Preoperative placement of inferior vena cava filters and outcomes after gastric bypass surgery

Evolving Landscape of Inferior Vena Cava Filter Utilization: A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis

This bibliometric analysis scrutinizes the evolution and current challenges in the use of Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) filters, focusing on trends from 2004 to 2023. Analyzing 2470 records, we report the United States' dominant role, with over half of the studies, and a significant shift towards retrievable filters. Despite technological advancements, controversies persist regarding efficacy, safety, and retrieval issues. Our findings point to the need for refined clinical guidelines and enhanced management strategies to navigate the complex landscape of IVC filter utilization effectively.

Anesthetic management of a huge retroperitoneal leiomyoma: a case report

BACKGROUND

Retroperitoneal leiomyomas are rare, with just over 100 cases reported in the literature. Perioperative management of retroperitoneal leiomyomas can be challenging due to the large tumor size and the risk of hemorrhage.

CASE PRESENTATION

We report a case of a 40-year-old Han woman with a 40-cm retroperitoneal leiomyoma. General anesthesia was performed for the surgical resection. Key flow parameters like cardiac output and stroke volume variation, as shown by the Vigileo™-FloTrac™ system, enabled the anesthesiologist to implement goal-directed fluid optimization. Acute normovolemic hemodilution and cell salvage technique were used resulting in a successful en bloc tumor resection with a 6000-mL estimated blood loss. Although the patient experienced postoperative bowel obstruction, no other significant complications were observed.

CONCLUSION

Advanced hemodynamic monitoring and modern patient blood management strategies are particularly helpful for anesthetic management of huge retroperitoneal leiomyomas.

Outcomes and Prognosis Factors in Patients With Vena Cava Filters in a Quaternary Medical Center: A 5-Year Retrospective Analysis

BACKGROUND

Indications for inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) placement are controversial. This study assesses the proportion of different indications for IVCF placement and the associated 30-day event rates and predictors for all-cause mortality, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism, and bleeding after IVCF placement.

METHOD

In this 5-year retrospective cohort observational study in a quaternary care center, consecutive patients with IVCF placement were identified through cross-matching of 3 database sets and classified into 3 indication groups defined as "standard" in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) and contraindication to anticoagulants, "extended" in patients with VTE but no contraindication to anticoagulants, and "prophylactic" in patients without VTE.

RESULTS

We identified 1248 IVCF placements, that is, 238 (19.1%) IVCF placements for standard indications, 583 (46.7%) IVCF placements for extended indications, and 427 (34.2%) IVCF placements for prophylactic indications. Deep vein thrombosis rates [95% confidence interval] were higher in the extended (8.06% [5.98-10.58]) and prophylactic (7.73% [5.38-10.68]) groups than in the standard group (3.36% [1.46-6.52]). Mortality rates were higher in the standard group (12.18% [8.31-17.03]) than in the extended group (7.55% [5.54-9.99]) and the prophylactic (5.85% [3.82-8.52]) group. Bleeding rates were higher in the standard group (4.62% [2.33-8.12]) than in the prophylactic group (2.11% [0.97-3.96]). Best predictors for VTE were acute medical conditions; best predictors for mortality were age, acute medical conditions, cancer, and Medicare health insurance.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic and extended indications account for the majority of IVCF placements. The standard indication is associated with the lowest VTE rate that may be explained by the competing risk of mortality higher in this group and related to the underlying medical conditions and bleeding risk. In the prophylactic group (no VTE at baseline), the exceedingly high DVT rate may be related to the IVCF placement.

Prophylactic IVC filter placement in bariatric surgery patients: results from a prospective filter registry

Background

Bariatric surgery patients are at increased risk for VTE, but potential risks versus benefits of IVC filters in this group remain unclear. Indwelling filters may increase risk of VTE, and removal of filters in obese patients can be challenging. This study evaluated the incidence of VTE in select bariatric patients receiving prophylactic IVC filters, their risk of filter-related complications, and outcomes from attempted filter retrieval.

