The Role of Inferior Vena Cava Filters in Cancer Patients

Inferior vena cava filter thromboprophylaxis in surgical cancer patients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the utilization and outcomes of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters as thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients undergoing surgery.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective study analyzed baseline patient characteristics and clinical outcomes of surgical cancer patients who received perioperative prophylactic IVC filters. Primary clinical endpoints included venous thromboembolism (VTE) incidence and filter complications. A statistical correlative analysis was conducted to identify risk factors related to pulmonary embolism (PE), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and filter thrombi, as well as advanced technique filter removal and mortality at 6 months.

RESULTS

A total of 252 surgical oncology patients (median age, 59; female 51%) received IVC filters for the perioperative prevention of PE. Primary surgical sites included spine (n = 91, 36%), orthopedic extremity/joint (n = 49, 19%), genitourinary (n = 47, 19%), brain/cranial (n = 40, 16%), abdominal (n = 18, 7%), multisite (n = 4, 2%), and chest (n = 3, 1%). Moreover, 15% of patients experienced DVTs in the postplacement preretrieval period, while 2% (n = 6) of patients experienced definitive PEs. A total of 36% of IVC filters were ultimately retrieved, with an average filter dwell time of 7.4 months. Complications occurred in one retrieval.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic perioperative IVC filters in surgical cancer patients resulted in minimal complications while ultimately resulting in a low incidence of PE.

Contemporary Management of Pulmonary Embolism: Review of the Inferior Vena Cava filter and Other Endovascular Devices

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters and endovascular devices are used to mitigate the risk of pulmonary embolism in patients presenting with lower extremity venous thromboembolism in whom long-term anticoagulation is not a good option. However, the efficacy and benefit of these devices remain uncertain, and controversies exist. This review focuses on the current use of IVC filters and other endovascular therapies in clinical practice. The indications, risks, and benefits are discussed based on current data. Further research and randomized controlled trials are needed to characterize the patient population that would benefit most from these interventional therapies.

Comparison of inferior vena cava filter use and outcomes between cancer and non-cancer patients in a tertiary hospital

BACKGROUND

While accepted indications for the use of inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) in patients with a venous thromboembolism (VTE) have remained stable, their use continues to be frequent. Retrieval rates are still low, being particularly notable in the population with cancer. This study aims to review the rate of adherence to guidelines recommendation and to compare retrieval rates and complications in both cancer and non-cancer patients.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed including 185 patients in whom an IVCF was placed in Hospital Clinic of Barcelona. Baseline characteristics, clinical outcomes, and IVCF-related outcomes were analyzed. A strongly recommended indication (SRI) was considered if it was included in all the revised clinical guidelines and non-strongly if it was included in only some.

RESULTS

Overall, 47 % of the patients had a SRI, without differences between groups. IVCF placement after 29 days from the VTE event was more frequent in the cancer group (46.1 vs. 17.7 %). Patients with cancer (48.1 % of the cohort) were older, with higher co-morbidity and bleeding risk. Anticoagulation resumption (75.3 % vs. 92.7 %) and IVCF retrieval (50.6 % vs. 66.7 %) were significantly less frequent in cancer patients. No significant differences were found regarding IVCF-related complications, hemorrhagic events and VTE recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

SRI of IVCF placement was found in less than half of the patients. Cancer patients had higher rates of IVCF placement without indication and lower anticoagulation resumption and IVCF retrieval ratios, despite complications were similar in both groups.

A Rare Case of Right Atrial Thrombus in a Patient With Recurrent Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma

Patients with cancer are at risk for thrombotic complications due to a hypercoagulable state. However, the benefit of prophylactic anticoagulation is unclear in many subsets of these patients. For the first episode of acute thromboembolic disease (VTE) in patients with active cancer, anticoagulant therapy is administered for at least three to six months. Herein, we present a 31-year-old female with active, recurrent stage IIIa classical Hodgkin lymphoma (CHL) (nodular sclerosis), previously treated for proximal upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT), presenting for evaluation of shortness of breath and eventually diagnosed with bilateral pulmonary embolism (PE) secondary to a right atrial thrombus. The patient was successfully treated with surgical resection of the thrombus. With this case report, we hope to encourage physicians to use prophylactic indefinite anticoagulation in patients with active cancer and previous DVT, including patients with upper extremity DVT.

