Practice Patterns in the Use of Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters in a Trauma Population: A Single-Center Experience

Urological complications caused by inferior vena cava filters: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters act in preventing pulmonary embolisms (PE). Various complications have been reported with their use. However, a credible urological complication rate, filter characteristics, and clinical presentation has yet to be summarized. Thus, we reported these complications in the form of a systematic review.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A search strategy was designed using PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE on February 10th, 2022. The design of this search strategy did not include any language restrictions. The key words (and wildcard terms) used in the search strategy were urolog*, ureter*, bladder, kidney coupled with filter, inferior vena cava, and cava*. Inclusion criteria were: patients older than 18, with previous IVC filter placement, and urologic complication reported. Exclusion criteria were: patients younger than 18, no IVC filter placement, and no urologic complication reported. Other case series and reviews were excluded to avoid patient duplication.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Thirty-five articles were selected for full-text screening. Thirty-seven patient cases were reviewed, and the median age was 53 (range: 21-92 years old). Abdominal and or flank pain was reported in 16 (43%) patients, hematuria was seen in eight (22%) and two (5%) patients died due to acute renal failure resulting from the urologic complications of the IVC filter. Indications for IVC filter placement were recurrent pulmonary embolism (PE), contraindication to or noncompliance with anticoagulant therapy. The IVC filters were infrarenal in 29 (78.4%) patients, suprarenal in five (13.5%) patients, not reported in two patients, and misplaced into the right ovarian vein in one patient. Three or more imaging modalities were obtained in 19 patients (51%) for planning. IVC filter removal was not performed in 17 (45.9%) patients, endovascular retrieval occurred in nine (24.3%) patients, and open removal was performed in seven (18.9%) patients, and tissue interposition was performed in two (5.4%) patients. One patient did not have the management reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Urological complications caused by IVC filters although rare, are likely underreported, require extensive workup, and pose surgical challenges. Due to their complex management, filter retrieval should be planned for as soon as feasible, and plans should be made as early as during the IVC filter implant. For those that do develop complications, clinical judgement must be exercised in management, and open surgical, endovascular or even conservative management strategies can be viable options and should be discussed in a multidisciplinary setting.

Vascular Toxicity in Patients with Cancer: Is There a Recipe to Clarify Treatment? CME

The acknowledgement of cardiovascular disease as one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity among cancer survivors is the cornerstone of the growing field of cardio-oncology. Although standardizing treatment for any given disease is often considered ideal, it is important to recognize the value of pursuing a practical and personalized approach when caring for an oncology patient to minimize the risk of treatment-related cardiotoxicity. We hereby discuss a series of cases that illustrate the ways vascular toxicity can manifest in patients with cancer and, when appropriate, provide scientific evidence that supports clinical decision making. We also raise questions about the complex management of these patients while shedding light on future research in this growing field.

Between a Clot and a Scarred Place

Immobilized orthopedic trauma patients face an elevated risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). We present a case in which a patient undergoing staged repair of traumatic orthopedic injuries developed deep venous thrombosis (DVT) during hospitalization, prior to repair of a lower extremity injury for which delay in operation might result in poor functional outcome. We provide an overview of recommendations regarding pharmacologic prophylaxis of VTE in orthopedic patients. We review the importance of cultivating a high index of suspicion for VTE in such patients, even when receiving appropriate prophylaxis and lacking overt symptoms. Finally, we outline the multidisciplinary decision-making process regarding optimizing care for the patient in a precarious position of developing acute VTE while awaiting urgent surgery. Specifically, we review the safety, efficacy, and management of retrievable inferior vena cava filters (rIVCF) for this population.

Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Complicated Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filter for Deep Venous Thrombosis Patients: Safety and Effectiveness

Background

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters have proven valuable for the prevention of pulmonary embolism. However, retrieval of IVC filters can be challenging and complicated techniques are needed. The aim of this study was to retrospectively review the outcomes after retrieval of retrievable IVC filters which required complicated retrieval techniques.