Results

Postsurgical DVT occurred in 3 patients within 3 months postoperatively (3%)(95%CI:1-9%), and 1 patient(1%)(95%CI:0-5%) developed acute low-risk PE at 31 days postoperatively, prior to filter removal. All VTE patients were successfully managed with therapeutic anticoagulation alone except one who required thrombolysis. Median filter dwell time was 54 days (range:22-1548), and there were no major filter-related complications (0%)(95%CI:0-3%). Retrieval was attempted in 104 cases (97%)(95%CI:92-99%) and successful in 104 cases (100%)(95%CI:97-100%). Thirty-three patients (32%)(95%CI:23-42%) required advanced techniques for filter removal, and there were no major procedural complications (0%)(95%CI:0-3%). Median follow-up occurred at 344 days (range:3-1570) days after filter retrieval.

Conclusions

No cases of life-threatening post-op PE occurred in this cohort of high-risk bariatric surgery patients receiving prophylactic IVC filters in combination with mechanical and chemoprophylaxis. The risk of filter-related complications was low and retrieval success was high with adjunctive use of advanced techniques.

Clinical trial registration

NCT01158482.

Surgical Collaboratives for Quality Improvement

How best to improve the surgical quality remains unknown. Historically, most efforts were either top down national policy efforts or local hospital/practice level efforts. This article reviews the limitations of these methods and how collaborative quality improvement a mix of local, regional, and national efforts is the most effective means of achieving sustainable, meaningful improvement in surgical care.

Inferior Vena Cava Filters: Current Indications, Techniques, and Recommendations

The vena cava filter (VCF) is intended to prevent the progression of deep venous thrombosis to pulmonary embolism. Recently, the indications for VCF placement have expanded, likely due in part to newer retrievable inferior vena caval filters and minimally invasive techniques. This article reviews the available VCFs, the indications for use, the techniques for placement, and possible outcomes and complications.

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.

Deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis: Are we overdoing? An Asian survey on trends in bariatric surgery with a systematic review of literature

Background:

Obesity is a risk factor for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and venous thromboembolism (VTE). VTE is the most common cause of mortality in patients undergoing bariatric surgery. There is considerable variation in practice regarding methods, dosages and duration of prophylaxis in this patient population. Most of the literature is based on Western patients and specific guidelines for Asians do not exist.

Methods:

We conducted a web-based survey amongst 11 surgeons from high-volume centres in Asia regarding their DVT prophylaxis measures in patients undergoing bariatric surgery. We collected and analysed the data.

Results:

The reported incidence of DVT and VTE ranged from 0% to 0.2%. Most surgeons (63.64%) preferred to use both mechanical and chemoprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin being the most preferred form of chemoprophylaxis (81.82%). There was an equal distribution of weight-based, body mass index-based and fixed-dose regimens. Duration of chemoprophylaxis ranged from 3–5 days after surgery to 2 weeks after surgery. For high-risk patients, 60% surgeons preferred to start chemoprophylaxis at least 1 week before surgery. Routine use of inferior vena cava filters in high-risk patients was not preferred with some surgeons adopting a selective use (36.36%).

Conclusion:

The purpose of this survey was to understand the trends in DVT prophylaxis amongst different high-volume bariatric centres in Asia and to relate the same with the existing literature on the different steps in prophylaxis. There is, however, a need for consensus guidelines for DVT prophylaxis in Asian obese.

Inferior vena cava filter use and patient safety: legacy or science?

There has been a dramatic increase in vena cava filter (VCF) use over the past 20 years in the absence of evidence that filters provide a net patient benefit or are required in most cases. This increase is largely attributable to the availability of retrievable filters and expanded indications, particularly as primary prophylaxis in patients thought to be at high risk of pulmonary embolism. Substantial variability in VCF use, unrelated to patient clinical factors, has been shown between hospitals, from region to region, and among various countries. Despite the lack of direct evidence for the benefit of VCFs for any indication, it is appropriate to insert a retrievable VCF in patients with a recent proximal deep vein thrombosis and an absolute contraindication to therapeutic anticoagulation and then to remove the filter once the bleeding risk decreases and the patient has been anticoagulated. Unfortunately, a high proportion of retrievable filters are not removed, even after the reason for their placement has long passed. Retrievable filters are associated with substantial rates of complications if they are not removed, including penetration of the vena caval wall, fracture and embolization of filter fragments, and caval occlusion. Patient safety priorities and medical-legal concerns mandate careful selection of patients for VCF placement and removal shortly after anticoagulation has been initiated.