Acute reperfusion treatment and secondary prevention of cancer-related stroke: comprehensive overview and proposal of clinical algorithm

Cancer-related stroke (CRS), referring to ischemic stroke occurring in cancer patients without other clear etiology, represents a clinical challenge, as it is associated with unfavorable clinical outcomes including high rates of recurrence and mortality. There are scarce international recommendations and limited consensus statements on CRS management. For this comprehensive overview, the available studies/reviews/meta-analyses on the use of acute reperfusion and secondary prevention treatments for cancer patients with ischemic stroke, focusing on antithrombotic agents, were collected and summarized. A practical management algorithm was designed per the available data. In short, acute reperfusion in the form of intravenous thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy appears to be safe in CRS and can be considered for eligible patients, though the functional outcomes are often poor, and mostly defined by the preexisting condition. Many patients carry indications for anticoagulation, in which case vitamin K antagonists are not preferred, while low-molecular weight heparins remain the treatment of choice; direct oral anticoagulants can be alternatively considered but are contraindicated for gastrointestinal malignancies. For patients without clear anticoagulation indications, no net benefit for anticoagulation compared to aspirin has been shown. Other targeted treatment options should be evaluated in an individualized approach, alongside the appropriate management of conventional cerebrovascular risk factors. Oncological treatment should be swiftly initiated/continued. In conclusion, acute CRS remains a clinical challenge, with many patients suffering recurrent stroke, despite preventive measures. More randomized-controlled clinical trials are urgently needed to pinpoint the most effective management options for this subset of stroke patients.

Evidence-Based Minireview: Full dose, modified dose, or no anticoagulation for patients with cancer and acute VTE and thrombocytopenia

Co-incident venous thromboembolism and thrombocytopenia are frequent in patients with active malignancies. The optimal approach for anticoagulation in patients with cancer and thrombocytopenia is not established. Different strategies are often utilized including dose-reduced anticoagulation dictated by degree of thrombocytopenia or transfusing platelets in order to facilitate therapeutic anticoagulation. This minireview provides an overview of the data and we outline our approach toward anticoagulation in patients with venous thromboembolism and thrombocytopenia in the setting of cancer.

An expert spotlight on inferior vena cava filters

Introduction: Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are mechanical filtration devices designed as an alternative to surgical ligation/plication of the IVC. Their use has been controversial, especially with the introduction of retrievable filters and expanded/prophylactic indications.Areas covered: Authors discuss the types of available IVC filters, indications for placement, evidence on their effectiveness in general and specific patient populations, procedural considerations, off-label use, complications, and filter retrieval. This review is based on manuscripts/abstracts published from 1960 to 2021 on venous thromboembolism and IVC filters.Expert opinion: Despite the limited data on their effectiveness and survival benefit, IVC filters continue to play an important role in the treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) who cannot receive standard anticoagulation. There is no role of IVC filters in patients without VTE. While retrievable filters are desirable for short-term use, a dedicated team-based approach, and advanced training are required for their successful removal. Newer devices are promising in improving patient safety . The device manufacturers and regulatory agencies should consider specific approaches to track device-related adverse events. Population-based studies are required to establish optimal patient population who would benefit from these devices. .

Postoperative COVID-19 Pneumonia following Resection of a Large Thoracic Chondrosarcoma

Case

A 57-year-old man presenting with two months of insidious shoulder pain was found to have a large thoracic chondrosarcoma invading the spinal canal. The patient's orthopedic oncologist organized an interdisciplinary team including interventional radiology, thoracic surgery, neurosurgery, and plastic surgery. This allowed safe, en bloc tumor resection. The patient's postoperative course was complicated by COVID-19 pneumonia, which was rapidly identified and medically managed with full recovery.

