Independent association between IVC filter placement and VTE risk in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding and isolated distal DVT: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The placement of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters often emerges as an alternative preventative measure against pulmonary embolism in patients with upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and isolated distal deep vein thrombosis (DVT). We aimed to investigate the association of IVC filter placement and the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence in this patient population.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study including 450 patients with upper GI bleeding and isolated distal DVT. Propensity score matching using logistic regression was conducted to mitigate potential selection bias. Logistic regression models and additional sensitivity analyses were conducted to estimate the association between IVC filter implantation and VTE recurrence. Interaction and stratified analyses were also performed according to the background covariates.

RESULTS

Patients who underwent IVC filter placement were significantly younger than patients in the surveillance group (55.8 ± 9.0 vs 58.4 ± 11.2 years, p = 0.034). Patients in the IVC filter group demonstrated a higher distal thrombus burden. The VTE recurrence composite was significantly higher in patients who underwent IVC filter placement (44.1% [45/102] vs 25% [87/348], p < 0.001). Unmatched crude logistic regression analysis identified a significant association between IVC filter placement and VTE recurrence composite (OR = 2.37; 95% CI, 1.50-3.75). Sensitivity analyses yielded congruent outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This study revealed an increased risk of VTE recurrence among patients receiving IVC filter placement, suggesting that IVC filter placement may not be suitable as a primary treatment for patients with upper GI bleeding and isolated distal DVT.

Removing infrarenal inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) with thrombus under protection of suprarenal IVCFs: A retrospective study in a single-center institution

To determine feasibility of removing inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) with massive thrombus (>1*1cm) under protection of suprarenal IVCFs, and evaluate the filter thrombus detachment due to removal. The patients who had massive infrarenal IVCFs thrombus and received retrieval under protection of suprarenal IVCFs were retrospectively reviewed from July 2018 to December 2021. Medical data of them including demographics, filter types, dwell time, management, thrombus detachment was collected, and analyzed. There were 33 patients having massive infrarenal IVCFs thrombus and receiving retrieval under protection of suprarenal IVCFs including 23 males and 10 females with a mean age of 55.30 ± 11.97 (range, 30-85 years). All Infrarenal IVCFs were removed successfully and 29 cases (87.88%) were confirmed detachment of thrombus by cavography including 7 small-size thrombus (<1*1cm) and 22 large-size thrombus (>1*1cm). Twenty-two suprarenal IVCFs trapped large-size thrombus were treated with additional anticoagulation and 21 of them had successful retrievals with additional anticoagulation period of 66.18 ± 43.38 days (range, 9-154 days). The large-size IVCFs thrombus may be break off during retrieval, and IVCFs with large-size thrombus could be removed safely with suprarenal IVCFs protection. The thrombus trapped in filters could be reduced with an additional period of anticoagulation.

Efficacy and safety of vena cava filters in preventing pulmonary embolism: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the treatment effectiveness of inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) versus non-IVCF for patients undergoing varies conditions.

METHODS

We systematically searched the databases to identify eligible RCTs from their inception up to 9/20/2020. The primary endpoint was pulmonary embolism (PE), while the secondary endpoints included deep-vein thrombosis (DVT), major bleeding, and all-cause mortality. The RRs with 95% CIs were applied as effect estimates for the treatment effectiveness of IVCF versus non-IVCF and calculated by using the random-effects model.

RESULTS

1,137 patients of 5 RCTs were enrolled. There were no significant differences between IVCF and non-IVCF for the risk of PE, major bleeding, and all-cause mortality, while the risk of DVT was significantly increased for patients treated with IVCF.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of IVCF did not yield any benefits on PE, major bleeding, and all-cause mortality risk for patients undergoing various conditions, while the risk of DVT was significantly increased for patients treated with IVCF.

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.

Complex Inferior Vena Cava Filter Retrievals: Success Rate and Predictors of Adverse Events at a Large Specialized Referral Center

BACKGROUND. Specialized inferior vena cava (IVC) filter referral centers can achieve improved retrieval outcomes, potentially facilitating complex retrievals after long filter dwell times. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to determine the success rate of complex IVC filter retrievals at a large specialized IVC filter referral center and to identify predictors of adverse events during complex retrievals. METHODS. This retrospective study included patients who underwent complex IVC filter retrieval from March 2014 to June 2018 at a large regional health system with specialized complex retrieval referral centers and interventional radiologists with expertise in such procedures. Complex retrievals methods included a range of loop snare, coaxial sheath, forceps, and snare techniques. Data were collected from the electronic medical record. The success rate of complex retrieval was determined. Factors associated with adverse events during retrieval procedures were explored. RESULTS. The study included 125 patients (51 women, 74 men; mean age, 60 years). The mean filter dwell time at retrieval was 47.5 months (median, 21.8 months). The complex retrieval success rate was 99.2% on the first attempt and 100.0% overall. A total of 11.2% (14/125) of patients experienced an adverse event during retrieval, including 10.4% (13/125) with minor and 0.8% (1/125) with major events. Prolonged dwell time was the only indication for complex retrieval that was significantly associated with adverse events (adverse event rate, 16.7% for patients with this indication vs 5.1% for patients without this indication; p = .04). In multiple regression analysis, the only significant independent predictor of adverse events was a filter dwell time of 5 years or longer (odds ratio, 6.98 [95% CI, 1.64-29.81]; p = .009). CONCLUSION. In a specialized referral system with expertise in complex retrieval methods, high retrieval success rates can be achieved in patients who have filters with long dwell times. Nonetheless, longer dwell times are associated with adverse events during retrieval procedures. CLINICAL IMPACT. The observations support performing early filter retrieval and referring patients who have filters with prolonged dwell times to specialized centers.

