for trauma patients with chart stickers, arm bracelets, and dedicated follow-up by nurse practitioners from three trauma teams. No protocol existed for nontrauma patients. Statistical analysis was performed using χ2 analysis or analysis of variance. One hundred sixty-seven retrievable IVCFs were placed over 12 months; 91 in trauma patients and 76 in nontrauma patients. Trauma patients were more likely to have their IVCF removed than nontrauma patients, 55 per cent versus 19 per cent, P < 0.001. There were differences between the three trauma teams, with removal rates of 44 per cent, 42 per cent, and 86 per cent respectively ( P < 0.05). On multivariate analysis young age and trauma patient status were independent predictors of filter removal. A policy of dedicated follow-up of patients with IVCFs can achieve significantly higher rates of filter removal than have been previously reported. Similar policies should be adopted by all centers placing retrievable IVCFs to maximize retrieval rates.

Perioperative management of chronic anticoagulation in orthopaedic surgery

The orthopaedic patient on chronic anticoagulation therapy is at risk of thromboembolism and hemorrhage in the perioperative period. To establish the most effective anticoagulation regimen, patients should be stratified according to the risk of arterial or venous thromboembolism. Timing of surgery, thromboembolic risk, and bleeding risk should be considered when developing an anticoagulation protocol. Retrievable inferior vena cava filters may be a viable alternative to bridging therapy in patients at high risk of venous thromboembolism and/or bleeding.

A systematic method for follow-up improves removal rates for retrievable inferior vena cava filters in a trauma patient population

BACKGROUND

Retrievable inferior vena cava filters (rIVCF) reduce the short-term risk of pulmonary embolism without the filter and inferior vena cava (IVC) thrombosis that have been reported with the use of permanent filters. Studies have shown that most rIVCFs are not removed, leaving patients at risk for thrombotic complications of rIVCF retention. We hypothesize that the application of a systematic follow-up for rIVCF will improve filter removal rates, providing patients short-term prophylaxis from pulmonary embolism whereas avoiding complications of permanent filter retention.

METHODS

The trauma registry of a Level I trauma center was queried to identify patients who underwent placement of IVCFs between January 1, 2003, and June 30, 2008. The medical records were reviewed and details of the patient's injuries, indications for filter placement, repositioning, and retrieval were collected. Radiographic images were reviewed to confirm ultimate filter retention or removal.

RESULTS

Between January 1, 2003, and June 30, 2008, rIVCFs were placed in 118 patients, 44% had known venous thromboembolic event. Three patients died before rIVCFs could be considered for extraction, leaving 115 patients for evaluation. Filters were removed in 80 patients (70%) overall. Of the 35 patients in whom filters were not removed, 11 were lost to follow-up, 4 failed removal attempts, and 20 had indications for filter retention. The rIVCFs were retrieved in 75% of patients not lost to follow-up and 92% of patients who did not have contraindications for filter removal.

CONCLUSION

A dedicated system for following-up patients with rIVCFs markedly improves removal rates of retrievable filters.

Use of inferior vena cava filters in a tertiary referral centre in Australia

INTRODUCTION

To investigate the use of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters in a tertiary referral centre, looking at indication, types of filters and, with temporary/optional filters, removal rates.

METHODS

Data was collected from a prospective database of all IVC filters inserted from January 2003 to January 2007. Patients' records and radiological imaging were all reviewed.

RESULTS

66 patients (40 males) had IVC filters inserted during the study period. The median age of the male patients was 57.5 (21-79) years, and females 56 (24-81). There were 49 (74.2%) temporary/optional filters and 17 (25.8%) permanent filters. The most common indication for filter was a contraindication to anticoagulation for both permanent (64.7%) and temporary/optional filters (77.6%). In the temporary/optional filter group, 38 of 49 (77.6%) patients had documented venous thromboembolism, while in the permanent filter group, this was 14 of 17 (82.4%). Of the optional filters, 22 of 49 (45.8%) have been removed.

CONCLUSION

More than half (54.2%) of temporary/optional filters were not removed and with potential for long-term complications. A protocol has now being instituted for vascular surgeons to authorize the insertion of filters and to then be responsible for ensuring their removal.

Cost-effectiveness of guidelines for insertion of inferior vena cava filters in high-risk trauma patients

BACKGROUND

Inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) can prevent pulmonary embolism (PE); however, indications for use vary. The Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) 2002 guidelines suggest prophylactic IVCF use in high-risk patients, but the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) 2008 guidelines do not. This analysis compares cost-effectiveness of prophylactic vs therapeutic retrievable IVCF placement in high-risk trauma patients.