Medical literature, vena cava filters and evidence of efficacy

Up to 15% of all patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) receive an inferior vena cava filter, and prophylactic placements are increasing. To determine whether current use of filters is based on robust evidence, a global review of the recent (2001–2012) literature on filters was undertaken. The MEDLINE database was searched for articles related to filters appearing during the period 2001–2012, updating a prior search of literature from 1975–2001. All retrieved articles were analysed, classified into predetermined categories and compared to the prior analysis; randomised and large (>100 patients with a filter) comparative non-randomised clinical studies were read in full. The 651 articles, vs 568 in the period 1975–2000, consisted mainly of retrospective series (37.8%), case reports (31.7%), reviews (14.7%, vs 6.7%, p<0.001), animal and/or in vitro studies (7.5%, vs 12.9%, p=0.002), and prospective series or trials (4.9%, vs 7.4%, p=0.07). Of 4 new randomised trials (RCT), none were designed to test the efficacy of the device; to date, only one RCT has attempted to ascertain efficacy, occurring during the period 1975–2000. Eleven large non-randomised studies compared clinical outcomes of patients with and without filters, in VTE patients (n=5) or prophylactic indications (n=6); two studies found statistically significant relationships between filter use and lower mortality rates, though none could demonstrate a causal relationship. Hence, the plethoric literature on filters parallels growing experience with these devices, but still fails to provide reliable evidence that filter use improves relevant clinical outcomes. No indication for filter placement is based on appropriate scientific evidence.

Trauma Quality Improvement

Trauma centers and a third-party payer within Michigan built a regional collaborative quality initiative. Hallmarks of the collaborative are standardized data collection, annual data validation visits, face-to-face collaborative meetings, and dedication to performance improvement. The Michigan Trauma Quality Improvement Program has shown measurable improvement in patient outcomes, resource use, and compliance with processes of care.

Inferior vena cava filters: current best practices

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common cause of inpatient and outpatient morbidity and mortality. While anticoagulant therapy is considered the primary means of prevention and treatment of VTE, inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) are often used as an alternative or adjunct to anticoagulation. With the advent of retrievable filters indications have liberalized, to include placement for primary prophylaxis in high-risk patients. However, this practice is based on limited evidence supporting their efficacy in preventing clinically relevant outcomes. Since indiscriminate use of IVCFs can be associated with net patient harm and increased health care costs, knowledge of the literature surrounding IVCF utilization is critical for providers to adopt best practices. In this review, we will provide an overview of the literature as it relates to specific clinical questions that arise when considering IVCF utilization in the prevention and treatment of VTE. Practice-based recommendations will be reviewed to provide the clinician with guidance on challenging clinical scenarios.

Obesity: physiologic changes and implications for preoperative management

The proportion of patients defined as obese continues to grow in many westernized nations, particularly the United States (USA). This trend has shifted the perioperative management of obese patients into the realm of routine care. As obese patients present for all types of procedures, it is crucial for anesthesiologists, surgeons, internists, and perioperative health care providers alike to have a firm understanding of their altered multi-organ physiology in order to safely prepare the obese patient for an operation. A careful preoperative evaluation may also serve to identify risk factors for postoperative adverse events. Subsequently, preoperative measures may be implemented to mitigate these complications. In this manuscript we address the major considerations for the preoperative evaluation of the severely obese patient.

Changes in the rate of prophylactic vena cava filter insertion at a university hospital

OBJECTIVE

We previously demonstrated a high rate of prophylactic vena cava filter (VCF) insertion at our institution. We have since attempted to restrict the use of VCF to indications supported by Level-I evidence. This study was designed to evaluate the success of our interventions.

METHODS

All patients receiving VCF between 2007-2009 and 2012-2014 at a university hospital were reviewed. After assessing the use of VCF in the first period, a meeting was convened among the Departments of Radiology, Vascular Surgery and Trauma. Policy was implemented to avoid the inappropriate use of VCF. Data were prospectively collected in the second period to assess the effect of our intervention.

