Need for inferior vena cava filters in cancer patients: a surrogate marker for poor outcome

Safety and Outcomes of Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement in Oncology Patients: A Single-Centre Experience

The risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in the oncology population is significantly higher than in non-cancer patients. Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters may, therefore, be an important part of VTE treatment. In this study, we address the outcomes of placing IVC filters in the oncology population. This single-centre, observational, retrospective study included 62 patients with active malignancy and acute VTE who underwent an IVC filter implantation due to contraindications to anticoagulation during the period 2012-2023. The control group consisted of 117 trauma patients. In both groups, an urgent surgical procedure requiring temporary cessation of anticoagulation was the most noted reason for IVC filter placement-76% in the oncology group vs. 100% in the non-oncology group (p < 0.001). No complications were reported during the IVC filter implantation procedures. There was no recurrence of pulmonary embolism or deep venous thrombosis in the oncology group after filter implantation. The rate of successful filter explantation, median time to retrieval, and abnormal findings during retrieval were not significantly different between both subgroups (64.3% vs. 76.5%, p = 0.334; 77 days vs. 84 days, p = 0.764; 61.5% vs. 54.2%, p = 0.672; respectively). The study showed that IVC filter placement is a safe and effective method of preventing PE in cancer patients with contraindications to anticoagulation. The complication rate following IVC filter implantation in cancer patients is low and similar to that in non-oncology patients.

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.

Temporal trends in vena cava filter implantation in public health system inpatients: an 11-year analysis of the largest city in Brazil

Background

Vena cava filter implantation is considered a simple procedure, which can lead to overuse and over-indication. It is nevertheless associated with short and long-term complications.

Objectives

The goals of this study were to evaluate rates of vena cava filter implantation conducted by Brazil’s Unified Public Health System, analyzing in-hospital mortality and migration of patients from other cities seeking medical attention in São Paulo.

Methods

This study analyzed all vena cava filter procedures conducted from 2008 to 2018 in the city of São Paulo and registered on the public database using a big data system to conduct web scraping of publicly available databases.

Results

A total of 1324 vena cava filter implantations were analyzed. 60.5% of the patients were female; 61.7% were under 65 years old; 34.07% had registered addresses in other cities or states; and there was a 7.4% in-hospital mortality rate.

Conclusions

We observed an increase in the rates of use of vena cava filters up to 2010 and a decrease in rates from that year onwards, which coincides with the year that the Food and Drug Administration published a recommendation to better evaluate vena cava filter indications.

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

Background

The role for inferior vena cava (IVC) filters in the oncology population is poorly defined.

Objectives

Our primary endpoint was to determine the rate of filter placement in cancer patients without an absolute contraindication to anticoagulation and the rate of recurrent VTE after filter placement in both retrievable and permanent filter groups. Patients/

Methods

A single-institution, retrospective study of patients with active malignancies and acute VTE who received a retrievable or permanent IVC filter between 2009-2013. Demographics and outcomes were confirmed on independent chart review. Cost data were obtained using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes.

Results

179 patients with retrievable filters and 207 patients with permanent filters were included. Contraindication to anticoagulation was the most cited reason for filter placement; however, only 76% of patients with retrievable filters and 69% of patients with permanent filters had an absolute contraindication to anticoagulation. 20% of patients with retrievable filters and 24% of patients with permanent filters had recurrent VTE. The median time from filter placement to death was 8.9 and 3.2 months in the retrievable and permanent filter groups, respectively. The total cost of retrievable filters and permanent filters was $2,883,389 and $3,722,688, respectively.

Conclusions

The role for IVC filters in cancer patients remains unclear as recurrent VTE is common and time from filter placement to death is short. Filter placement is costly and has a clinically significant complication rate, especially for retrievable filters. More data from prospective, randomized trials are needed to determine the utility of IVC filters in cancer patients.

