Inferior vena cava filters: a framework for evidence-based use

Management options for pediatric venous thromboembolic disease: Beyond anticoagulation with endovascular therapies

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in pediatric patients is an uncommon but serious diagnosis that has an array of therapeutic options and challenges. An assessment of the existing literature on management of pediatric patients with VTE was conducted. The interventions reviewed include anticoagulation, thrombolysis, thrombectomy, inferior vena cava (IVC) filters, and venous stenting. For each intervention, a discussion of mechanism of action, indications, contraindications, and potential complications was performed. While anticoagulants are considered the first-line pediatric VTE treatment, many drugs remain investigational in this patient population and treatment recommendations are extrapolated from adult practice. Thrombolysis may be indicated in cases of acute thrombosis requiring more rapid clot resolution but presents a greater bleeding risk than anticoagulation. Similarly, thrombectomy also provides rapid clot resolution and offers a larger therapeutic window and usage in more mature thrombi than thrombolysis. In select patient groups, IVC filters may be indicated in the prevention of PE but present with inherent thrombogenicity and risk of migration. The data regarding pediatric VTE treatment options, monitoring, and long term outcomes is limited compared to the adult population. The relatively few clinical trials including pediatric patients have a relatively small sample size and are heterogenous with regards to predisposing factors that further exacerbate generalizability. Additional research is needed to help construct and evaluate a robust treatment algorithm for pediatric patients with VTE.

Comparison of inferior vena cava filter use and outcomes between cancer and non-cancer patients in a tertiary hospital

BACKGROUND

While accepted indications for the use of inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) in patients with a venous thromboembolism (VTE) have remained stable, their use continues to be frequent. Retrieval rates are still low, being particularly notable in the population with cancer. This study aims to review the rate of adherence to guidelines recommendation and to compare retrieval rates and complications in both cancer and non-cancer patients.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed including 185 patients in whom an IVCF was placed in Hospital Clinic of Barcelona. Baseline characteristics, clinical outcomes, and IVCF-related outcomes were analyzed. A strongly recommended indication (SRI) was considered if it was included in all the revised clinical guidelines and non-strongly if it was included in only some.

RESULTS

Overall, 47 % of the patients had a SRI, without differences between groups. IVCF placement after 29 days from the VTE event was more frequent in the cancer group (46.1 vs. 17.7 %). Patients with cancer (48.1 % of the cohort) were older, with higher co-morbidity and bleeding risk. Anticoagulation resumption (75.3 % vs. 92.7 %) and IVCF retrieval (50.6 % vs. 66.7 %) were significantly less frequent in cancer patients. No significant differences were found regarding IVCF-related complications, hemorrhagic events and VTE recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

SRI of IVCF placement was found in less than half of the patients. Cancer patients had higher rates of IVCF placement without indication and lower anticoagulation resumption and IVCF retrieval ratios, despite complications were similar in both groups.

Contemporary Use of Prophylactic Inferior Vena Cava Filters in Patients With Severe Traumatic Injuries and High Thromboembolic Event Risk

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between prophylactic inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) implantation and in-hospital deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), and mortality among adults with intracranial, pelvic or lower extremity, and spinal cord injuries.

METHODS

Patients 18 years and older with severe intracranial, pelvic or lower extremity, or spinal cord injuries captured by the Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2010-2019) were identified. IVCFs implanted ≤72 hours after hospital presentation and before performance of lower extremity ultrasonography were defined as prophylactic. Patients were stratified by pharmacologic venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis status. Logistic regression models estimated prophylactic inferior vena cava (IVC) filtration's effect on selected outcomes and identified attributes associated with prophylactic IVCF implantation.

RESULTS

Of 544,739 included patients, 1.3% (n = 7,247) underwent prophylactic IVCF implantation. Among patients who received pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis, prophylactic IVC filtration compared with expectant management was positively associated with DVT (odds ratio [OR], 4.30; P < .001) and PE (OR, 4.30; P < .001) but not associated with mortality (OR, 0.92; P = .43). Among patients who received no pharmacologic prophylaxis, prophylactic IVC filtration was positively associated with DVT (OR, 4.63; P < .001) and PE (OR, 5.02; P < .001) but negatively associated with mortality (OR, 0.43; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic IVC filtration was associated with increased likelihood of VTE among all adults with severe intracranial, pelvic or lower extremity, and spinal cord injuries. In patients who received no pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis, prophylactic IVC filtration was associated with decreased likelihood of in-hospital mortality.