RESULTS

There were 156 VCF placed from 2012 to 2014. VCF was absolutely indicated in 84% of cases, relatively indicated in 9% and prophylactic in 7%. These data contrast our previous experience from 2007 to 2009. In the earlier series, a total of 244 filters were placed, in which 54% of patients had an absolute indication, 14% relative, and 32% prophylactic. There was a significant decrease in filters placed for pure prophylaxis: whereas 76 prophylactic filters were placed between 2007 and 2009, only 11 were placed between 2012 and 2014 (p < 0.0001). No significant differences existed for relatively indicated filters. The department of trauma and surgical critical care (TSCC) observed the most dramatic change in practice. TSCC placed 61 prophylactic VCF between 2007 and 2009 (57% of all filters placed by the department), and 4 prophylactic VCF from 2012 to 2014 (15% of filters placed by TSCC) (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

These findings demonstrate a significant change in the attitudes regarding prophylactic VCF insertion between the two periods of study. Further investigations must be performed to assess changes in clinical outcomes that may result from the altered practice at our university.

Clinical registries and quality measurement in surgery: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Surgical clinical registries provide clinical information with the intent of measuring and improving quality. This study aimed to describe how surgical clinical registries have been used to measure surgical quality, the reported findings, and the limitations of registry measurements.

METHODS

Medline, CINAHL, and Cochrane were queried for English articles with the terms: "registry AND surgery AND quality." Eligibility criteria were studies explicitly assessing quality measurement with registries as the primary data source. Studies were abstracted to identify registries, define registry structure, uses for quality measurement, and limitations of the measurements used.

RESULTS

A total of 111 studies of 18 registries were identified for data abstraction. Two registries were financed privately, and 5 registries were financed by a governmental organization. Across registries, the most common uses of process measures were for monitoring providers and as platforms for quality improvement initiatives. The most common uses of outcome measures were to improve quality modeling and to identify preoperative risk factors for poor outcomes. Eight studies noted improvements in risk-adjusted mortality with registry participation; one found no change. A major limitation is bias from context and means of data collection threatening internal validity of registry quality measurement. Conversely, the other major limitation is the cost of participation, which threatens the external validity of registry quality measurement.

CONCLUSION

Clinical registries have advanced surgical quality definition, measurement, and modeling as well as having served as platforms for local initiatives for quality improvement. The implication of this finding is that subsidizing registry participation may improve data validity as well as engage providers in quality improvement.

The ASH Choosing Wisely® campaign: five hematologic tests and treatments to question

Choosing Wisely® is a medical stewardship and quality improvement initiative led by the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation in collaboration with leading medical societies in the United States. The ASH is an active participant in the Choosing Wisely® project. Using an iterative process and an evidence-based method, ASH has identified 5 tests and treatments that in some circumstances are not well supported by evidence and which in certain cases involve a risk of adverse events and financial costs with low likelihood of benefit. The ASH Choosing Wisely® recommendations focus on avoiding liberal RBC transfusion, avoiding thrombophilia testing in adults in the setting of transient major thrombosis risk factors, avoiding inferior vena cava filter usage except in specified circumstances, avoiding the use of plasma or prothrombin complex concentrate in the nonemergent reversal of vitamin K antagonists, and limiting routine computed tomography surveillance after curative-intent treatment of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. We recommend that clinicians carefully consider anticipated benefits of the identified tests and treatments before performing them.

The ASH Choosing Wisely® campaign: five hematologic tests and treatments to question

Choosing Wisely® is a medical stewardship and quality improvement initiative led by the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation in collaboration with leading medical societies in the United States. The ASH is an active participant in the Choosing Wisely® project. Using an iterative process and an evidence-based method, ASH has identified 5 tests and treatments that in some circumstances are not well supported by evidence and which in certain cases involve a risk of adverse events and financial costs with low likelihood of benefit. The ASH Choosing Wisely® recommendations focus on avoiding liberal RBC transfusion, avoiding thrombophilia testing in adults in the setting of transient major thrombosis risk factors, avoiding inferior vena cava filter usage except in specified circumstances, avoiding the use of plasma or prothrombin complex concentrate in the nonemergent reversal of vitamin K antagonists, and limiting routine computed tomography surveillance after curative-intent treatment of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. We recommend that clinicians carefully consider anticipated benefits of the identified tests and treatments before performing them.