Conclusion

Postoperative COVID-19 pneumonia can present insidiously and mimic other postoperative complications. Early identification and testing can promote rapid isolation, proper personal protective equipment use, and guide outcome-improving treatments.

Venous thromboembolism in orthopaedic oncology

AIMS

Malignancy and surgery are risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE). We undertook a systematic review of the literature concerning the prophylactic management of VTE in orthopaedic oncology patients.

METHODS

MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane, and CINAHL databases were searched focusing on VTE, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), bleeding, or wound complication rates.

RESULTS

In all, 17 studies published from 1998 to 2018 met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. The mean incidence of all VTE events in orthopaedic oncology patients was 10.7% (1.1% to 27.7%). The rate of PE was 2.4% (0.1% to 10.6%) while the rate of lethal PE was 0.6% (0.0% to 4.3%). The overall rate of DVT was 8.8% (1.1% to 22.3%) and the rate of symptomatic DVT was 2.9% (0.0% to 6.2%). From the studies that screened all patients prior to hospital discharge, the rate of asymptomatic DVT was 10.9% (2.0% to 20.2%). The most common risk factors identified for VTE were endoprosthetic replacements, hip and pelvic resections, presence of metastases, surgical procedures taking longer than three hours, and patients having chemotherapy. Mean incidence of VTE with and without chemical prophylaxis was 7.9% (1.1% to 21.8%) and 8.7% (2.0% to 23.4%; p = 0.11), respectively. No difference in the incidence of bleeding or wound complications between prophylaxis groups was reported.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence is limited to guide clinicians. It is our consensus opinion, based upon logic and deduction, that all patients be considered for both mechanical and chemical VTE prophylaxis, particularly in high-risk patients (pelvic or hip resections, prosthetic reconstruction, malignant diagnosis, presence of metastases, or surgical procedures longer than three hours). Additionally, the surgeon must determine, in each patient, if the risk of haemorrhage outweighs the risk of VTE. No individual pharmacological agent has been identified as being superior in the prevention of VTE events. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12)1743:-1751.

Association of Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement With Rates of Pulmonary Embolism in Patients With Cancer and Acute Lower Extremity Deep Venous Thrombosis

IMPORTANCE

Venous thromboembolism is the second overall leading cause of death for patients with cancer, and there is an approximately 2-fold increase in fatal pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients with cancer. Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are designed to prevent PE, but defining the appropriate use of IVC filters in patients with cancer remains a substantial unmet clinical need.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association of IVC filters with the development of PE in patients with cancer and deep venous thrombosis (DVT).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A population-based cohort study was conducted using administrative data on 88 585 patients from the state inpatient databases for California (2005-2011) and Florida (2005-2014). Based on diagnostic and procedure codes, patients with cancer and acute lower extremity DVT were identified. All subsequent hospital visits for these patients were evaluated for the placement of an IVC filter, the development of new PE, the development of new DVT, and in-hospital mortality. Data analysis was performed from September 1 to December 1, 2019.

EXPOSURES

Placement of an IVC filter.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The association of IVC filter placement with rates of new PE and DVT was estimated using a propensity score matching algorithm and competing risk analysis.