Outcomes of Using IVC Filters in Patients with Malignancy at an Academic Medical Center

Systemic anticoagulation is regarded as optimal treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE). In malignancy, bleeding risk is increased while the patients remain hypercoagulable, making anticoagulation management troublesome. Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters have emerged as an option in the management of VTE, especially when anticoagulant agents are contraindicated. There is limited data on the overall outcomes of patients with malignancy and IVC filter placement. This descriptive study identifies individuals with filters placed and reviews outcomes to guide appropriate care of patients with malignancy and VTE. We performed a retrospective chart review of 115 patients with malignancy who had a filter placed between July 2014 and December 2016. Eighty-seven patients were tracked until December 2017 for significant events (VTE and/or death). In total, 61% ( n  = 70) had metastatic solid tumor malignancy and 77% ( n  = 88) were receiving anticoagulation therapy prior to IVC filter placement. Fifty-three percent ( n  = 61) had bleeding events and 25% ( n  = 29) had thrombocytopenia. Patients with isolated solid tumors receiving frequent surgery were also common recipients of filters. Sixty-six percent (57/87) of patients had a significant event; 85% of them were anticoagulated. Eighty-two percent of events occurred within 6 months of filter placement, with death occurring on average within 5 months of placement. Overall, use of IVC filters was more common in cancer patients who developed bleeding complications on anticoagulation and with metastatic malignancy. However, in patients with metastatic or hematologic disease, filter placement did not prevent all-cause mortality. Individualized risk-benefit consideration is needed before IVC filters are placed.

Role of vena cava filters for the management of cancer-related venous thromboembolism: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Results from cohort studies evaluating the benefit in prevention of recurrent Venous Thromboembolism in cancer population are heterogeneous and controversial.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness and harms of vena cava filters alone or combined with anticoagulation to prevent the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer-related venous thromboembolism.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search strategy was conducted in the MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE and LILACS databases. Searches were also conducted in other databases and unpublished literature. Clinical trials were included without language restrictions. The risk of bias was evaluated with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and a modified version for cohort studies. An analysis of fixed effects was conducted. The primary outcome was recurrent venous thromboembolism. The secondary outcomes were overall survival and adverse effects. The measure of the effect was the risk ratio with a 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included in the qualitative and quantitative analysis. 35,333 patients were found among the seven studies. A low risk of bias was shown for most of the study items. The overall risk ratio (RR) for recurrent venous thromboembolism was 2.53 95%CI (1.35-4.75) favoring anticoagulation compared with vena cava filter.

CONCLUSION

Vena cava filter did not show benefits for recurrent venous thromboembolism prevention in the cancer-patients population.

Inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs): a review of uses and application to international guidelines at a single Australian center; implications of venous thromboembolism associated with malignancy

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a potentially lethal event. Anticoagulation is the cornerstone of treatment. Inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) may be used in circumstances when anticoagulation is contraindicated or as an adjunct to anticoagulation. IVCF use is not without controversy due to concerns over their safety profile, differences in guidelines from international societies, and a limited randomized control trial evidence. We retrospectively undertook a review of IVCF use over a three-year period (2014–2016) at our center, which has a large oncology service but no trauma unit. There were 44 patients with successful IVCF insertion and one patient with an unsuccessful attempt. Indications for insertion included: a contraindication to anticoagulation (n = 28); recurrent VTE on anticoagulation (n = 10); and extensive VTE (n = 7). There were 13 retrieval attempts, of which ten were successful. There were five documented IVCF complications (tilting: n = 2, IVC thrombus: n = 3) with one episode of IVCF failure and two episodes of deep vein thrombosis during the follow-up period. Of the patients, 71% had an active malignancy (of whom 71% had metastatic disease). Seventeen patients died due to progressive malignancy during the study period. There were no life-threatening VTEs or IVCF-associated mortalities. Adherence with published international guidelines was variable. Patients with malignancy were less likely to undergo IVCF retrieval and had a reduced rate of retrieval success. None of the international guidelines comment on the use of IVCFs in patients with malignancy despite being commonly used. IVCF use may be an underappreciated tool in this group.

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.

The Impact of Cancer on the Clinical Outcome of Patients After Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement: A Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are placed to prevent pulmonary embolism, however, some studies have suggested that IVC filters are associated with exacerbated risks of deep vein/IVC thrombosis in cancer patients. The purpose of this study is to determine if cancer patients develop higher than expected rates of venous thromboembolism complications after filter placement compared with noncancer patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients who received filters (2002 to 2006) at Johns Hopkins was conducted. Exposures and outcomes were obtained by chart review. Relative risks (RR, 95% confidence interval [CI]) for outcomes in cancer versus noncancer patients were estimated using multistate models.