METHODS

Markov modeling was used to determine incremental cost-effectiveness of these guidelines in dollars per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) during hospitalization and long-term follow-up. Our population was 46-year-old trauma patients at high risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) by EAST criteria to whom either the EAST (prophylactic IVCF) or ACCP (no prophylactic IVCF) guidelines were applied. The analysis assumed the societal perspective over a lifetime. For base case and sensitivity analyses, probabilities and utilities were obtained from published literature and costs calculated from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services fee schedules, the Healthcare Cost & Utilization Project database, and Red Book wholesale drug prices for 2007. For data unavailable from the literature, similarities to other populations were used to make assumptions.

RESULTS

In base case analysis, prophylactic IVCFs were more costly ($37,700 vs $37,300) and less effective (by 0.139 QALYs) than therapeutic IVCFs. In sensitivity analysis, the EAST strategy of prophylactic filter placement would become the preferred strategy in individuals never having a filter, with either an annual probability of VTE of ≥ 9.6% (base case, 5.9%), or a very high annual probability of anticoagulation complications of ≥ 24.3% (base case, 2.5%). The EAST strategy would also be favored if the annual probability of venous insufficiency was <7.69% (base case, 13.9%) after filter removal or <1.90% with a retained filter (base case, 14.1%). In initial hospitalization only, EAST guidelines were more costly by $2988 and slightly more effective by .0008 QALY, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $383,638/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis suggests prophylactic IVC filters are not cost-effective in high-risk trauma patients. The magnitude of this result is primarily dependent on probabilities of long-term sequelae (venous thromboembolism, bleeding complications). Even in the initial hospitalization, however, prophylactic IVCF costs for the additional quality-adjusted life years gained did not justify use.

Adjunctive inferior vena cava filter placement for acute pulmonary embolism

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are sometimes placed as an adjunct to full anticoagulation in patients with significant pulmonary embolism (PE). We aimed to determine the prevalence of adjunctive IVC filter placement in individuals diagnosed with PE, as well as the effect of adjunctive filter placement on mortality in patients with right heart strain associated with PE. This was a retrospective study of patients with acute PE treated with full anticoagulation admitted to a single academic medical center. Information abstracted from patient charts included presence or absence of right heart strain and of deep-vein thrombosis, and whether or not an IVC filter was placed. The endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Over 2.75 years, we found that 248 patients were diagnosed with acute PE, with an in-hospital mortality rate of 4.4%. The prevalence of adjunctive IVC filter placement was 13.3% (33 of 248), and the prevalence of documented right heart strain was 27.0% (67 of 248). In-hospital mortality was 10.2% in the non-filter-treated group (5 of 49), whereas there were no deaths in the filter-treated group (0 of 18); however, the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.37). Both the presence of deep-vein thrombosis and of right heart strain increased the likelihood that an adjunctive IVC filter was placed (P < 0.0001 and P < 0.001, respectively). At our institution, patients were treated with IVC filters in addition to anticoagulation in 13.3% of cases of acute PE. Prospective studies or large clinical registries should be conducted to clarify whether this practice improves outcomes.

Complications related to deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis in trauma: a systematic review of the literature

Deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis is essential to the appropriate management of multisystem trauma patients. Without thromboprophylaxis, the rate of venous thrombosis and subsequent pulmonary embolism is substantial. Three prophylactic modalities are common: pharmacologic anticoagulation, mechanical compression devices, and inferior vena cava filtration. A systematic review was completed using PRISMA guidelines to evaluate the potential complications of DVT prophylactic options. Level one evidence currently supports the use of low molecular weight heparins for thromboprophylaxis in the trauma patient. Unfortunately, multiple techniques are not infrequently required for complex multisystem trauma patients. Each modality has potential complications. The risks of heparin include bleeding and heparin induced thrombocytopenia. Mechanical compression devices can result in local soft tissue injury, bleeding and patient non-compliance. Inferior vena cava filters migrate, cause inferior vena cava occlusion, and penetrate the vessel wall. While the use of these techniques can be life saving, they must be appropriately utilized.

Bedside placement of removable vena cava filters guided by intravascular ultrasound in the critically injured

BACKGROUND

Bedside placement of removable inferior vena cava filters (RVCF) is increasingly used in critically injured patients. The need for fluoroscopic equipment and specialized intensive care unit beds presents major challenges. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) eliminates such problems. The objective of the present study was to analyze the safety and feasibility of IVUS-guided bedside RVCF placement in critically injured patients.

METHODS

Between October 2004 and July 2006 47 IVUS-guided RVCF were placed at the bedside. Medical and trauma registry records were reviewed. Primary outcome was RVCF-related complications.