Protrieve sheath utilization for capturing supra-filter thrombus during a retrieval of thrombosed and embedded IVC filter

BACKGROUND

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters, while effective in preventing pulmonary embolism, can increase the risk of IVC thrombosis. IVC filter (IVCF) thrombosis can result from emboli getting trapped within the filter, extension of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), or the device's inherent thrombogenicity causing in situ thrombosis. This condition can cause noticeable clinical symptoms and complicate the removal of the filter due to the potential for thromboembolism, often resulting in temporary filters remaining unextracted. This case report highlights a novel approach employed to mitigate the risk of thromboembolism during the procedure by capturing mobilized thrombus proximally to the entrapped IVCF.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 54-year-old woman with a complex medical history including cerebral palsy, Crohn's disease, and transfusion-dependent iron-deficiency anemia experienced a pulmonary embolism. Due to failed anticoagulation therapy resulting in gastrointestinal bleeding and high transfusion requirements, she underwent placement of an IVCF as a preventive measure against recurrent pulmonary embolism. Three years later, the patient presented with lower extremity swelling and a sudden decline in hemoglobin levels. Diagnostic imaging revealed adherent nonocclusive thrombus within and above the indwelling IVCF. Utilizing the novel Protrieve sheath with the self-expandable Nitinol funnel, successful endovascular removal of the embedded IVCF and adherent thrombus was performed, while mitigating the risk of intraprocedural pulmonary embolism.

CONCLUSIONS

The successful intraprocedural trapping and removal of mobilized thrombus from the IVCF removal was achieved using the Protrieve sheath and Nitinol funnel. This approach provides a promising solution to reduce the risk of embolization during the removal of thrombosed IVCFs, potentially outweighing the complications associated with filter removal.

How I approach the prevention and treatment of thrombotic complications in hospitalized patients

This article uses case-based discussion to review prevention and management of thrombotic problems in hospitalized patients that involve a clinical hematologist. There is variation in the clinical hematologist's role in thrombosis practice throughout the world, and we discuss this where indicated. Hospital-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE), or hospital-associated thrombosis (HAT), is the term to cover VTE occurring during admission and for 90 days postdischarge and is a common patient safety problem. HATs are the most common cause of VTE accounting for 55% to 60% of all VTE, with an estimated 10 million occurring globally. VTE risk assessment alongside evidence-based thromboprophylaxis reduces this risk significantly. Many hospitalized patients, especially older patients, use direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), mainly to prevent stroke in atrial fibrillation. DOACs require perioperative management and may need urgent reversal. Other complex interventions such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation which require anticoagulation are also discussed. Lastly, those with uncommon high-risk thrombophilias, especially those with antithrombin deficiency, produce unique challenges when hospitalized.

Periprocedural Anticoagulation

Management of patients taking anticoagulants around the time of a procedure is a common and complex clinical scenario. Providing evidence-based care requires estimation of risk for thrombosis and bleeding, knowledge of commonly used medications, multidisciplinary communication and collaboration, and patient engagement and education. This review provides a standardized, evidence-based approach to periprocedural management of anticoagulation, based on current evidence and expert clinical guidelines.

Which caval diameter? Clarification manufacturer's instructions for inferior vena cava filter use and implications for practice

AIM

To clarify manufacturer's instructions for inferior vena cava (IVC) filter use and implications for practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three vendors of IVC filters were contacted for clarification, with all stating that caval diameter limits are to be true maximum and true minimum cross-sectional diameters. To determine the implications of this, measurements were performed on 302 abdominal computed tomography studies in four transaxial dimensions perpendicular to the long axis including true maximum and minimum diameters, and measurements reflecting those typically taken on fluoroscopic cavography.

RESULTS

Based on the true maximum and true minimum caval diameter limits as clarified by vendors, 22% of patients who would typically be considered suitable for IVC filter insertion based on frontal and lateral fluoroscopic cavography would be contraindicated, and 40% of patients who would typically be considered suitable for IVC filter insertion based on only frontal fluoroscopic cavography (as lateral projection is often not performed) would be contraindicated.

CONCLUSION

There is a marked discordance between the vendor-clarified caval diameter limits of three common IVC filter devices and real-world caval geometry. Given the rarity of complications, this suggests a pressing need for revision of manufacturers' instructions for use statements to better reflect current safe routine clinical use, particularly from a medicolegal perspective.

The bridging conundrum: perioperative management of direct oral anticoagulants for venous thromboembolism

Most patients diagnosed with venous thromboembolism (VTE) are currently treated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Before an invasive procedure or surgery, clinicians face the challenging decision of how to best manage DOACs. Should the DOAC be held, for how long, and are there instances where bridging with other anticoagulants should be considered? Although clinical trials indicate that most patients taking DOACs for atrial fibrillation do not require bridging anticoagulation, the optimal strategy for patients with a history of VTE is undefined. In this review, we present a case-based discussion for DOAC interruption perioperatively in patients receiving anticoagulation for management of VTE.