RESULTS

The cohort included 702 patients-246 with cancer and 456 without cancer. Cancer patients were older, more likely to be white and have filters placed for contraindications to anticoagulation (P<0.01). The most common cancers were lung (11.8%) and colorectal (10.6%). Cancer patients had an increase in venous thromboembolism (RR 1.9 [95% CI, 1.1, 3.2]) due to more deep venous thrombosis/IVC thrombosis (RR 1.7 [95% CI, 1.0, 3.0]). Higher pulmonary embolism rates in cancer were not statistically significant (RR 2.2 [95% CI, 0.8, 5.8]).

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer patients have elevated risks of thrombotic complications compared with noncancer patients; however, these risks are not higher than expected based on historical controls.

Inferior vena cava filters

Use of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters has increased dramatically in recent decades, despite a lack of evidence that their use has impacted venous thromboembolism (VTE)-related mortality. This increased use appears to be primarily driven by the insertion of retrievable filters for prophylactic indications. A growing body of evidence, however, suggests that IVC filters are frequently associated with clinically important adverse events, prompting a closer look at their role. We sought to narratively review the current evidence on the efficacy and safety of IVC filter placements. Inferior vena cava filters remain the only treatment option for patients with an acute (within 2-4 weeks) proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism and an absolute contraindication to anticoagulation. In such patients, anticoagulation should be resumed and IVC filters removed as soon as the contraindication has passed. For all other indications, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of IVC filters and high-quality trials are required. In patients where an IVC filter remains, regular follow-up to reassess removal and screen for filter-related complications should occur.

Venous thromboembolism treatment outcomes in cancer patients and effect of third-party payers on anticoagulant choice

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to compare the rates of recurrent VTE among cancer patients treated with parenteral agents to the oral anticoagulants.

METHODS

This single-center study was a retrospective chart review of cancer patients with recurrent VTE between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2014. The primary outcome of the study is the rate of recurrent VTE in patients who received a parenteral anticoagulant (enoxaparin, dalteparin, fondaparinux) versus those who received oral anticoagulants (warfarin and rivaroxaban). Other outcomes investigated include risk factors associated with recurrent VTE events and influence of third-party payer on anticoagulant selection.

RESULTS

Four hundred fifty-seven patients met inclusion criteria (178 in the oral anticoagulant group and 279 in the parenteral anticoagulant group). Patients with Medicare were more likely to have received an oral anticoagulant (P = 0.003) and patients with private insurance were more likely to have received a parenteral anticoagulant (P = 0.004). There were 23 recurrent VTE events, 12 events (6.7 %) in the oral anticoagulant group and 11 events (3.94 %) in the parenteral group (P = 0.182). The only significant risk factor noted to increase risk of recurrent VTE was the presence of an IVC filter (adjusted OR 4.38, 95 % CI 1.67-11.53, P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

While there is no statistical difference in VTE events between groups, the oral anticoagulant group numerically had a higher rate. Important associations were found to have an influence on anticoagulant selection and risk of recurrent VTE. These factors must be incorporated into decision making when treating cancer patients with VTE.

Effectiveness of Inferior Vena Cava Filters without Anticoagulation Therapy for Prophylaxis of Recurrent Pulmonary Embolism

OBJECTIVE

The optimal treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is anticoagulation therapy. Inferior vena cava filter (IVC) placement is another option for the prevention of pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients with deep vein thrombosis. This is used mostly in patients with a contraindication to anticoagulant therapy. The purpose of the present study was to compare the two options.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of two groups of patients with DVT: patients who received an IVC filter and did not receive anticoagulation due to contraindications; and patients with DVT and similar burden of comorbidity treated with anticoagulation without IVC insertion. To adjust for a potential misbalance in baseline characteristics between the two groups, we performed matching for age, gender, and Charlson's index, which is used to compute the burden of comorbid conditions. The primary outcome was an occurrence of a PE.

RESULTS

We studied 1,742 patients hospitalized with the diagnosis of DVT in our hospital;93 patients from this population received IVC filters. Charlson's score index was significantly higher in the IVC filter group compared with the anticoagulation group. After matching of the groups of patients according to Charlson's score index there were no significant differences in primary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Inferior vena cava filter without anticoagulation may be an alternative option for prevention of PE in patients with contraindications to anticoagulant therapy.

Inferior vena cava filters in patients with advanced-stage cancer

BACKGROUND

Cancer and its treatment are recognized risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are utilized to provide mechanical thromboprophylaxis to prevent pulmonary embolism (PE) or to avoid bleeding from systemic anticoagulation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 107 cancer patients who had IVC filters inserted and followed up at our institution was performed. All patients had active cancer; a majority (> 90%) had advanced-stage disease, whereas only five patients (5.8%) had stages I or II disease.