RESULTS

The mean patient age was 41 +/- 19 years, and the mean Injury Severity Score was 30 +/- 12. The right common femoral vein was chosen as the site of access in 40 patients, and the left common femoral vein was the access site in 7 patients. The insertion was performed 3.7 +/- 2.5 days after admission. Four patients (8.5%) developed common femoral deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and three (6%) developed a peripheral pulmonary embolism (PE). Complications related to technique were recorded in two patients (4%) and included one misplacement and one access site bleeding with no further associated morbidity. Five patients died during the hospital stay from issues unrelated to RVCF. Forty-one patients were eligible for follow-up. Removal of RVCF was offered only to 8 patients and was performed successfully in 4 (10%) at a mean of 130 days (range: 44-183 days).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study IVUS-guided bedside placement of RVCF was feasible but was also associated with complications. Follow-up was poor, and the rate of removal disappointingly low, underscoring the need for further exploration of the role of RVCF.

The use of retrievable inferior vena cava filters in orthopaedic patients

This study was undertaken to evaluate the safety and efficacy of retrievable inferior vena cava filters in high-risk orthopaedic patients. A total of 58 patients had a retrievable inferior vena cava filter placed as an adjunct to chemical and mechanical prophylaxis, most commonly for a history of previous deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, polytrauma, or expected prolonged immobilisation. In total 56 patients (96.6%) had an uncomplicated post-operative course. Two patients (3.4%) died in the peri-operative period for unrelated reasons.

Of the 56 surviving patients, 50 (89%) were available for follow-up. A total of 32 filters (64%) were removed without complication at a mean of 37.8 days (4 to 238) after placement. There were four filters (8%) which were retained because of thrombosis at the filter site, and four (8%) were retained because of incorporation of the filter into the wall of the inferior vena cava. In ten cases (20%) the retrievable filter was left in place to continue as primary prophylaxis. No patient had post-removal thromboembolic complications.

A retrievable inferior vena cava filter, as an adjunct to chemical and mechanical prophylaxis, was a safe and effective means of reducing the acute risk of pulmonary embolism in this high-risk group of patients. Although most filters were removed without complications, thereby avoiding the long-term complications that have plagued permanent indwelling filters, a relatively high percentage of filters had to be left in situ.

Inferior vena cava filters and lower limb flap reconstructions

BACKGROUND

This is the first ever study looking at the combination of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters and flap reconstruction in traumatic lower limb injuries. The use of IVC filters is increasing and they are now being used prophylactically in trauma patients who are at a high risk of developing thromboembolism disease. Although it has been postulated that IVC filters, through its positioning in the IVC, results in a higher incidence of venous congestion and possibly failure of lower limb flaps, the effect of IVC filters on lower limb flap reconstructions has not been addressed in the published works. The aim of this study was to determine whether IVC filters affect the outcome of lower limb flap reconstructions in the trauma patient.

METHODS

Retrospective case series analysis of consecutive patients at the Alfred Hospital (Melbourne, Australia) who had lower limb flap reconstruction(s) and IVC filter placement from 1 July 2001 to 22 March 2005 (44-month period).

RESULTS

Seventeen patients (12 men and 5 women) had 23 lower limb flap reconstructions (10 free, 13 local flaps) and IVC filter insertion. All 23 flaps survived with no flap failures. A gracilis muscle free flap developed venous congestion but survived with conservative management.

CONCLUSIONS

In our series, IVC filters were not associated with poor outcomes of lower limb flap reconstructions. These findings are encouraging, and based on the evidence to date, the presence of IVC filters should not deter lower limb flap reconstructions in trauma patients. In particular, free flap surgery to traumatized lower limbs is not an issue with patients who have IVC filters.

Early Placement of Optional Vena Cava Filter in High-Risk Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury

OBJECTIVES

Patients sustaining severe trauma are at high risk for the development of venous thromboembolic events (VTE). Pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis may be contraindicated early after trauma due to potential bleeding complications. The purpose of this study was to evaluate safety and feasibility of early prophylactic vena cava filter (VCF) placement and subsequent retrieval in multiple injured patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI).

METHODS

Analysis of single-institution case series of consecutive patients who received a prophylactic VCF after severe TBI (Abbreviated Injury Scale, AiS ≥ 3) between August 2003 and October 2006.

