Optional Vena Cava Filter Use in the Elderly Population

Why Temporary Filters Are Not Removed: Clinical Predictors in 1,000 Consecutive Cases

BACKGROUND

Compared to permanent inferior vena cava (IVC) filters, higher complication rates occur with long-term use of temporary IVC filters. We aimed to identify patient clinical factors at the time of placement that could predict failure to remove a temporary IVC filter.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of both vascular surgery and interventional radiology prospective databases between December 2008 and December 2013. We analyzed a total number of 1,024 consecutive, temporary IVC filters stratified by whether retrieval was attempted or made permanent. Univariate, multivariate, and prediction modeling analyses with internal validation were performed on abstracted data, which included risk factors, treatment modalities, and indications for IVC filter placement.

RESULTS

Of 1,024 temporary IVC filters, removal was attempted in 60% and no attempt at removal (kept permanent) in 40%. Of the 619 with attempted removal, the overall successful retrieval rate was 95%. The majority of filters were not attempted to be removed because of persistent filter indications (360 cases). Risk factors associated with IVC filter permanence included male sex, older age, history, or indication of venous thromboembolism (VTE) with inability to anticoagulate, malignancy, and neurologic condition. Risk factors most predictive of permanence in the multivariate model were malignancy (odds ratio [OR]: 3.0, P < 0.001) or neurologic disorder (OR: 2.69, P = 0.0005). Validation revealed our model had a sensitivity of 60.4% and specificity of 69.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that patients who are more likely to have a temporary IVC filter kept permanent are more likely to be older males with a history of malignancy, neurologic condition, or VTE. These factors are also predictive of permanence and can be used in our predictive model to provide insight into the significant preoperative risk factors that should play into the decision-making process.

Indications, complications and outcomes of elderly patients undergoing retrievable inferior vena cava filter placement

AIM

The utilization of inferior vena cava filter placement for pulmonary embolism prevention in elderly patients has not been well characterized. The present study aimed to review indications, complications and follow-up data of elderly patients undergoing inferior vena cava filter placement.

METHODS

A retrospective review was carried out of consecutive admitted patients who underwent inferior vena cava filter insertion at a large university hospital with a level I trauma center.

RESULTS

Overall, 455 retrievable filters were inserted between 2009 and 2014. A total of 133 patients (29.2%) were aged ≥70 years. Elderly patients were less likely to have their filter retrieved compared with non-elderly patients (5.3% vs 21.4%, P < 0.001). Filter-related complications occurred in 13% of non-elderly patients and 14.3% of elderly patients (P = 0.72), most of them occurring in the first 3 months after filter placement. Survival among elderly patients with no evidence of active malignancy was similar to the non-elderly patients with a 1-year survival rate of 76.3% versus 82% in non-elderly patients (P = 0.22), and a 2-year survival rate of 73.1% versus 78.6% in non-elderly patients (P = 0.27). Although decreased, survival rates among elderly patients with active cancer were still substantial, with a 1-year survival rate of 45% and 2-year survival rate of 40%.

CONCLUSIONS

Elderly patients had significantly lower rates of filter retrieval with similar complication rate. Survival rates among elderly patients were substantial, and in elderly patients with no active cancer were even comparable with non-elderly patients. When feasible, filter retrieval should be attempted in all elderly patients in order to prevent filter-related complications. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2017; 17: 1508-1514.

Permanent versus Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters: Rethinking the "One-Filter-for-All" Approach to Mechanical Thromboembolic Prophylaxis

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filtration for thromboembolic protection is not without risks, and there are important differences among commercially available IVC filters. While retrievable filters are approved for permanent implantation, they may be associated with higher device-related complications in the long term when compared with permanent filters. Prospective patient selection in determining which patients might be better served by permanent or retrievable filter devices is central to resource optimization, in addition to improved clinical follow-up and a concerted effort to retrieve filters when no longer needed. This article highlights the differences between permanent and retrievable devices, describes the interplay between these differences and the clinical indications for IVC filtration, advises against a "one-filter-for-all" approach to mechanical thromboembolic prophylaxis, and discusses strategies for optimizing personalized device selection.

Retrievable inferior vena cava filters for venous thromboembolism

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are used as an alternative to anticoagulants for prevention of fatal pulmonary embolism (PE) in venous thromboembolic disorders. Retrievable IVC filters have become an increasingly attractive option due to the long-term risks of permanent filter placement. These devices are shown to be technically feasible in insertion and retrieval percutaneously while providing protection from PE. Nevertheless, there are complications and failed retrievals with these retrievable filters. The aim of the paper is to review the retrievable filters and their efficacy, safety, and retrievability.