Clinical review: inferior vena cava filters in the age of patient-centered outcomes

Inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) use continues to increase in the United States (US) despite questionable clinical benefit and increasing concerns over long-term complications. For this review we comprehensively examine the randomized, prospective data on IVC filter efficacy, compare relative rates of IVCF placement in the US and Europe, compare commonly considered guidelines for IVCF indications, and the current data on IVCF complications. Searches of MEDLINE and Cochrane databases were conducted for randomized prospective IVCF studies. Only three randomized prospective studies for IVCFs were identified. Commonly cited IVCF guidelines were reviewed with attention to their evolution over time. No evidence has shown a survival benefit with IVCF use. Despite this, continued rising utilization, especially for primary prophylactic indications, is concerning, given increasing evidence of long-term filter-related complications. This is particularly noted in the US where IVCF placements for 2012 are projected to be 25 times that of an equivalent population in Europe (224,700 versus 9,070). Pending much-needed randomized controlled trials that also evaluate long-term safety, we support the more stringent American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) guidelines for IVCF placement indications and advocate a close, structured follow-up of retrievable IVCFs to improve filter retrieval rates.

Anticipating the effects of accountable care organizations for inpatient surgery

IMPORTANCE

Much of the enthusiasm for accountable care organizations is fueled by evidence that integrated delivery systems (IDSs) perform better on measures of quality and cost in the ambulatory care setting; however, the benefits of this model are less clear for complex hospital-based care.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether existing IDSs are associated with improved quality and lower costs for episodes of inpatient surgery.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS

We used national Medicare data (January 1, 2005, through November 30, 2007) to compare the quality and cost of inpatient surgery among patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting, hip replacement, back surgery, or colectomy in IDS-affiliated hospitals compared with those treated in a matched group of non-IDS-affiliated centers.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Operative mortality, postoperative complications, readmissions, and total and component surgical episode costs.

RESULTS

Patients treated in IDS hospitals differed according to several characteristics, including race, admission acuity, and comorbidity. For each of the 4 procedures, adjusted rates for operative mortality, complications, and readmissions were similar for patients treated in IDS-affiliated compared with non-IDS-affiliated hospitals, with the exception that those treated in IDS-affiliated hospitals had fewer readmissions after colectomy (12.6% vs 13.5%, P = .03). Adjusted total episode payments for hip replacement were 4% lower in IDS-affiliated hospitals (P < .001), with this difference explained mainly by lower expenditures for postdischarge care. Episode payments differed by 1% or less for the remaining procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

The benefits of the IDSs observed for ambulatory care may not extend to inpatient surgery. Thus, improvements in the quality and cost-efficiency of hospital-based care may require adjuncts to current ACO programs.

Venous thromboembolism after laparoscopic biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch: analysis of 362 patients

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), which manifests as deep venous thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE), is relatively uncommon after weight loss procedures but has the strong potential to affect patient morbidity and mortality. This type of complication has been studied extensively in more common weight loss procedures, such as Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). VTE has not been studied after biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPD-DS), a bariatric procedure performed mainly for super morbidly obese patients, who are inherently associated with a higher incidence of co-morbidity. The objective of this study was to review VTE prevalence and identify risk factors associated with the postoperative occurrence of VTE in a collected data set of patients after laparoscopic BPD-DS.

METHODS

The database of all patients who underwent laparoscopic BPD-DS between 2006 and 2012 was reviewed. Preoperative clinical information, which included history of VTE, inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement, operative variables, and postoperative course, were reviewed. All VTE related events that occurred within 90 days postoperatively were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 362 patients who underwent laparoscopic BPD-DS during the study period, 12 (3.3%) experienced a VTE complication. Eight (2.2%) patients presented with DVT; 4 (1.1%) patients presented with PE. VTE complications were more common in females than males (83.3% versus 16.6%, respectively). Age, body mass index (BMI), and time interval between preoperative and postoperative doses of heparin for DVT prophylaxis did not influence the occurrence of VTE complications. However, operative time (P = .02) and length of hospital stay (P = .0005) were identified as risk factors associated with postoperative VTE complications. No related mortality occurred in this study.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of VTE after BPD-DS is relatively low and comparable to other weight loss procedures. Overall risk of postoperative VTE after laparoscopic BPD-DS appears to be associated with the length of operation and hospital stay.