Updated Trends in Inferior Vena Cava Filter Use by Indication in the United States After Food and Drug Administration Safety Warnings: A Decade Analysis From 2010 to 2019

BACKGROUND

Overall inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) utilization has decreased in the United States since the 2010 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) safety communication. The FDA renewed this safety warning in 2014 with additional mandates on reporting IVCF-related adverse events. We evaluated the impact of the FDA recommendations on IVCF placements for different indications from 2010 to 2019 and further assessed utilization trends by region and hospital teaching status.

METHODS

Inferior vena cava filter placements between 2010 and 2019 were identified in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database using the associated International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification, and Tenth Revision codes. Inferior vena cava filter placements were categorized by indication for venous thromboembolism (VTE) "treatment" in patients with VTE diagnosis and contraindication to anticoagulation and "prophylaxis" in patients without VTE. Generalized linear regression was used to analyze utilization trends.

RESULTS

A total of 823 717 IVCFs were placed over the study period, of which 644 663 (78.3%) were for VTE treatment and 179 054 (21.7%) were for prophylaxis indications. The median age for both categories of patients was 68 years. The total number of IVCFs placed for all indications decreased from 129 616 in 2010 to 58 465 in 2019, with an aggregate decline rate of -8.4%. The decline rate was higher between 2014 and 2019 than between 2010 and 2014 (-11.6% vs -7.2%). From 2010 to 2019, IVCF placement for VTE treatment and prophylaxis trended downward at rates of -7.9% and -10.2%, respectively. Urban nonteaching hospitals saw the highest decline for both VTE treatment (-17.2%) and prophylactic indications (-18.0%). Hospitals located in the Northeast region had the highest decline rates for VTE treatment (-10.3%) and prophylactic indications (-12.5%).

CONCLUSION

The higher decline rate in IVCF placements between 2014 and 2019 compared with 2010 and 2014 suggests an additional impact of the renewed 2014 FDA safety indications on national IVCF utilization. Variations in IVCF use for VTE treatment and prophylactic indications existed across hospital teaching types, locations, and regions.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) are associated with medical complications. The 2010 and 2014 FDA safety warnings appeared to have synergistically contributed to a significant decline in IVCF utilization rates from 2010 - 2019 in the US. IVC filter placements in patients without venous thromboembolism (VTE) declined at a higher rate than VTE. However, IVCF utilization varied across hospitals and geographical locations, likely due to the absence of universally accepted clinical guidelines on IVCF indications and use. Harmonization of IVCF placement guidelines is needed to standardize clinical practice, thereby reducing the observed regional and hospital variations and potential IVC filter overutilization.

Perioperative Management of Incidental Pulmonary Embolisms on Trauma CT Scans: A Narrative Review

Unsuspected pulmonary embolism (PE) may be identified on an initial trauma computed tomography (CT) scan. The clinical importance of these incidental PEs remains to be elucidated. In patients who require surgery, careful management is needed. We sought to investigate the optimal perioperative management of such patients, including the use of pharmacological and mechanical thromboprophylaxis, possible thrombolytic therapy, and inferior vena cava (IVC) filters. A literature search was conducted, and all relevant articles were identified, investigated, and included. Medical guidelines were also consulted where appropriate. Pharmacological thromboprophylaxis is the mainstay of preoperative treatment, and low-molecular-weight heparins, fondaparinux, and unfractionated heparin may all be used. It has been suggested that prophylaxis should be administered as soon as possible after trauma. Such agents may be contraindicated in patients with significant bleeding, and mechanical prophylaxis and inferior vena cava filters may be favoured in these patients. Therapeutic anticoagulation and thrombolytic therapies may be considered but are associated with an increased risk of haemorrhage. Delaying surgery might help to minimise the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism, and any interruption of prophylaxis must be strategically planned. Recommendations for postoperative care include a continuation of prophylaxis and therapeutic anticoagulation, with follow-up clinical evaluation within six months. Incidental PE is a common finding on trauma CT scans. Although the clinical significance is unknown, careful management of the balance between anticoagulation and bleeding is needed, especially in trauma patients and even more so in trauma patients requiring surgery.

Back to the Basics: Inferior Vena Cava Filters

Inferior vena cava filters are an important therapeutic option for patients with venous thromboembolism and contraindication to anticoagulation. Indications for filter placement have varied over the previous decades. This article discusses the history of inferior vena cava filter use, with a basic overview of technology and specific devices. Finally, this article reviews emerging filter design and technology. Understanding the basics of inferior vena cava filters is critical to building more robust clinical data for the purpose of improving patient outcomes.