RESULTS

A total of 34 optional VCF were prophylactically placed with a median delay of 1 day after trauma (range, 0-7 days). All patients had sustained multiple injuries (median Injury Severity Score 41, range, 18-59) with severe TBI (median AiS 4, range 3-5). Median age was 41 years (range, 17-67 years). Two patients had succumbed before potential filter retrieval. Of the remaining patients, 27 (84%) had their filters uneventfully retrieved between 11 and 32 days (median, 18 days) after placement with no retrieval-related morbidity. Five VCF (16%) were left permanently. In one patient (3%) early inferior vena cava occlusion and deep venous thrombosis occurred 14 days after VCF placement. Symptomatic pulmonary embolism was observed in one patient (3%) 5 days after VCF retrieval. Overall trauma-related mortality was 9%.

CONCLUSIONS

Early VCF placement may be of benefit for multiple injured patients with TBI when pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis is contraindicated. VCF retrieval is safe and feasible. Filter placement- and retrieval-related morbidity is low.

Inferior vena cava filter placement for pulmonary embolism risk reduction in super morbidly obese undergoing bariatric surgery

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a leading cause of mortality after bariatric surgery. We evaluated inferior vena cava (IVC) filter use for PE risk reduction in high-risk super morbidly obese bariatric surgery patients.

METHODS

IVC filters were inserted according to the patient's risk factors, including immobility, previous deep venous thrombosis (DVT)/PE, venous stasis, and pulmonary compromise. All filters were placed concomitant to bariatric surgery and were placed through a right internal jugular vein access site. We analyzed the prospectively collected data from this cohort and evaluated the incidence of PE and complications.

RESULTS

Since April 2003, 41 patients (12 men and 29 women) with a mean age of 47.3 +/- 10.0 years and body mass index of 64.2 +/- 12 kg/m2 (range 47-105) underwent IVC filter placement. These and all other patients underwent standard DVT/PE risk reduction measures. All IVC filter patients had one or more significant risk factors for thromboembolic events. No instances of PE were documented, although 1 patient experienced DVT, and no immediate or late complications related to filter placement occurred. One patient, with a body mass index of 105 kg/m2, died secondary to rhabdomyolysis after an extended procedure. The average filter placement time was 34.3 +/- 9 minutes.

CONCLUSION

IVC filter placement for PE risk reduction is safe and feasible in the super morbidly obese. Our data have shown that the filters can be placed expeditiously and with minimal morbidity concomitant with bariatric surgery. In this limited series, IVC filter placement was associated with no PE. Additional studies are needed to confirm the efficacy of IVC filter placement for PE risk reduction and related mortality in the super morbidly obese.

Safety of Inferior Vena Cava Filter Retrieval in Anticoagulated Patients

PURPOSES

To evaluate the safety of inferior vena cava (IVC) filter retrieval in therapeutically anticoagulated patients in comparison to prophylactically or not therapeutically anticoagulated patients with respect to retrieval-related hemorrhagic complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective study of 115 consecutive attempted IVC filter retrievals in 110 patients. Filter retrievals were stratified as performed in patients who were therapeutically anticoagulated (group 1), prophylactically anticoagulated (group 2), or not therapeutically anticoagulated (group 3). The collected data included anticoagulant and antiplatelet medications (type, form and duration of administration, dosage) at the time of retrieval. Phone interviews and chart review was performed for the international normalized ratio (INR), activated partial thromboplastin time, platelet count, infusion of blood products, and retrieval-related hemorrhagic complications.

RESULTS

Group 1 included 65 attempted filter retrievals in 61 therapeutically anticoagulated patients by measured INR or dosing when receiving low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). Four retrievals were not successful. In patients receiving oral anticoagulation, the median INR was 2.35 (range, 2 to 8). Group 2 comprised 23 successful filter retrievals in 22 patients receiving a prophylactic dose of LMWH. Group 3 included 27 attempted filter retrievals in 27 patients not receiving therapeutic anticoagulation. Six retrievals were not successful. Five patients were receiving oral anticoagulation with a subtherapeutic INR (median, 1.49; range, 1.16 to 1.69). No anticoagulation medication was administered in 22 patients. In none of the groups were hemorrhagic complications related to the retrieval procedures identified.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that retrieval of vena cava filters in anticoagulated patients is safe. Interruption or reversal of anticoagulation for the retrieval of vena cava filters is not indicated.

Retrievability of the Günther Tulip Vena Cava Filter after Dwell Times Longer Than 180 days in Patients With Multiple Trauma

PURPOSE

To evaluate the retrieval feasibility of the Günther Tulip inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) after dwell times >180 days in patients with multiple trauma.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted of 117 multiple-trauma patients (70 men; mean age 36 years, range 17 to 64) who underwent prophylactic placement of Günther Tulip retrievable IVCFs between December 1, 2003 and October 1, 2006. Prior to IVCF retrieval, all patients had vena cavography to identify possible IVCF thrombus entrapment. Filter retrieval was performed in the catheterization laboratory under sterile conditions from a right internal jugular vein approach. After IVCF retrieval, repeat vena cavography was performed to evaluate the IVC for contrast extravasation, intraluminal defects, or IVC narrowing.