Risks and benefits of prophylactic inferior vena cava filters in patients undergoing bariatric surgery

BACKGROUND

The United States Food and Drug Administration recently issued a warning about adverse events in patients receiving inferior vena cava (IVC) filters.

OBJECTIVE

To assess relationships between IVC filter insertion and complications while controlling for differences in baseline patient characteristics and medical venous thromboembolism prophylaxis.

DESIGN

Propensity-matched cohort study.

SETTING

The prospective, statewide, clinical registry of the Michigan Bariatric Surgery Collaborative.

PATIENTS

Bariatric surgery patients (n=35,477) from 32 hospitals during the years 2006 through 2012.

INTERVENTION

Prophylactic IVC filter insertion.

MEASUREMENTS

Outcomes included the occurrence of complications (pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and overall combined rates of complications by severity) within 30 days of bariatric surgery.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics among the 1,077 patients with IVC filters and in 1,077 matched control patients. Patients receiving IVC filters had higher rates of pulmonary embolism (0.84% vs 0.46%; odds ratio [OR], 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6-6.5; P=0.232), deep vein thrombosis (1.2% vs 0.37%; OR, 3.3; 95% CI, 1.1-10.1; P=0.039), venous thromboembolism (1.9% vs 0.74%; OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.1-6.3, P=0.027), serious complications (5.8% vs 3.8%; OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.0-2.4; P=0.031), permanently disabling complications (1.2% vs 0.37%; OR, 4.3; 95% CI, 1.2-15.6; P=0.028), and death (0.7% vs 0.09%; OR, 7.0; 95% CI, 0.9-57.3; P=0.068). Of the 7 deaths among patients with IVC filters, 4 were attributable to pulmonary embolism and 2 to IVC thrombosis/occlusion.

CONCLUSIONS

We have identified no benefits and significant risks to the use of prophylactic IVC filters among bariatric surgery patients and believe that their use should be discouraged.

Inferior vena cava filters for primary prophylaxis: when are they indicated?

Over the past several years there has been a rapid increase in the number of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters placed for primary thromboprophylaxis. Increased use has occurred in settings where other methods of thromboprophylaxis are viewed to be inadequate, technically challenging, or that place patients at an unacceptably high bleeding risk. These clinical services include trauma, bariatric surgery, neurosurgery, cancer, intensive care unit populations, and patients with a relative contraindication to anticoagulation. We review the studies to date addressing filter placement for these indications. Although preliminary data are promising, the patient populations most likely to benefit from prophylactic IVC filter placement have not been well defined, and randomized studies demonstrating efficacy have not been conducted. Moving forward, it will be critical to accomplish these two tasks if IVC filters are to continue to have a role in primary thromboprophylaxis.

Clinical practice guidelines for the perioperative nutritional, metabolic, and nonsurgical support of the bariatric surgery patient--2013 update: cosponsored by American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, The Obesity Society, and American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery

The development of these updated guidelines was commissioned by the AACE, TOS, and ASMBS Board of Directors and adheres to the AACE 2010 protocol for standardized production of clinical practice guidelines (CPG). Each recommendation was re-evaluated and updated based on the evidence and subjective factors per protocol. Examples of expanded topics in this update include: the roles of sleeve gastrectomy, bariatric surgery in patients with type-2 diabetes, bariatric surgery for patients with mild obesity, copper deficiency, informed consent, and behavioral issues. There are 74 recommendations (of which 56 are revised and 2 are new) in this 2013 update, compared with 164 original recommendations in 2008. There are 403 citations, of which 33 (8.2%) are EL 1, 131 (32.5%) are EL 2, 170 (42.2%) are EL 3, and 69 (17.1%) are EL 4. There is a relatively high proportion (40.4%) of strong (EL 1 and 2) studies, compared with only 16.5% in the 2008 AACE-TOS-ASMBS CPG. These updated guidelines reflect recent additions to the evidence base. Bariatric surgery remains a safe and effective intervention for select patients with obesity. A team approach to perioperative care is mandatory with special attention to nutritional and metabolic issues.

