The use of optional inferior vena cava filters of type Optease in trauma patients- a single type of filter in a single Medical Center

A change in strategy for filter choice leads to improved filter retrieval rates

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether a new strategy for the choice of inferior vena cava filter placed would improve filter retrieval rates at our institution.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent retrievable filter placement for temporary embolic protection between January 2021 and January 2023 were considered for study inclusion. Risk factors for nonretrieval of short-term filters were identified in patients receiving filters between January 2021 and January 2022 (prestrategy group). For patients treated between February 2022 and January 2023 (poststrategy group), a long-term filter was recommended for those with these risk factors, and a short-term filter was recommended for those without these risk factors.

RESULTS

The study population included 303 patients (prestrategy group, n = 154; poststrategy group, n = 149). Long-term immobilization (odds ratio [OR] = 38.000; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.858-210.564), active cancer (OR = 17.643; 95% CI: 5.462-56.993), and venous thromboembolism detected in the intensive care unit (OR = 28.500; 95% CI: 7.419-109.477) were identified as independent risk factors for nonretrieval of short-term filters. The total retrieval rate was significantly higher in the poststrategy group (87.2%) than in the prestrategy group (72.7%; P = 0.002); the short-term filter retrieval rate was also significantly higher in the poststrategy group (84.5%) than in the prestrategy group (68.5%; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The proposed strategy for filter choice based on risk factors for short-term filter nonretrieval can accurately identify patients who need long-term filter placement while also increasing the retrieval rates for both short-term filters retrieval rates and overall retrieval rates.

Prophylactic Inferior Vena Cava Filters for Venous Thromboembolism in Adults With Trauma: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Trauma is an independent risk factor for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Due to contraindications or delay in starting pharmacological prophylaxis among trauma patients with a high risk of bleeding, the inferior vena cava (IVC) filter has been utilized as alternative prevention for pulmonary embolism (PE). Albeit, its clinical efficacy has remained uncertain. Therefore, we performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic IVC filters in severely injured patients. Methods: Three databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane) were searched from August 1, 2012, to October 27, 2021. Independent reviewers performed data extraction and quality assessment. Relative risk (RR) at 95% confidence interval (CI) pooled in a randomized meta-analysis. A parallel clinical practice guideline committee assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. The outcomes of interest included VTE, PE, deep venous thrombosis, mortality, and IVC filter complications. Results: We included 10 controlled studies (47 140 patients), of which 3 studies (310 patients) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 7 were observational studies (46 830 patients). IVC filters demonstrated no significant reduction in PE and fatal PE (RR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.06-1.28 and RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.01-7.84, respectively) by pooling RCTs with low certainty. However, it demonstrated a significant reduction in the risk of PE and fatal PE (RR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.12-0.55 and RR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.011-0.81, respectively) by pooling observational studies with very low certainty. IVC filter did not improve mortality in both RCTs and observational studies (RR, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.86-2.43 and RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.3-1.31, respectively). Conclusion: In trauma patients, moderate risk reduction of PE and fatal PE was demonstrated among observational data but not RCTs. The desirable effect is not robust to outweigh the undesirable effects associated with IVC filter complications. Current evidence suggests against routinely using prophylactic IVC filters.

Inferior vena cava filters reduce symptomatic but not fatal pulmonary emboli after major trauma: a meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

INTRODUCTION

The prophylactic use of inferior vena cava filters among patients with major trauma is researched by several controlled studies with contradicting results. We performed an updated meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis of controlled studies probing the prophylactic use of inferior cava filters on the development of symptomatic and fatal pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients with major trauma.

METHODS

A systematic electronic search across PubMed, Cochrane and DARE databases was executed from the debut of the databases up to September 15, 2019 for pertinent articles. The inclusion criteria being, controlled trials (randomized/ observational) investigating the prophylactic inferior vena cava filter placement among patients with major trauma juxtaposed to controls and reporting PE. Major trauma was defined as an injury severity score (ISS) > 15 or any trauma delaying the initiation of pharmacological venous thromboembolic [VTE] prophylaxis.

RESULTS

A total of ten studies were included in the final analysis, of which two were randomized control trials. The use of prophylactic inferior vena cava filters was associated with a reduced risk of symptomatic PE among subjects with major trauma, RR: 0.27, CI 0.12-0.58, P value < 0.05, I² = 0%, χ² p-value = 0.85, the evidence was further reinforced by a trial sequential analysis. However, the use of inferior vena cava filters was not associated with a decreased risk of fatal PE among subjects with major trauma, RR: 0.29, CI 0.08-1.10, P value = 0.07, I² = 0%, χ² p-value = 0.73.

CONCLUSION

The use of inferior vena cava filters curtailed the risk of symptomatic PE, the result further strengthened by trial sequential analysis. However, the present evidence fails to delineate a beneficial role of prophylactic inferior vena cava filter placement in reducing fatal PE among patients with major trauma. The possibility of Type II error cannot be excluded from this estimate.

Long-term complications of inferior vena cava filters

Anticoagulation is the cornerstone for the treatment of deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. On occasion, this is not possible because of bleeding complications or, rarely, breakthrough pulmonary embolism associated with this treatment method. The development of vena cava interruption in the 1970s was a critical advance in the treatment of these patients. Placement of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters has been steadily increasing since their introduction. Nonetheless, the incidence of complications associated with placement of these devices is largely unknown. Most of the evidence regarding IVC filter complications relies on case reports, with scarce data coming from larger randomized controlled trials. We aimed to present a summary addressing long-term complications of IVC filters as published in recent articles addressing problems such as IVC thrombosis and IVC filter migration, perforation, fracture, embolization, and tilting. We performed a PubMed search and Google Scholar search using different combinations of "long term," "complications," "IVC filter," and "vena cava filter." We reviewed the available English publications and reported the findings in this summary.

Are too many inferior vena cava filters used? Controversial evidences in different clinical settings: a narrative review

The use of inferior vena cava filters to prevent pulmonary embolism is increasing mainly because of indications that appear to be unclearly codified and recommended. The evidence supporting this approach is often heterogeneous, and mainly based on observational studies and consensus opinions, while the insertion of an IVC filter exposes patients to the risk of complications and increases health care costs. Thus, several proposed indications for an IVC filter placement remain controversial. We attempt to review the proof on the efficacy and safety of IVC filters in several "special" clinical settings, and assess the robustness of the available evidence for any specific indication to place an IVC filter.