Prophylactic Inferior Vena Cava Filters for Venous Thromboembolism in Adults With Trauma: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Trauma is an independent risk factor for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Due to contraindications or delay in starting pharmacological prophylaxis among trauma patients with a high risk of bleeding, the inferior vena cava (IVC) filter has been utilized as alternative prevention for pulmonary embolism (PE). Albeit, its clinical efficacy has remained uncertain. Therefore, we performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic IVC filters in severely injured patients. Methods: Three databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane) were searched from August 1, 2012, to October 27, 2021. Independent reviewers performed data extraction and quality assessment. Relative risk (RR) at 95% confidence interval (CI) pooled in a randomized meta-analysis. A parallel clinical practice guideline committee assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. The outcomes of interest included VTE, PE, deep venous thrombosis, mortality, and IVC filter complications. Results: We included 10 controlled studies (47 140 patients), of which 3 studies (310 patients) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 7 were observational studies (46 830 patients). IVC filters demonstrated no significant reduction in PE and fatal PE (RR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.06-1.28 and RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.01-7.84, respectively) by pooling RCTs with low certainty. However, it demonstrated a significant reduction in the risk of PE and fatal PE (RR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.12-0.55 and RR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.011-0.81, respectively) by pooling observational studies with very low certainty. IVC filter did not improve mortality in both RCTs and observational studies (RR, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.86-2.43 and RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.3-1.31, respectively). Conclusion: In trauma patients, moderate risk reduction of PE and fatal PE was demonstrated among observational data but not RCTs. The desirable effect is not robust to outweigh the undesirable effects associated with IVC filter complications. Current evidence suggests against routinely using prophylactic IVC filters.

Endovascular Venous Interventions - A State-of-the-Art Review

Venous vascular diseases are an important clinical entity estimated to affect several million people worldwide. Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a common venous disease with a population variable prevalence of 122 to 160 persons per 100,000 per year, whereas pulmonary embolism (PE) affects up to 60 to 70 per 100 000 and carries much higher mortality. Chronic venous diseases, which cause symptoms like leg swelling, heaviness, pain, and discomfort, are most prevalent in the elderly and significantly impact their quality of life. Some estimate that chronic vascular diseases account for up to 2% of healthcare budgets in Western countries. Treating venous vascular disease includes using systemic anticoagulation and interventional therapies in some patient subsets. In this comprehensive review, we discuss endovascular treatment modalities in the management of venous vascular diseases.

Improving the rate of inferior vena cava filter retrieval through multidisciplinary engagement

Background

The placement of retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters occurs commonly, but retrieval rates remain low. Consequently, there is an unmet clinical need to ensure appropriate follow-up and retrieval of these devices.

Objectives

To determine the association between an IVC filter surveillance team with filter retrievals or a documented filter plan, time to retrieval, and incidence of filter complications or recurrent venous thromboembolism.

Methods

Ambidirectional cohort study evaluating consecutive IVC filter insertions before and after the implementation of a multidisciplinary surveillance team (MDST). We report an odds ratio (OR) with 95% CIs, adjusted by age, sex, weight, and malignancy status.

Results

Overall, 453 patients were included, with 272 individuals in the pre-MDST cohort and 181 individuals in the post-MDST cohort. The MDST was associated with a higher composite primary outcome of IVC filter retrieval or a documented filter plan from 79.4% in the pre-MDST cohort to 96.1% in the post-MDST cohort (OR, 6.44; 95% CI, 3.06-15.84). Compared with the pre-MDST cohort, IVC filter retrieval rates were higher in the post-MDST cohort (52.6%-73.5%, respectively; (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.67-3.78). The MDST was associated with a shorter median time-to-filter retrieval (187-150 days, hazard ratio, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.39-2.29), but there was no significant difference when comparing symptomatic or clinically significant IVC filter complications, recurrent venous thromboembolism, or mortality.

Conclusion

Our study demonstrates the importance of a structured program to ensure timely IVC filter retrieval and ultimately improve patient care.