Material/Methods

This study was a single-center retrospective observational study. All patients who underwent complicated IVC filter retrieval from September 2012 to May 2016 were included. Patient demographics and filter retrieval procedure were documented. Clinical outcomes and procedure-related complications were evaluated. Villalta score and VEINES-QOL/Sym were recorded to assess post-thrombotic syndrome.

Results

A total of 79 consecutive patients, 37 males and 42 were female, with a mean age of 46.5 years (age range: 22–65 years) were included in this study. IVC filters, with mean indwell time of 108 days (range: 74–157 days), were refractory to standard treatment and underwent complicated IVC filter retrieval. There were 6 serious procedure-related complications: 4 popliteal puncture area hematoma complications and 2 hematuria complications. With a mean follow-up of 20.5 months (range: 18–24 months), no pulmonary embolisms occurred, and 2 patients experienced recurrent deep venous thrombosis. Twenty-seven patients developed post-thrombotic syndrome within the first 2 years after IVC retrieval.

Conclusions

Complicated methods can be used to safely remove IVC filters, alleviate filter-related morbidity, and reduce risk for post-thrombotic syndrome. The application of these techniques was safe and effective for patients with refractory IVC filters.

Defining Prolonged Dwell Time: When Are Advanced Inferior Vena Cava Filter Retrieval Techniques Necessary? An Analysis in 762 Procedures

BACKGROUND

Despite growth in placement of retrievable inferior vena cava filters, retrieval rates remain low. Filters with extended implantation times present a challenge to retrieval, where standard techniques often fail. The development of advanced retrieval techniques has positively impacted retrieval of retrievable inferior vena cava filters with prolonged dwell times; however, there is no precise definition of the time point when advanced techniques become necessary. We aim to define prolonged retrievable inferior vena cava filters dwell time by determining the inflection point when the risk of standard retrieval technique failure increases significantly, necessitating advanced retrieval techniques to maintain overall technical success of retrieval.

METHODS AND RESULTS

From January 2009 to April 2015, 762 retrieval procedures were identified from a prospectively acquired database. We assessed patient age/sex, filter dwell time, procedural technical success, the use of advanced techniques, and procedure-related adverse events. Overall retrieval success rate was 98% (n=745). When standard retrieval techniques failed, advanced techniques were used; this was necessary 18% of the time (n=138). Logistic regression identified that dwell time was the only risk factor for failure of standard retrieval technique (odds ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.10; P<0.001). Spline function regression analysis demonstrated that if dwell time exceeded 7 months, the risk of standard technique failure was 40.9%. Adverse events occurred at a rate of 2% (n=18; 15 minor and 3 major).

CONCLUSIONS

The necessity of advanced techniques to maintain technical success of retrieval increases with dwell time. Patients with retrievable inferior vena cava filters in place beyond 7 months may benefit from referral to centers with expertise in advanced filter retrieval.

Retrievable IVC Filters: Comprehensive Review of Device-related Complications and Advanced Retrieval Techniques

Use of retrievable inferior vena cava filters (RIVCFs) has grown exponentially since their introduction into clinical practice, but many of these devices are not retrieved. Some are not retrieved due to poor clinical follow-up, but other devices remain in situ for extended periods because they present significant technical challenges during retrieval. Because of these and other factors, many of these devices were thus left in place permanently. However, recent data have placed a renewed emphasis on device retrieval due to increased risk of RIVCF-related complications, which are positively correlated with filter dwell time. Development of advanced filter retrieval techniques has had a significant impact on the removal of embedded RIVCFs, permitting retrieval of the majority of devices. The purpose of this article is to present an imaging and data review of the dominant device-related factors that complicate RIVCF retrieval and to describe the relevant advanced retrieval techniques to manage these factors. RIVCF imaging is frequently encountered in daily clinical practice via various imaging modalities. Therefore, diagnostic radiologists can play a vital role in identifying filter-related issues. Familiarity with the context for managing these issues in the interventional suite is essential for improving triage and care of patients with RIVCFs. ^© RSNA, 2017.

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.

Cost-benefit analysis of establishing an inferior vena cava filter clinic

PURPOSE

Adverse events associated with retrievable inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) have generated an increased interest in improving IVCF retrieval rates to improve patient safety and quality care. This study aims to demonstrate the cost-benefit of implementing an IVCF clinic to improve patient care in an institution in the United States.

