Trends in vena cava filter insertions and "prophylactic" use

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic vena cava filter (VCF) use in patients without venous thromboembolism is common practice despite ongoing controversy. Thorough analysis of the evolution of this practice is lacking. We describe trends in VCF use and identify events associated with changes in practice.

METHODS

Using the National Inpatient Sample, we conducted a retrospective observational study of U.S. adult hospitalizations from 2000 to 2014. Trends in prophylactic VCF insertion were analyzed both across the entire study population and within subgroups according to trauma status and type of concurrent surgery. Annual percentage change (APC) was calculated, and trends were analyzed using Poisson regression.

RESULTS

Among 461,904,314 adult inpatients (median [interquartile range] age, 58.1 [38.5-74.3] years; 39.6% male), the incidence of VCF insertion increased rapidly at first (from 0.19% to 0.35%; APC, 11.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.3%-12.2%; P < .001), then at a slower rate after the publication of the Prévention du Risque d'Embolie Pulmonaire par Interruption Cave 2 (PREPIC2) trial in 2005 (from 0.35% to 0.42%; APC, 4.4%; 95% CI, 2.8%-6.0%; P < .001), and it began decreasing after the 2010 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) safety alert (from 0.42% to 0.32%; APC, -5.5%; 95% CI, -6.5% to -4.6%; P < .001). The percentage of total VCFs that had a prophylactic indication increased quickly before publication of the PREPIC2 trial (APC, 19.5%; 95% CI, 17.9%-21.0%; P < .001), increased at a slower rate after publication in 2005 (APC, 4.4%; 95% CI, 2.6%-6.2%; P < .001), and dropped after the FDA safety alert, stabilizing at 18.5% for the last 3 years (APC, -0.3%; 95% CI, -2.2% to 1.7%; P = .8). Subgroups most associated with prophylactic VCF insertion were operative trauma (odds ratio [OR], 10.9; 95% CI, 10.2-11.7), orthopedic surgery (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 4.3-5.2), and neurosurgical procedures (OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 3.6-4.2). All groups except orthopedic surgery experienced a deceleration in prophylactic VCF growth after the publication of PREPIC2. Meanwhile, the FDA safety alert was associated with a decrease in prophylactic VCF insertions for all groups except other major surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Whereas publication of the PREPIC2 trial led to a deceleration in prophylactic VCF insertion growth, the FDA alert had a bigger impact, leading to declining rates of prophylactic VCF use. Further investigations of prophylactic insertion of VCF in trauma, orthopedic, and neurosurgical patients are needed to determine whether current levels of use are justified.

Practice patterns of retrievable inferior vena cava filters and predictors of filter retrieval in patients with pulmonary embolism

Retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are increasingly used in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) who have contraindications to anticoagulant therapy. However, previous studies have shown that many retrievable filters are left permanently in patients. This study aimed to identify the common indications for IVC filter insertion, the filter retrieval rate, and the predictive factors for filter retrieval attempts. To this end, a retrospective cohort study was performed at a tertiary care center in South Korea between January 2010 and May 2016. Electronic medical charts were reviewed for patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) who underwent IVC filter insertion. A total of 439 cases were reviewed. The most common indication for filter insertion was a preoperative/procedural aim, followed by extensive iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Retrieval of the IVC filter was attempted in 44.9% of patients. The retrieval success rate was 93.9%. History of cerebral hemorrhage, malignancy, and admission to a nonsurgical department were the significant predictive factors of a lower retrieval attempt rate in multivariate analysis. With the increased use of IVC filters, more issues should be addressed before placing a filter and physicians should attempt to improve the filter retrieval rate.

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.

Temporary Inferior Vena Cava Filters: How Do We Move Forward?

Despite their widespread use, the indications for the selective use of temporary inferior vena cava (IVC) filters remains uncertain with few trials supporting their use. Additionally, the risks of long-term temporary IVC filter insertion are being increasingly discussed amongst the mainstream media and through multiple class action lawsuits. Retrievable IVC filters were specifically designed to have a less secure implantation in order to facilitate retrieval. However, multiple reports have demonstrated significant filter-related complications, most commonly related to duration of implantation. Furthermore, the risk is not isolated to one manufacturer alone. The incidence of filter-related complications is linearly related to its duration of time on the market. Currently, the FDA recommends that IVC filters be removed within 25-54 days of their implantation. Unfortunately, little evidence exists to show that this recommendation is followed routinely. Recently, the PRESERVE Trial (NCT02381509) was initiated as a multicenter non-randomized open label study to determine the safety and effectiveness of commercially available IVC filters (both temporary and permanent) in individuals who require mechanical prophylaxis against pulmonary embolism. Until such evidence is developed, temporary IVC filters should be implanted based on best available evidence and routinely removed within the guidelines of the FDA of 25-54 days. A fair question at this point is whether the design features themselves that are required to manufacture a low profile removable IVC filter can achieve effective prophylaxis against pulmonary embolism at a low rate of short and long-term complications.