Pulmonary embolism response teams: Changing the paradigm in the care for acute pulmonary embolism

Pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs) have emerged as a multidisciplinary, multispecialty team of experts in the care of highly complex symptomatic acute pulmonary embolism (PE), with a centralized unique activation process, providing rapid multimodality assessment and risk stratification, formulating the best individualized diagnostic and therapeutic approach, streamlining the care in challenging clinical case scenarios (e.g., intermediate-high risk and high-risk PE), and facilitating the implementation of the recommended therapeutic strategies on time. PERTs are currently changing how complex acute PE cases are approached. The structure, organization, and function of a given PERT may vary from hospital to hospital, depending on local expertise, specific resources, and infrastructure for a given academic hospital center. Current emerging data demonstrate the value of PERTs in improving time to PE diagnosis; shorter time to initiation of anticoagulation reducing hospital length of stay; increasing use of advanced therapies without an increase in bleeding; and in some reports, decreasing mortality. Importantly, PERTs are positively impacting outcomes by changing the paradigm of care for acute PE through global adoption by the health-care community.

Venous Thromboembolism in Women with Cancer with an Additional Focus on Breast and Gynecological Cancers

Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common in women with cancer. Many clinical practice guidelines provide guidance for prevention and treatment; however, there are no specific recommendations for women. This is unfortunate because the proportion of women with breast- and gynecological cancers is high among patients with cancer-associated VTE. Thromboembolism often heralds cancer progression and poor prognosis and should—besides adequate anticoagulant management—also prompt reassessment and, if necessary, changes in cancer treatment. Recently, the new class of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has started to replace low-molecular-weight heparin as standard thromboprophylaxis and therapy in cancer patients. They are very effective, but they also carry a relevant risk of bleeding. Therefore, despite their ease of use, not every tumor patient qualifies for a DOAC, and this is especially true for gynecological tumor patients. Each prescription must be weighed individually. This review addresses specific aspects of VTE prophylaxis and management in women with cancer. Every physician who treats breast and gynecological cancers should be familiar with prophylaxis, diagnosis, and therapy of cancer-associated VTE. At the same time, patients should be informed by their physician what symptoms to look for and whom to contact if these symptoms occur, even outside of office hours and on weekends.

A retrospective cohort study assessing the incidence of inferior vena cava (IVC) occlusion following prophylactic IVC filter insertion: Is anticoagulation necessary during filter dwell?

BACKGROUND

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters play a role in preventing venous thromboembolism after major trauma where deep venous thrombosis (DVT) risk is up to 80%. It has been suggested that IVC filters are thrombogenic and many patients are therefore placed on therapeutic anticoagulation during IVC filter dwell citing concern of in situ IVC thrombosis, even in the absence of existing DVT.

METHODS

Between 1 June 2018 and 31 December 2021, this retrospective study assessed the incidence of IVC thrombosis following prophylactic IVC filter insertion. Groups were defined according to the presence or absence of therapeutic anticoagulation during filter dwell. The primary outcome was the presence or absence of IVC thrombus at retrieval.

RESULTS

A total of 124 patients were included. Anticoagulation was prescribed in 29 and anticoagulation was not prescribed in 63. A further 32 patients developed a new thrombosis episode after the prophylactic IVC filter was placed, and 29 were prescribed anticoagulation part-way during filter dwell as a result of this diagnosis. No cases of IVC occlusion were observed in any patient group.

CONCLUSIONS

Caval thrombosis was not observed after prophylactic filter placement, with or without the prescription of anticoagulation. While prospective trials are needed to increase the level of evidence, based on these results the use of therapeutic anticoagulation during IVC filter dwell should not be dictated by the presence of an IVC filter alone but rather by the presence of a related thrombosis event.

What happens after they survive? The role of anticoagulants and antiplatelets in IVC injuries

Background

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) after an inferior vena cava (IVC) injury is a devastating complication. Current practice involves variable use of anticoagulation and antiplatelet (AC/AP) agents. We hypothesized that AC/AP can reduce the incidence of VTE and that delayed institution of AC/AP is associated with increased VTE events.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed IVC injuries cared for at a large urban adult academic level 1 trauma center between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2020, surviving 72 hours. Patient demographics, injury mechanism, surgical repair, type and timing of AC, and type and timing of VTE events were characterized. Postoperative AC status during hospital course before an acute VTE event was delineated by grouping patients into four categories: full, prophylactic, prophylactic with concomitant AP, and none. The primary outcome was the incidence of an acute VTE event. IVC ligation was excluded from analysis.

Results

Of the 76 patients sustaining an IVC injury, 26 were included. The incidence of a new deep vein thrombosis distal to the IVC injury and a new pulmonary embolism was 31% and 15%, respectively. The median onset of VTE was 5 days (IQR 1–11). Four received full AC, 10 received prophylactic AC with concomitant AP, 8 received prophylactic AC, and 4 received no AC/AP. New VTE events occurred in 0.0% of full, in 30.0% of prophylactic with concomitant AP, in 50.0% of prophylactic, and in 50.0% without AC/AP. There was no difference in baseline demographics, injury mechanisms, surgical interventions, and bleeding complications.