METHODS

An IVCF clinic was established at a single institution in September 2012 and for ten months referring physicians were contacted to facilitate retrieval when appropriate. Additionally, a retrospective review was conducted on filter placements over the eight preclinic months. Cost-benefit analysis was conducted by creating a model, which incorporated the average cost and reimbursement for permanent and retrievable IVCFs.

RESULTS

A total of 190 IVCFs (152 retrievable IVCFs and 38 permanent IVCFs) were implanted during the IVCF clinic period. Twenty-nine percent of the retrievable IVCFs were successfully retrieved compared to 10 of 119 retrievable IVCFs placed during the preclinic period (8.4%). Cost-benefit analysis, using the average of the institution's six most common reimbursement schedules, demonstrated an average net financial loss per permanent or retrievable IVCF not removed. However, a net financial gain was realized for each retrievable IVCF removed. The additional hospital cost to maintain the IVCF clinic was offset by removing an additional 3.1 IVCFs per year.

CONCLUSION

An IVCF clinic significantly increases retrieval rates, promotes patient safety, and is economically feasible. Given the adverse event profile of retrievable IVCFs, strategic efforts such as these ultimately can improve quality care for patients with in-dwelling IVCFs.

Retrievable inferior vena cava filters in geriatric trauma: Is there an age bias?

BACKGROUND

Trauma patients are at increased risk for developing venous thromboembolic (VTE) disease. The EAST (Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma) practice management guidelines identified risk factors for VTE, as well as indications for prophylactic inferior vena cava filters (IVCF). In a 2009 study, our institution found a 26% retrieval rate for IVCF. Lack of retrieval was most consistently due to lack of follow-up. Our study is a follow-up analysis for retrieval rate of IVCF, since the formation of a geriatric trauma service. We anticipated that geriatric trauma patients would have a lower rate of IVCF retrieval compared to the general trauma patient.

METHODS

Our study population consisted of trauma patients admitted from January 2008 to August 2013, with documented VTE or high risk for VTE with contraindication to anticoagulation.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

IVCF placed in trauma patients.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

permanent filters, retrievable filters placed permanently, non-trauma patients, superior vena cava filters and patients who died before discharge.

RESULTS

During the study period, 160 trauma patients had an IVCF placed, of which 147 survived and were discharged. Of those patients, 66% (97/147) were planned for retrieval. Overall, the retrieval rate was 34% (33/97). Following age categorization, rates were 47% (30/64) and 9% (3/33) for those <65 and >/=65 years old, respectively. Applying Fisher's Exact Test to a crosstab of planned retrieval by age category yielded a statistically significant difference, p<0.0005 at alpha=0.05. In the geriatric population with IVCFs not retrieved, 23% (7/30) died and 67% (20/30) were lost to follow-up.

CONCLUSION

IVCF plays a critical role in the management of trauma patients with VTE, particularly the geriatric population. Since our 2009 study, we have improved nearly ten percentage points (26% to 34%); however, we exposed an age bias with retrieval rate being lower in patients >/=65 compared to those <65 (9% vs. 47%).

A multidisciplinary quality improvement program increases the inferior vena cava filter retrieval rate

Published reports indicate low retrieval rates for retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters. We performed a historic-controlled study of a 5-year intervention (March 2007 to February 2012) to improve IVC filter retrieval rates at a university medical center serving a rural area. All adults with a retrievable filter placed were included, except those with a life expectancy <6 months. The intervention included initial verbal counseling and printed educational materials, correspondence after discharge, and a hematology consultation. The control group included patients with retrievable filters placed in the 15 months preceding study initiation. In the control group, 116 filters were placed and 27 (23%) were removed, compared to 378 filters placed and 169 (45%) removed during the intervention. Adjusting for patient characteristics, the odds ratio of retrieval during the intervention was 3.03 (95% CI 1.85–4.27) compared to the control period. An intervention including patient education and hematology follow-up appeared to significantly improve IVC filter retrieval rates.