RESULTS

Eighty six patients (80.3%) had their IVC filter placed through a jugular approach. Filter insertion was not without complications; recurrent deep vein thrombosis (DVT) was reported in 10 (9.3%), PE in three (2.8%) and filter thrombosis in one patient. The value of IVC filter in patients with advanced stage disease was very limited: among 59 patients with stage IV disease for whom survival data was available, the median survival was only 1.31 months (0.92-2.20) with 23 patients (39.0%) surviving less than a month, and 40 (67.8%) surviving less than three months.

CONCLUSIONS

Systemic anticoagulation can be safely offered for the majority of cancer patients. When the risk of bleeding or PE is high, IVC filters can be utilized. However, the placement of such filters should take into consideration the stage of disease and life expectancy of such patients. Patients with advanced-stage disease may gain little benefit from IVC filter insertion.

Clinical outcomes and causes of death in Japanese patients with long-term inferior vena cava filter implants and deep vein thrombosis

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

We assessed the causes of death and efficacy of permanent inferior vena cava (IVC) filters for preventing new pulmonary embolisms (PE) in Japanese deep vein thrombosis (DVT) patients with or without PE.

METHODS AND SUBJECTS

We studied the clinical outcomes during the follow-up period of 1 day to 9 years (median: 18 months; mean: 28 months) in 66 of 72 consecutive patients (44 with acute PE, 27 with intrapelvic DVT, and 1 with floating femoral vein thrombosis). Fifty of 66 patients received anticoagulant therapy after the filter placement.

RESULTS

Five patients died within 1 month (median 9 days) after the filter placement: three from recurrence of PE, one from cancer, and one from sepsis. Two of the three patients with recurrence of PE had preexisting intracardiac thrombi in the right atrium or main pulmonary artery before filter implantation. Ten patients died from the underlying disease (cancer: 7; brain hemorrhage: 1; amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: 1; pneumonia: 1) over 1 month after the filter placement (median follow-up period: 21 months). No new symptomatic PE recurrence was observed over 1 month after the filter placement. The 61 patients with long-term follow-up had no deterioration of DVT, and all the 31 patients who underwent multi-slice computed tomography showed no PE recurrence or filter thrombus occlusion, fracture, or migration.

CONCLUSIONS

Underlying diseases and preexisting intracardiac thrombi may be the determining factors for the prognosis of DVT patients. Permanent IVC filters with anticoagulant therapy may be effective for preventing death from new PE in Japanese DVT patients.

Inferior vena cava filters in cancer patients: to filter or not to filter

Purpose:

Cancer and its treatment are recognized risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE); active cancer accounts for almost 20% of all newly diagnosed VTE. Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are utilized to provide mechanical thromboprophylaxis to prevent pulmonary embolism (PE) or to avoid bleeding from systemic anticoagulation in high-risk situations. In this report, and utilizing a case study, we will address the appropriate utilization of such filters in cancer patients.

Methods:

The case of a 43-year-old female patient with rectal cancer, who developed deep vein thrombosis following a complicated medical course, will be presented. The patient was anticoagulated with a low molecular weight heparin, but a few months later and following an episode of bleeding, an IVC filter was planned. Using the PubMed database, articles published in English language addressing issues related to IVC filters in cancer patients were accessed and will be presented.

Results:

Many recent studies questioned the need to insert IVC filters in advanced-stage cancer patients, particularly those whose anticipated survival is short and prevention of PE may be of little clinical benefit and could be a poor utilization of resources.

Conclusion:

Systemic anticoagulation can be safely offered for the majority of cancer patients. When the risk of bleeding or pulmonary embolism is high, IVC filters can be utilized. However, placement of such filters should take into consideration the stage of disease and life expectancy of such patients.

Therapeutic anticoagulation and vena caval filter placement-a false sense of security? A case report and literature review

A 66-year-old male with a past medical history of colon cancer came for elective filter placement in the inferior vena cava and the superior vena cava following repeated venous thromboses. The patient was undergoing chronic anticoagulation and was bridged to surgery with intravenous heparin. Two days postoperative, just prior to the date of discharge, the patient was found tachycardic and, despite all precautions, was diagnosed with an acute pulmonary embolism.