Safety and Outcomes of Permanent and Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters in the Oncology Population

Inferior Vena Cava Filters and Complications: A Systematic Review

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters have been used since the 1960s to treat patients with acute risk of pulmonary embolism (PE) to prevent migration of thrombus by trapping it within the filter. Traditional usage has been in patients with contraindication to anticoagulation that carry a significant mortality risk. In this systematic review, we sought to evaluate complications associated with placement of inferior vena cava filters based on published data from the past 20 years. A search was performed on October 6th, 2022, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for systematic reviews, using three databases (ProQuest, PubMed and ScienceDirect) for articles published between the dates of February 1, 2002 and October 1, 2022. Results were filtered to include full-text, clinical studies, and randomized trials written in English pertaining to keywords "IVC filter AND complications", "Inferior Vena Cava Filter AND complications", "IVC filter AND thrombosis" and "Inferior Vena Cava Filter AND thrombosis". Articles identified by the three databases were pooled and further screened for relevance based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Initial search results yielded 33,265 hits from all three databases combined. Screening criteria were applied, with 7721 results remaining. After further manual screening, including removal of duplicate hits, a total of 117 articles were selected for review. While there are no consensus guidelines for best practice, there is compelling evidence that IVC filters can provide significant protection against PE with minimal complications if the treatment window is appropriate. Increase in the variety of filter models has led to broader availability, but skepticism remains about their efficacy and safety, with ongoing controversy surrounding appropriate indications. Further research is needed to establish clear guidelines on appropriate indications for IVC placement and to determine time course of complications versus benefits for indwelling filters.

Inferior Vena Cava Filter in Cancer Patients: On Whom Should We Be Placing Them?

BACKGROUND

Standard treatment for venous thromboembolism is anticoagulation; vena cava filter placement is an alternative in special situations. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes in patients with cancer undergoing filter placement in a cancer center during a 10-year period and assess which preoperatory variables were associated with poorer survival.

METHODS

Retrospective unicenter analysis during a 10-year period was carried out in patients with cancer who had undergone placement of vena cava filter. Early deaths were those that occurred less than 30 days after the filter placement or that occurred during the same hospital stay of the placement.

RESULTS

About 250 patients were analyzed. About 51.6% were females; 77.2% had proximal lower limb deep vein thrombosis; 34.8% had contraindications to anticoagulation; 32.8% presented bleeding after the onset of anticoagulation; and 18.4% had the filter implanted because they were going to undergo surgery and could not be anticoagulated immediately after. About 51.2% of the filters were removable. However, only 2 had the filter removed. About 59.2% had metastatic disease at the time of filter placement. About 31.2% fulfilled criteria for early death. Of those, 34 patients were put in palliative care after filter insertion (median, 13.5 days). Body mass index >18 kg/m², the absence of metastatic disease, and filter placement during the same anesthesia of another surgery (especially if elective and curative) were associated with a higher chance of survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Multidisciplinary evaluation (and possibly consideration for palliation) should take place before the decision to insert a vena cava filter in severe oncologic cases depending on overall status. Patients with a greater chance of survival at a 3 or 5 years interval seem to be those whose filters were placed in the perioperative context of other surgeries (specially elective and curative), who were not undernourished, and whose disease was not metastatic at that time. For patients who survived, an active investigation protocol for filter removal should be implemented.