Retrieval of Inferior Vena Cava Filters: Technical Considerations

Placement of retrievable inferior vena cava filters has seen rapid growth since their introduction into clinical practice. When retrieved, these devices offer the notional benefit of temporary protection from pulmonary embolism related to lower extremity deep venous thrombosis, and mitigation of filter-related deep venous thrombosis. When promptly removed after the indication for mechanical prophylaxis is no longer present, standard endovascular retrieval techniques are frequently successful. However, the majority of these devices are left in place for extended periods of time, which has been associated with greater device-related complications when left in situ, and failure of standard techniques when retrieval is attempted. The development of advanced retrieval techniques has had a positive impact on retrieval of these embedded devices. In this article, technical considerations in the retrieval of such devices, with an emphasis on advanced techniques to facilitate retrieval of embedded devices, are discussed.

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.

Are retrievable vena cava filters placed in trauma patients really retrievable?

PURPOSE

Concerns have arisen regarding the use of retrievable inferior vena cava filters (rIVCFs) in trauma patients due to increasing reports of low retrieval rates. We hypothesized that complete follow-up with a dedicated trauma nurse practitioner would be associated with a higher rate of retrievability. This study was undertaken to determine the rate of retrievability of rIVCFs placed in a Canadian Lead Trauma Centre, and to compare the rate of retrievability in our trauma population to our non-trauma patients.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients with rIVCF placed between Jan 1 2000 and June 30 2014. Data were collected on demographics, indication for filter placement, retrieval status, and reasons for non-retrieval. Comparison was made between trauma patients and non-trauma patients.

RESULTS

A total of 374 rIVCFs were placed (61 in trauma patients and 313 in non-trauma patients) and follow-up was complete for the entire cohort. Filter retrieval was achieved in 86.9 % of trauma patients. Reasons for non-retrieval were technical in two patients, and death before retrieval in six patients. Retrieval was successful in 48.9 % of non-trauma patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that rIVCFs can be successfully retrieved amongst trauma patients. We demonstrated a higher rate of successful retrieval amongst trauma patients than non-trauma patients in our institution. Careful patient follow-up may play a role in successful retrieval of rIVCFs.

Procedural and indwelling complications with inferior vena cava filters: frequency, etiology, and management

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are commonly used in select high-risk patients for the prevention of pulmonary embolism. Potentially serious complications can arise from the use of IVC filters, including thrombosis of the filter itself and filter fragment embolization. This article discusses the utility of IVC filters and reviews the management of two cases of filter-related complications.

Training on insertion and retrieval of optional inferior vena cava filters for interventional radiologists with little or just some experience with the combined use of blood vessel and animal models

Purpose

To evaluate the usefulness of a tool that we developed to simulate performance of insertion and retrieval of optional inferior vena cava filters to be additionally used in training of beginners with an animal model.

Subjects and methods

Thirty young doctors who had little or no experience in insertion and/or retrieval of filters were subjects of this study to evaluate the training tool. Eleven trainees practiced both insertion and retrieval of filters first with the animal model then with the blood vessel model while 19 trainees first practiced with the blood vessel model then with the animal model.

Results

All trainees successfully inserted the filter. Two of the 11 trainees who used the animal model before the blood vessel model failed in retrieval, and 2 of the 19 trainees who used the blood vessel model before the animal model failed. In the former group, mean time for filter implantation and withdrawal in the animal model was 75 ± 62 s and 341 ± 238 s, respectively, and in the latter group were 54 ± 16 s and 311 ± 236 s, respectively.

Conclusion

Training with the combination of a blood vessel model and animal model is helpful for beginners to learn to insert and withdraw optional filters.

Chemical venous thromboembolic prophylaxis is safe and effective for patients with traumatic brain injury when started 24 hours after the absence of hemorrhage progression on head CT

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) continues to be an important complication for patients with trauma, including patients with intracranial hemorrhage. We implemented a protocol starting chemical prophylaxis 24 hours after the absence of progression of hemorrhage on computed tomography (CT) to increase consistency with the use of chemical venous thromboembolic prophylaxis in this population. The objective of this study was to review the protocol of VTE prophylaxis for patients with traumatic brain injury at our institution to determine whether it has been effective and safe in preventing VTE without increasing intracranial hemorrhage.