Clinical practice guidelines for the perioperative nutritional, metabolic, and nonsurgical support of the bariatric surgery patient--2013 update: cosponsored by American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the Obesity Society, and American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery

The development of these updated guidelines was commissioned by the AACE, TOS, and ASMBS Board of Directors and adheres to the AACE 2010 protocol for standardized production of clinical practice guidelines (CPG). Each recommendation was re-evaluated and updated based on the evidence and subjective factors per protocol. Examples of expanded topics in this update include: the roles of sleeve gastrectomy, bariatric surgery in patients with type-2 diabetes, bariatric surgery for patients with mild obesity, copper deficiency, informed consent, and behavioral issues. There are 74 recommendations (of which 56 are revised and 2 are new) in this 2013 update, compared with 164 original recommendations in 2008. There are 403 citations, of which 33 (8.2%) are EL 1, 131 (32.5%) are EL 2, 170 (42.2%) are EL 3, and 69 (17.1%) are EL 4. There is a relatively high proportion (40.4%) of strong (EL 1 and 2) studies, compared with only 16.5% in the 2008 AACE-TOS-ASMBS CPG. These updated guidelines reflect recent additions to the evidence base. Bariatric surgery remains a safe and effective intervention for select patients with obesity. A team approach to perioperative care is mandatory with special attention to nutritional and metabolic issues.

Clinical practice guidelines for the perioperative nutritional, metabolic, and nonsurgical support of the bariatric surgery patient--2013 update: cosponsored by American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the Obesity Society, and American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery

The development of these updated guidelines was commissioned by the AACE, TOS, and ASMBS Board of Directors and adheres to the AACE 2010 protocol for standardized production of clinical practice guidelines (CPG). Each recommendation was re-evaluated and updated based on the evidence and subjective factors per protocol. Examples of expanded topics in this update include: the roles of sleeve gastrectomy, bariatric surgery in patients with type-2 diabetes, bariatric surgery for patients with mild obesity, copper deficiency, informed consent, and behavioral issues. There are 74 recommendations (of which 56 are revised and 2 are new) in this 2013 update, compared with 164 original recommendations in 2008. There are 403 citations, of which 33 (8.2%) are EL 1, 131 (32.5%) are EL 2, 170 (42.2%) are EL 3, and 69 (17.1%) are EL 4. There is a relatively high proportion (40.4%) of strong (EL 1 and 2) studies, compared with only 16.5% in the 2008 AACE-TOS-ASMBS CPG. These updated guidelines reflect recent additions to the evidence base. Bariatric surgery remains a safe and effective intervention for select patients with obesity. A team approach to perioperative care is mandatory with special attention to nutritional and metabolic issues.

The Role for Prophylaxis Inferior Vena Cava Filters in Patients Undergoing Bariatric Surgery: Replacing Anecdote with Evidence

The number of patients choosing surgical alternatives for weight reduction continues to increase. Despite common thromboembolic preventive methods, which include perioperative subcutaneous heparin injections, early mobilization, and sequential compression devices, postoperative deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism remains a devastating complication after bariatric surgery. The role prophylactic inferior vena cava (IVC) filters may play in bariatric surgery remains controversial, and this article aims to address the risks and benefits of prophylactic IVC filters in high-risk bariatric patients and suggest an evidence-based algorithm for their use.

Optimizing perioperative care in bariatric surgery patients

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs have been shown to minimise morbidity in other types of surgery, but comparatively less data exist investigating ERAS in bariatric surgery. This article reviews the existing literature to identify interventions which may be included in an ERAS program for bariatric surgery. A narrative literature review was conducted. Search terms included 'bariatric surgery', 'weight loss surgery', 'gastric bypass', 'ERAS', 'enhanced recovery', 'enhanced recovery after surgery', 'fast-track surgery', 'perioperative care', 'postoperative care', 'intraoperative care' and 'preoperative care'. Interventions recovered by the database search, as well as interventions garnered from clinical experience in ERAS, were used as individual search terms. A large volume of evidence exists detailing the role of multiple interventions in perioperative care. However, efficacy and safety for a proportion of these interventions for ERAS in bariatric surgery remain unclear. This review concludes that there is potential to implement ERAS programs in bariatric surgery.