Discussion

This is the first study to suggest that delay and degree of antithrombotic initiation in an IVC-injured patient may be associated with an increase in VTE events. Consideration of therapy initiation should be performed on hemostatic stabilization. Future studies are necessary to characterize the optimal dosing and temporal timing of these therapies.

Level of evidence

Therapeutic, level 3.

American Association for the Surgery of Trauma/American College of Surgeons-Committee on Trauma Clinical Protocol for inpatient venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after trauma

ABSTRACT

Trauma patients are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes both deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis is a critical component of optimal trauma care that significantly decreases VTE risk. Optimal VTE prophylaxis protocols must manage the risk of VTE with the competing risk of hemorrhage in patients following significant trauma. Currently, there is variability in VTE prophylaxis protocols across trauma centers. In an attempt to optimize VTE prophylaxis for the injured patient, stakeholders from the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma and the American College of Surgeons-Committee on Trauma collaborated to develop a group of consensus recommendations as a resource for trauma centers. The primary goal of these recommendations is to help standardize VTE prophylaxis strategies for adult trauma patients (age ≥15 years) across all trauma centers. This clinical protocol has been developed to (1) provide standardized medication dosing for VTE prophylaxis in the injured patient; and (2) promote evidence-based, prompt VTE prophylaxis in common, high-risk traumatic injuries.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/Care Management; Level V.

Successful Secondary Endovascular Intervention in Pediatric Patients with Venous Thromboembolic Events

BACKGROUND

 In the past, pediatric patients with venous thromboembolic events (VTE) were treated with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) which was successful in around 70% of the cases. However, anticoagulation alone might not restore patency in all patients, and advanced therapeutic options to prevent postthrombotic syndrome are needed. During recent years, endovascular interventions have become a treatment option for pediatric patients with persistent thrombotic occlusion, not only in life- or limb-threatening VTE.

METHODS

 We evaluated 12 consecutive patients (11-17 years) with newly diagnosed VTE being treated at our department during the last 4 years (2017-2020). In case follow-up examination showed persistent venoocclusion under anticoagulation, patients received secondary interventional therapy like recanalization, percutaneous transluminal angioplasty with or without catheter-directed thrombolysis, and stenting. Patients with no clinical signs of venoocclusion or regredient thrombosis in imaging examination received anticoagulation alone.

RESULTS

 Six of 12 (50%) patients underwent catheter intervention. Median time from diagnosis to intervention was 4 months (0-12 months). Reintervention was necessary in one (8%) case and complete recanalization failed in one (8%) case. There were no major bleeding events or other major postinterventional complications, no acute or late local recurrence, and all patients reported clinical improvement after the procedure.

CONCLUSION

 If endovascular intervention is used in teenage patients with persistent symptomatic VTE, reduction of postthrombotic symptoms is possible, even if intervention is performed secondary to failure of anticoagulation. Multidisciplinary treatment decisions can be based on the clinical course and follow-up imaging.

Perioperative consultative hematology: can you clear my patient for a procedure?

Periprocedural management of antithrombotics is a common but challenging clinical scenario that renders patients vulnerable to potential adverse events such as bleeding and thrombosis. Over the past decade, periprocedural antithrombotic approaches have changed considerably with the advent of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), as well as a paradigm shift away from bridging in many warfarin patients. Successfully navigating this high-risk period relies on a number of individualized patient assessments conducted within a framework of standardized, systematic approaches. It also requires a thorough understanding of antithrombotic pharmacokinetics, multidisciplinary coordination of care, and comprehensive patient education and empowerment. In this article, we provide clinicians with a practical, stepwise approach to periprocedural management of antithrombotic agents through case-based examples of relevant clinical scenarios.

Anticoagulation in Patients with Platelet Disorders

Platelet disorders comprise heterogeneous diseases featured by reduced platelet counts and/or impaired platelet function causing variable bleeding symptoms. Despite their bleeding diathesis, patients with platelet disorders can develop transient or permanent prothrombotic conditions that necessitate prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation. Anticoagulation in patients with platelet disorders is a matter of concern because the bleeding risk could add to the hemorrhagic risk related to the platelet defect. This review provides an overview on the evidence on anticoagulation in patients with acquired and inherited thrombocytopenia and/or platelet dysfunction. We summarize tools to evaluate and balance bleeding- and thrombotic risks and describe a practical approach on how to manage these patients if they have an indication for prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation.