Vena cava filters in hospitalised patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and pulmonary embolism

Pulmonary embolism with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common, preventable, and treatable disease. The incidence of COPD is growing annually in China, and it is a significant and growing public health burden. Multivariate analysis showed that COPD was one of the independent risk factors for the occurrence of pulmonary embolism (PE), and the incidence of PE was significantly higher in COPD patients than in normal subjects. However, PE is often overlooked in patients with acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD) because there are many similarities in clinical symptoms between PE and AECOPD, which are difficult to distinguish, resulting in the failure of timely treatment and poor prognosis. Therefore, it is of great significance to understand the clinical manifestations, diagnosis, and treatment of COPD combined with PE for making a more accurate diagnosis, providing timely and effective treatment, and improving the prognosis of such patients.

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. .

Management of the COPD Patient with Comorbidities: An Experts Recommendation Document

Background

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with multiple comorbidities, which impact negatively on patients and are often underdiagnosed, thus lacking a proper management due to the absence of clear guidelines.

Purpose

To elaborate expert recommendations aimed to help healthcare professionals to provide the right care for treating COPD patients with comorbidities.

Methods

A modified RAND-UCLA appropriateness method consisting of nominal groups to draw up consensus recommendations (6 Spanish experts) and 2-Delphi rounds to validate them (23 Spanish experts) was performed.

Results

A panel of Spanish internal medicine experts reached consensus on 73 recommendations and 81 conclusions on the clinical consequences of the presence of comorbidities. In general, the experts reached consensus on the issues raised with regard to cardiovascular comorbidity and metabolic disorders. Consensus was reached on the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in cases of depression and the usefulness of referring patients with anxiety to respiratory rehabilitation programmes. The results also showed consensus on the usefulness of investigating the quality of sleep, the treatment of pain with opioids and the evaluation of osteoporosis by lateral chest radiography.

Conclusion

This study provides conclusions and recommendations that are intended to improve the management of the complexity of patients with COPD and important comorbidities, usually excluded from clinical trials.

Usefulness of Inferior Vena Cava Filters in Stable Patients with Acute Pulmonary Embolism

Retrospective cohort studies using administrative data from national databases or a registry suggest that there are subcategories of stable patients with acute pulmonary embolism who would show a reduced mortality with an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter in addition to anticoagulants. These subcategories are those who underwent pulmonary embolectomy, receiving thrombolytic therapy, suffering recurrent pulmonary embolism while on treatment, hospitalized with solid malignant tumors if aged >60 years, hospitalized with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) if aged >50 years, and very elderly (aged >80 years). The following is a review of these studies. It is important to be circumspect in inferring a lower mortality with IVC filters based on comparative effectiveness research that uses national observational data. On the other hand, the likelihood of a randomized controlled trial in any of these subcategories of stable patients is remote. Whether patients are better served by inserting an IVC filter on the basis of retrospective cohort studies, or by withholding IVC filters until a randomized controlled trial can be obtained is a matter for consideration.

Pulmonary Embolism in Patients with Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Objective

In most countries, nearly 6% of the adults are suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which puts a huge economic burden on the society. Moreover, COPD has been considered as an independent risk factor for pulmonary embolism (PE). In this review, we summarized the existing evidence that demonstrates the associations between COPD exacerbation and PE from various aspects, including epidemiology, pathophysiological changes, risk factors, clinical features, management, and prognosis.

Data Sources

We searched the terms "chronic obstructive pulmonary disease," "pulmonary embolism," "exacerbations," and "thromboembolic" in PubMed database and collected the results up to April 2018. The language was limited to English.

Study Selection

We thoroughly examined the titles and abstracts of all studies that met our search strategy. The data from prospective studies, meta-analyses, retrospective studies, and recent reviews were selected for preparing this review.

Results

The prevalence of PE in patients with COPD exacerbation varied a lot among different studies, mainly due to the variations in race, sample size, study design, research setting, and enrollment criteria. Overall, whites and African Americans showed significantly higher prevalence of PE than Asian people, and the hospitalized patients showed higher prevalence of PE compared to those who were evaluated in emergency department. PE is easily overlooked in patients with COPD exacerbation due to the similar clinical symptoms. However, several factors have been identified to contribute to the increased risk of PE during COPD exacerbation. Obesity and lower limb asymmetry were described as independent predictors for PE. Moreover, due to the high risk of PE, thromboprophylaxis has been used as an important treatment for hospitalized patients with COPD exacerbation.

Conclusions

According to the previous studies, COPD patients with PE experienced an increased risk of death and prolonged length of hospital stay. Therefore, the thromboembolic risk in patients with acute exacerbation of COPD, especially in the hospitalized patients, should carefully be evaluated.

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.

Inferior Vena Cava Filters in Elderly Patients with Stable Acute Pulmonary Embolism

BACKGROUND

Patients aged >60 years with pulmonary embolism who were stable and did not require thrombolytic therapy were shown to have a somewhat lower in-hospital all-cause mortality with vena cava filters. In this investigation we further assess mortality with filters in stable elderly patients.

METHODS

In-hospital all-cause mortality according to use of inferior vena cava filters was assessed from the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample, 2003-2012, in: 1) All patients with pulmonary embolism; 2) All with pulmonary embolism who had none of the comorbid conditions listed in the Charlson Comorbidity Index; 3) Patients with a primary (first-listed) diagnosis of pulmonary embolism, and 4) Patients with a primary diagnosis of pulmonary embolism and none of the comorbid conditions listed in the Charlson Comorbidity Index.

RESULTS

From 2003-2012, 2,621,575 stable patients with pulmonary embolism were hospitalized in the US. Patients aged >80 years showed lower mortality with vena cava filters (all pulmonary embolism, 6.1% vs 10.5%; all pulmonary embolism with no comorbid conditions, 3.3% vs 6.3%; primary pulmonary embolism, 4.1% vs 5.7%; primary pulmonary embolism with no comorbid conditions, 2.1% vs 3.7%; all P <.0001). In the all-patient category, patients aged 71-80 years showed somewhat lower mortality with filters, 6.3% vs 7.4% (P <.0001), and those without comorbid conditions, 2.5% vs 2.8% (P = .04). Those aged 71-80 years with primary pulmonary embolism, irrespective of comorbid conditions, did not show lower mortality with filters.

CONCLUSION

At present, in the absence of a randomized controlled trial, it seems prudent to consider a vena cava filter in very elderly (aged >80 years) stable patients with acute pulmonary embolism.

Case fatality rate with vena cava filters in hospitalized stable patients with cancer and pulmonary embolism

BACKGROUND

In view of the high risk of pulmonary embolism in patients with cancer, we tested the hypothesis that stable patients with pulmonary embolism who have cancer might be a subset of patients who would show a lower case fatality rate with vena cava filters than without filters.

METHODS

Stable patients with pulmonary embolism and cancer at discharge from short-stay hospitals throughout the US from 1998-2009 were identified from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Patients with pulmonary embolism who had a diagnostic code for shock, ventilatory support, thrombolytic therapy, or pulmonary embolectomy were excluded because such patients have been shown to have lower case fatality rate with filters.

RESULTS

In-hospital all-cause case fatality rate was lower with vena cava filters in stable patients with pulmonary embolism and solid malignant tumors providing they were aged >30 years, but there was variability according to type of tumor and age of patient. On average, case fatality rate among those >30 years with filters was 7070 of 69,350 (10.2%) (95% confidence interval, 10.0-10.4) versus 36,875 of 247,125 (14.9%) (95% confidence interval, 14.8-15.1) without filters (P <.0001) (relative risk 0.68). Among stable patients with hematological malignancies, case fatality rate, except in the elderly, was higher among those with vena cava filters than those without filters.

CONCLUSION

Stable patients with pulmonary embolism and solid malignant tumors who are older than age 30 years appear to be a subset of patients with pulmonary embolism who would benefit from vena cava filters, but this needs to be tested prospectively.