Venous thromboembolism: a collaborative quality improvement model for practitioners, hospitals, and insurers

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) carries significant morbidity and mortality and affects a large portion of hospitalized patients. VTE prophylaxis is rated by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality as the most effective of 79 patient safety practices it assessed in 2001. Since 1997, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan/Blue Care Network (BCBSM/BCN) have partnered with Michigan hospitals and providers in statewide registry-based collaborative quality improvement initiatives (CQI) aimed at improving the safety and quality of surgical and medical care; many of these collaborative have a particular focus on VTE prevention. The CQIs are uniquely structured to catalyze hospitals and practitioners to become self-optimizing. In this review, we describe the model BCBSM/BCN and participating Michigan hospitals have developed to improve the prevention and diagnosis of VTE for patients in the state of Michigan.

Prevention of VTE in nonorthopedic surgical patients: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines

BACKGROUND

VTE is a common cause of preventable death in surgical patients.

METHODS

We developed recommendations for thromboprophylaxis in nonorthopedic surgical patients by using systematic methods as described in Methodology for the Development of Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis Guidelines. Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines in this supplement.

RESULTS

We describe several alternatives for stratifying the risk of VTE in general and abdominal-pelvic surgical patients. When the risk for VTE is very low (< 0.5%), we recommend that no specific pharmacologic (Grade 1B) or mechanical (Grade 2C) prophylaxis be used other than early ambulation. For patients at low risk for VTE (∼1.5%), we suggest mechanical prophylaxis, preferably with intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC), over no prophylaxis (Grade 2C). For patients at moderate risk for VTE (∼3%) who are not at high risk for major bleeding complications, we suggest low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) (Grade 2B), low-dose unfractionated heparin (Grade 2B), or mechanical prophylaxis with IPC (Grade 2C) over no prophylaxis. For patients at high risk for VTE (∼6%) who are not at high risk for major bleeding complications, we recommend pharmacologic prophylaxis with LMWH (Grade 1B) or low-dose unfractionated heparin (Grade 1B) over no prophylaxis. In these patients, we suggest adding mechanical prophylaxis with elastic stockings or IPC to pharmacologic prophylaxis (Grade 2C). For patients at high risk for VTE undergoing abdominal or pelvic surgery for cancer, we recommend extended-duration, postoperative, pharmacologic prophylaxis (4 weeks) with LMWH over limited-duration prophylaxis (Grade 1B). For patients at moderate to high risk for VTE who are at high risk for major bleeding complications or those in whom the consequences of bleeding are believed to be particularly severe, we suggest use of mechanical prophylaxis, preferably with IPC, over no prophylaxis until the risk of bleeding diminishes and pharmacologic prophylaxis may be initiated (Grade 2C). For patients in all risk groups, we suggest that an inferior vena cava filter not be used for primary VTE prevention (Grade 2C) and that surveillance with venous compression ultrasonography should not be performed (Grade 2C). We developed similar recommendations for other nonorthopedic surgical populations.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimal thromboprophylaxis in nonorthopedic surgical patients will consider the risks of VTE and bleeding complications as well as the values and preferences of individual patients.

Review of indications and practices of vena caval filters at a large university hospital

BACKGROUND

Vena caval filter (VCF) use has been increasing in recent years. Prophylactic VCF placement has been applied liberally in high-risk patients.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with VCF placement over a 2-year period at a university hospital were reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 244 patients underwent VCF placement in 2 years. Of all, 54% of the patients had the VCF placed for an absolute indication, 14% for a relative indication, and 32% for prophylaxis. Only 14 (9%) of the retrievable filters were removed. Eight patients had a complication of VCF placement; there were no complications of filter retrieval. Vena caval filter placement for prophylaxis alone was 57% from the division of trauma and surgical critical care, 18.3% from interventional radiology department, and 5.2% from the division of vascular surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that many VCFs are placed for prophylaxis. A low percentage of VCFs was retrieved. This may be the practice at many other large university-based hospitals, necessitating strategies for reducing their placement.