METHODS

A retrospective case series was conducted to study 205 patients with intracranial hemorrhage admitted to a Level I trauma center during a 24-month period. These patients were reviewed with respect to type of intracranial injury, need for surgery, injury severity, time to initiation of chemical prophylaxis, and progression of injury on brain CT. Patients with a hospital length of stay less than 3 days or nonstable CT were excluded in the analysis of administration of chemical prophylaxis. Time to chemical prophylaxis in relation to absence of progression on brain CT was examined as well as the subsequent risk of progression of hemorrhage and risk of VTE events. The overall rate of venous thromboembolism was compared with that of matched historical controls.

RESULTS

All patients received mechanical prophylaxis in the form of sequential compression devices. One hundred sixty-two intracranial hemorrhages were identified in 122 patients who met the study's inclusion criteria. Of this group of patients who did not have progression of hemorrhage on follow-up CT, 76.2% received chemical prophylaxis during their hospitalization.No patients had progression of intracranial hemorrhage after initiation of chemical VTE prophylaxis, and no patients developed VTE. This represents a decrease of VTE from previous years. No other complications related to chemical VTE prophylaxis were identified.

CONCLUSION

A protocol based on an early use of chemical venous thromboembolic prophylaxis after the absence of progression of tramatic intracranial hemorrhage does not result in increased progression of intracranial hemorrhage and reduced the rate of venous thromboembolic events at our institution.

Vena cava filter practices of a regional vascular surgery society

BACKGROUND

Vena cava filter (VCF) use in the United States has increased dramatically with prophylactic indications for placement and the availability of low-profile retrievable devices, which are overtaking the filter market. We surveyed the practice patterns of a large group of vascular surgeons from a regional vascular surgery society to see whether they mirrored current national trends.

METHODS

A 17-question online VCF survey was offered to all members of the Southern Association of Vascular Surgery. The responses were analyzed using the χ(2) goodness of fit tests.

RESULTS

Of the 276 members surveyed, 126 (46%) responded, with 118 (93%) indicating that they placed filters during their practice. Highly significant differences were identified with each question (at least P < 0.002). Regarding the inferior vena cava, the preferred permanent filters were the Greenfield (31%), the TrapEase (15%), the Vena Tech (5%), and a variety of retrievable devices (49%). Fifty percent of the respondents placed retrievable filters selectively; 26% always placed them; and 24% never did. Filters were placed for prophylactic indications <50% of the time by 63% of the respondents. Overall, retrievable filters (when not used as permanent filters) were removed <25% of the time by 64% of the respondents and <50% of the time by 78% of the respondents. The femoral vein was the preferred access site for 84% of the respondents. Major complications were few but included filter migration to the atrium (one), atrial perforation (one), abdominal pain requiring surgical filter removal (two), inferior vena cava thrombosis (12 vena cava thrombosis--4 due to TrapEase filters), strut fracture with embolization to heart or lungs (three Bard retrievable filters), and severe tilting precluding percutaneous retrieval and protection from pulmonary emboli (8 filters with severe tilt--7 of which were Bard). Of the respondents, 59% had never placed a superior vena cava filter, and 28% had placed five or fewer.

CONCLUSIONS

Although VCF insertion overall appears safe, some complications are specific to biconical and certain retrievable filters. Given the low removal rate and lack of long-term experience with retrievable filters, routine use of these devices as permanent filters should be questioned. If used on a temporary basis, there should be a plan for filter removal at the time of implantation.

Dedicated Tracking of Patients with Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters Improves Retrieval Rates

Retrievable IVC filters (R-IVCF) are associated with multiple complications, including filter migration and deep venous thrombosis. Unfortunately, most series of R-IVCF show low retrieval rates, often due to loss to follow-up. This study demonstrates that actively tracking R-IVCF improves retrieval. Trauma patients at one institution with R-IVCF placed between January 2007 and January 2011 were tracked in a registry with a goal of retrieval. These were compared to a control group who had R-IVCF placed previously (December 2005 to December 2006). Outcome measures include filter retrieval, retrieval attempts, loss to follow-up, and time to filter retrieval. We compared 93 tracked patients with R-IVCF with 20 controls. The baseline characteristics of the groups were similar. Tracked patients had significantly higher rates of filter retrieval (60% vs 30%, P = 0.02) and filter retrieval attempts (70% vs 30%, P = 0.002) and were significantly less likely to be lost to follow-up (5% vs 65%, P < 0.0001). Time to retrieval attempt was 84 days in the registry versus 210 days in the control group, which trended towards significance ( P = 0.23). Tracking patients with R-IVCF leads to improved retrieval rates, more retrieval attempts, and decreased loss to follow up. Institutions should consider tracking R-IVCF to maximize retrieval rates.

Improved recovery of prophylactic inferior vena cava filters in trauma patients: the results of a dedicated filter registry and critical pathway for filter removal

BACKGROUND

Temporary inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) are uniquely suited for trauma patients in whom the high risk of venous thromboembolism is transient. Currently, few "retrievable filters" are actually retrieved, with most published series documenting a retrieval rate between 20% and 50%. We sought to determine whether we could achieve a higher rate of retrieval with an improved process of care.

METHODS

All permanent and temporary filters were entered prospectively into a dedicated filter registry. Within 60 days of filter placement, all temporary filter patients were contacted by a trauma case manager to evaluate ongoing venous thromboembolism risk. Low-risk patients were then evaluated by radiology for removal of the IVCF. If appropriate, removal of the IVCF was scheduled. Initial contacts with patients were made by telephone. If unsuccessful with phone contact, family members, rehabilitation facility, and social work were all contacted to obtain the most recent phone number and address. A follow-up letter was sent to the patient with follow-up visit instructions. Finally, if prior contact measures did not work, a certified letter was sent to the last known address.

RESULTS

Between 2006 and 2009, of 7,949 trauma admissions, 420 (5.2%) met indications for filter placement. Of those, 160 were available for removal and 94 were successfully removed (59%).

CONCLUSIONS

A retrieval rate of 59% can be achieved with an explicit process of care emphasizing disciplined follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

[Who is responsible for the removal of inferior vena cava filters?]

The fact that many inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) in trauma patients are not being removed has been described numerous times in the literature, but nobody really gives a reason why. This case presents a young patient who prophylactically received an optional IVCF after sustaining severe multitrauma. He had a failed retrieval 8 weeks post insertion and consequently was lost to follow-up before a second removal attempt was performed. Institutions inserting IVCF should establish guidelines for following up patients receiving prophylactic IVCF.

A method for following patients with retrievable inferior vena cava filters: results and lessons learned from the first 1,100 patients

PURPOSE

Patients who have undergone implantation of a retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filter require continued follow-up to have the device removed when clinically appropriate and in a timely fashion to avoid potential long-term filter-related complications. The efficacy of a method for patient follow-up was evaluated based on a retrospective review of a single-institutional retrievable IVC filter experience.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with retrievable IVC filters were tracked via a prospectively collected database designed specifically for patient follow-up. Follow-up consisted of periodic review of the electronic medical record. Patients were contacted by mail (at regular intervals one or more times) when removal of the filter was deemed appropriate. A retrospective review of the ultimate fate of the first 1,127 retrievable IVC filters placed at a single institution was performed. Retrieval rates were compared with those seen in the initial experience, during which no structured follow-up was performed.

RESULTS

Of 1,127 filters placed, 658 (58.4%) were removed. Filter removal or declaration of the device as permanent was achieved in 860 patients (76.3%). Filter removal, declaration of the device as permanent, or establishment of the need for continued follow-up was achieved in 941 patients (83.5%). Only 186 patients (16.5%) were lost to follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The follow-up method described in the present study resulted in a statistically significant difference (P < .001) in the likelihood of a patient returning for IVC filter removal compared with a lack of follow-up (59% vs 24%).

Inferior vena cava filter thrombosis: a review of current concepts, evidence, and approach to management

The increased risk of venous thrombosis within and below the inferior vena cava (IVC) is the main long-term complication of IVC filter placement. In this article, we discuss current concepts regarding the incidence, risks, and management of IVC filter thrombosis. Evidence of the association of each of the following factors is reviewed: type and design of the filter device, population demographics, underlying hypercoagulable states/anticoagulation, modality used to assess for thrombosis, and length of time elapsed since filter placement. Certain double-basket filter designs and a hypercoagulable state are associated with increased incidence of IVC filter thrombosis. Most cases of IVC filter thrombosis are asymptomatic. While large series data on the use of magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of filter thrombosis remain unavailable, evidence suggests that contrast-enhanced computed tomography is preferable to Doppler sonography. A proposed algorithm for the management of IVC filter thrombosis is provided.

Retrievable inferior vena cava filters are not getting retrieved: where is the gap?

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to assess the retrieval rate and the predictors of successful retrieval of Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava (RIVC) filters.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of adult patients who had RIVC filter placements from 2004-2008. We excluded patients who died or were lost to follow-up and those who refused or had unsuccessful retrieval. We collected demographic and clinical data including indications for placement and follow-up. Successful retrieval was defined as objective evidence of retrieval by medical records.

RESULTS

Over a 4 year period, we identified 351 patients who had RIVC filter placements. We excluded 99 patients (65 died, 24 decided to leave filter in place, 7 had unsuccessful retrieval and 3 lost follow-up). Majority of the filters were placed for surgical patients (161, 63.9%). Of 252 eligible patients for retrieval, only 47 filters were successfully retrieved yielding a retrieval rate of 18.7%. We identified three predictors for successful retrieval: Male gender, home discharge and follow up with procedural service.

CONCLUSION

In this large cohort we found that the retrieval rate of retrievable IVCF is extremely low consistent with national statistics. Male patients, patients who were discharged home and patients who were followed by the procedural service had higher chance of successful retrieval. We recommend that procedural service placing the filter should ascertain adequate follow-up. We are not certain why more males had successful retrieval than females. Further studies are necessary to investigate this finding.

Deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis in trauma patients

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) are known collectively as venous thromboembolism (VTE). Venous thromboembolic events are common and potentially life-threatening complications following trauma with an incidence of 5 to 63%. DVT prophylaxis is essential in the management of trauma patients. Currently, the optimal VTE prophylaxis strategy for trauma patients is unknown. Traditionally, pelvic and lower extremity fractures, head injury, and prolonged immobilization have been considered risk factors for VTE; however it is unclear which combination of risk factors defines a high-risk group. Modalities available for trauma patient thromboprophylaxis are classified into pharmacologic anticoagulation, mechanical prophylaxis, and inferior vena cava (IVC) filters. The available pharmacologic agents include low-dose heparin (LDH), low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), and factor Xa inhibitors. Mechanical prophylaxis methods include graduated compression stockings (GCSs), pneumatic compression devices (PCDs), and A-V foot pumps. IVCs are traditionally used in high risk patients in whom pharmacological prophylaxis is contraindicated. Both EAST and ACCP guidelines recommend primary use of LMWHs in trauma patients; however there are still controversies regarding the definitive VTE prophylaxis in trauma patients. Large randomized prospective clinical studies would be required to provide level I evidence to define the optimal VTE prophylaxis in trauma patients.

[Vena cava filters in trauma patients]

BACKGROUND

The introduction of removable inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) has created new options for the prevention of pulmonary embolisms in surgical trauma patients. We have observed increasing use in trauma patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis was carried out of 49 trauma patients out of 85 who received IVCFs at our level 1 trauma centre in 2008.

RESULTS

The indications for IVCF placement were multiple trauma in 33 patients, severe head injury in 13 and spinal injury in 3 patients. Of the patients 34 underwent successful removal, 11 (22%) patients had had no retrieval attempt by December 2009 and attempts at removal were unsuccessful in 3 patients. The mean age of the patients was 33.3 years.

CONCLUSION

In 2008 the vast majority of IVCFs were inserted for prophylaxis in trauma patients. To increase the number of retrieved IVCFs, responsibility for the removal should be clarified in every hospital. The indications, advantages, safety and also the design of IVCFs are still under debate. A randomized controlled trial is needed to determine the appropriate use and indications for this potentially useful device in trauma patients.