RESULTS

Twelve (10.3%) filters were not retrieved as the patients died of their injuries (no deaths related to IVCF placement or retrieval). Forty-one (35.0%) filters had dwell times >180 days (mean 261.5 days, range 182-403). Of these, 31 (76%) were uneventfully retrieved; 10 were left in place permanently. Pre-retrieval vena cavography identified filter tilting in 13 filters: 9 had a mild tilt < or =10 degrees, and 4 had severe tilting > or =25 degrees. All of the 10 filters that could not be retrieved were tilted (4 severe and 6 mild). In comparison to the 64 (54.7%) filters in place for <180 days (mean 51 days, range 42-180), 4 (6.2%) could not be retrieved (p = 0.367). No filter had trapped thrombus identified by vena cavography at the time of retrieval. None of the retrieved filters had structural fracture or collapse, and none had migrated. Post-retrieval vena cavograms demonstrated no contrast extravasation, intraluminal defects, or impingement on adjacent organs.

CONCLUSION

If retrieval of a Gunther Tulip filter with an dwell time >180 days is considered, the patient should be ambulatory and a candidate for anticoagulation if indicated; notably, the filter should have a <25 degrees tilt. Under these circumstances, retrieval of the Günther Tulip filter after 180 days of dwell time appears justified and safe.

Venographic Findings at Retrieval of Inferior Vena Cava Filters

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate inferior venacavograms at the time of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters for clot within filter, IVC stenosis, or IVC injuries.

CONCLUSION

Abnormal venographic findings at filter retrieval include clot in the filter, IVC stenosis, and minor IVC injury after filter retrieval. Most abnormalities decrease or resolve over time.

Asymptomatic Lumbar Vertebral Erosion from Inferior Vena Cava Filter Perforation

In 2002, a 24-year-old female trauma patient underwent prophylactic inferior vena cava filter placement. Recurrent bouts of renal stones prompted serial CT imaging in 2004. In this brief report, we describe erosion and ossification of the L3 vertebral body by a Greenfield filter strut.

Outcomes with retrievable inferior vena cava filters: a multicenter study

PURPOSE

To retrospectively review the outcomes after placement and retrieval of retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters at two academic medical centers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients who underwent retrievable filter placement between May 2001 and December 2005 were included. Hospital records at both institutions were reviewed, and relevant data were collected concerning the placement and retrieval of all removable filters.

RESULTS

A total of 197 patients underwent placement of a retrievable IVC filter. Of those, 143 patients (72.5%) had Günther Tulip filters (GTFs) placed, and 54 patients (27.5%) had Recovery filters placed. A total of 94 patients underwent attempted filter retrieval, accounting for just less than half of all retrievable filters placed during the study period (47.7%). Retrievals were successful in 80 patients (85.1%). Half the retrieval failures (n = 7) were the result of thrombus within the filter, and technical difficulties (eg, filter embedded in IVC wall, tilted filter) were the cause of retrieval failure in the other half. There was no significant difference in retrieval failure rates between the GTF and Recovery filter (16.4% vs 9.5%, respectively). GTFs were removed after a median implantation time of 11 days (range, 1-139 d), whereas Recovery filters were removed after a median implantation time of 28 days (range, 6-117 d).

CONCLUSIONS

Placement and retrieval of nonpermanent IVC filters can be performed safely with a high technical success rate. In patients at high risk for venous thromboembolism and contraindication to anticoagulation, retrievable filters may be used aggressively to prevent the potentially devastating outcome of pulmonary embolism.

Safety and efficacy of vena cava filters in trauma patients

Pulmonary embolism (PE), due to its sudden onset, notoriously difficult diagnosis, unpredictable nature and often fatal outcome, remains one of the most feared complications in surgical practice. Trauma patients with multisystem injuries, extremity or pelvic fractures and head or spinal cord injuries often pose a significant dilemma for the surgeon because of the inability to use conventional measures such as anticoagulation therapy and compression devices. On the other hand, the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is high among trauma patients and the attendant risk of PE is an important cause of morbidity and mortality. Inferior vena cava (IVC) interruption by placement of diverse filtering devices has evolved over the past three decades. With the use of these devices, the risk of PE has been reduced dramatically. However, variable rates of complications are reported from their use. In this study, we review all the available data on IVC filter placement in trauma patients and we discuss the potential complications of IVC filters in order to understand better the risk/benefit ratio of their use.