RESULTS

The study cohort comprised 88 585 patients (45 074 male; median age, 71.0 years [range, 1.0-104.0 years]) with malignant neoplasms who presented to a health care institution with a diagnosis of acute lower extremity DVT. Of these patients, 33 740 (38.1%) underwent IVC filter placement; patients with risk factors such as upper gastrointestinal bleeding (odds ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.29-1.37), intracranial hemorrhage (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.19-1.24), and coagulopathy (odds ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.08-1.10) were more likely to receive an IVC filter. A total of 4492 patients (5.1%) developed a new PE after their initial DVT diagnosis. There was a significant improvement in PE-free survival for these patients compared with those who did not receive IVC filters across the full, unbalanced study cohort as well as after propensity score matching and competing risk analysis (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.64-0.75; P < .001). Furthermore, IVC filter placement reduced the development of PE in patients with very high-risk malignant neoplasms (eg, pancreaticobiliary cancer), high-risk malignant neoplasms (eg, lung cancer), and low-risk malignant neoplasms (eg, prostate cancer). After accounting for anticoagulation use and imbalanced risk factors, IVC filter placement did not increase the risk of new DVT development.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study suggests that, for patients with cancer and DVT and bleeding risk factors, IVC filter placement is associated with an increased rate of PE-free survival.

Oncologic Emergencies: Too Much Clotting-Venous Thromboembolism in Malignancy

BACKGROUND

Malignancy predisposes patients to higher risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), which is the second leading cause of death in patients with cancer.

OBJECTIVE

This narrative review evaluates VTE in malignancy and the emergency medicine investigation and management of this patient population.

DISCUSSION

Patients with malignancy are at higher risk of VTE, including deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). Risk factors include the underlying cancer, other hematologic disorders, cancer therapies, and underlying comorbidities. While patients with malignancy and VTE can present similarly to those without malignancy, incidental VTE is more common in cancer patients. Existing scores such as the Wells and Revised Geneva score can assist in risk stratification in patients with malignancy. A negative D-dimer result in the appropriately risk-stratified patient can be used to exclude VTE, though D-dimer is more commonly elevated at baseline in patients with malignancy. Several scoring systems may be useful to predict recurrent risk of VTE, including the Khorana and Ottawa scores. Treatment includes anticoagulation with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). Outpatient therapy may be appropriate in select patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This narrative review provides key updates in the assessment and management of cancer patients with VTE.

Identifying risk factor for development of perioperative venous thromboembolism in patients with gastrointestinal malignancy

BACKGROUND

Current data suggests that decreasing VTE incidence may require focus on other factors. This study aimed to identify perioperative risk factors for VTE in patients undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal (GI) malignancy.

METHODS

Patients undergoing surgery for GI malignancy from 2013 to 2016 were grouped according to whether or not they developed a postoperative VTE, and groups were compared along demographic, perioperative, and outcome variables.

RESULTS

Patients who developed VTE were more likely to be older (67 ± 11 VTE vs. 61 ± 10 no VTE, p = 0.04), male (92% vs. 59%, p = 0.02), and have a history of atrial fibrillation (39% vs. 11%, p = 0.01). They also experienced higher intraoperative blood loss (328 ± 724 mL no VTE vs. 918 ± 1885 mL VTE, p = 0.01). On multivariable analysis, history of atrial fibrillation was independently associated with development of postoperative VTE (odds ratio = 3.83, 95% confidence interval = 1.13-13.05, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

A prior history of atrial fibrillation independently predicts increased risk of developing VTE after surgery for GI malignancy. Improving understanding of the underlying VTE pathophysiology in these patients can help guide effective prevention strategies.

Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: Beyond Clinical Practice Guidelines-A Multidisciplinary (SEMI-SEOM-SETH) Expert Consensus

Despite the growing interest and improved knowledge about venous thromboembolism in cancer patients in the last years, there are still many unsolved issues. Due to the limitations of the available literature, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines are not able to give solid recommendations for challenging scenarios often present in the setting of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT). A multidisciplinary expert panel from three scientific societies—Spanish Society of Internal Medicine (SEMI), Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM), and Spanish Society Thrombosis and Haemostasis (SETH)—agreed on 12 controversial questions regarding prevention and management of CAT, which were thoroughly reviewed to provide further guidance. The suggestions presented herein may facilitate clinical decisions in specific complex circumstances, until these can be made leaning on reliable scientific evidence.