Efficacy and Safety of Mechanical IVC Filtration for Preventing Pulmonary Embolism in High-Risk Orthopedic Patients Undergoing Total Hip or Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

To determine the efficacy and safety of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters in preventing pulmonary embolism (PE) in high-risk patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty.

METHODS

2857 hip or knee arthroplasty procedures between January 2013 and December 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with a preoperative history of venous thromboembolism (VTE), either PE or deep venous thrombosis (DVT), were categorized as high-risk patients. The incidence of overall VTE, PE, and DVT were compared between patients with filters and those without. The subgroup analysis was also performed by patient risk, and filter status and the incidence of VTE, PE, and DVT were compared. Variables such as filter placement, history of hypercoagulability etcetra were evaluated as risk factors for the development of postoperative VTE.

RESULTS

In the high-risk group, the use of IVC filters was significantly associated with a lower incidence of pulmonary embolism (0.8% vs 5.5%, P = .028). When compared with the low-risk group, the high-risk group had significantly higher incidence of PE (3.8% vs 2.0%, P = .038), DVT (11.6% vs 5.3%, P < .001), and overall VTE (15.0% vs 6.8%, P < .001). The history of VTE was associated with postoperative VTE (P < .001), PE (P = .042), and DVT (P < .001). There was no significant correlation between filter placement and postoperative VTE, DVT, or PE in the low-risk group. Filter retrieval was successful in 100% (96/96) of attempted patients with no complications.

CONCLUSION

The use of IVC filters is significantly associated with a lower incidence in pulmonary embolism in high-risk arthroplasty patients. High-risk patients demonstrated an incidence of postoperative VTE over two times greater than other patients. Prophylactic placement of IVC filters in hip/knee arthroplasty is safe.

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. .

Venous Thromboembolism in Trauma: The Role of Anticoagulation and Inferior Vena Cava Filters

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a significant contributor to morbidity and mortality among patients with severe trauma. Historically, prophylactic inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) were used in high-risk trauma patients with suspected risk factors for VTE, including prolonged immobilization, and concurrent contraindication to anticoagulation. Mounting data regarding the efficacy of IVCF in this cohort, as well as concerns regarding morbidity of an in situ IVCF, have challenged this practice paradigm. In this review, we discuss the comanagement of VTE and trauma, including anticoagulation and the use of IVCF.

Prophylactic Inferior Vena Cava Filters : Outcomes in Severely Injured Trauma Patients

BACKGROUND

Patients with major trauma and contraindications to anticoagulation are often considered candidates for a prophylactic inferior vena cava filter (IVCF). Prophylactic IVCFs are controversial in trauma and backed by varying levels of evidence. This study aims to analyze outcomes in severely injured patients who receive IVCFs.

METHODS

A retrospective review of trauma patients aged ≥ 16 years with ISS ≥ 15 admitted to our level 1 trauma center from years 2013 through 2018. Patients were divided into 2 groups: prophylactic IVCF versus VTE chemoprophylaxis. The analysis evaluated demographics, stratified by ISS (15-24, 25-34, ≥35), and subgrouped those with AIS-Head ≥3. Adjusted outcome measures included DVT, PE, mortality, and ICU length-of-stay (ICU-LOS).

RESULTS

The study sample included 413 patients with prophylactic IVCFs and 2487 on VTE chemoprophylaxis. IVCF placement was associated with higher severity injuries: ISS 28 versus 25 and lower GCS 10.0 versus 11.8, TBI prevalence 83% versus 68% (P < .001). Patients with IVCFs had increased ICU-LOS (23.2 days vs 12.2 days), DVT (14.8% vs 4.3%), and PE (5.8% vs 1.6%) for patients with ISS <35 (P < .001). ISS ≥35 was not associated with intergroup DVT or PE rate differences (P = .81 and .43). No intergroup mortality differences were observed, including after ISS stratification. Among patients with AIS-Head ≥3, prophylactic IVCF was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (8.4% vs 15.7%, P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic IVCF placement was associated with higher rates of DVT and nonfatal PE, and prolonged ICU-LOS. Prophylactic IVCF placement was not associated with increased in-hospital mortality for severely injured trauma patients. Among patients with concomitant critical head injuries (AIS-Head ≥3), prophylactic IVCF placement was associated with lower in-hospital mortality than VTE chemoprophylaxis.

Timing of Prophylactic Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement and Trauma Outcomes : Does Early Placement Matter?

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) are often placed in trauma patients who cannot receive prophylactic anticoagulation. IVCFs are utilized in an effort to reduce the risk of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) and mortality. This study aims to investigate whether time-to-filter placement is associated with differences in trauma outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center retrospective review of adult trauma patients who underwent prophylactic IVCF placement. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on time-to-filter: 0-48 hours and >48 hours. Outcome measures included post-filter deep vein thrombosis (DVT), post-filter PE, in-hospital mortality, and ICU length of stay (ICU-LOS). Significance was defined as P < .05.

RESULTS

During the 6-year study period, 513 patients underwent prophylactic IVCF placement. Both groups were similar with respect to injury severity score (ISS) (P = .540), percent of patients on home anticoagulation (38% and 39%, P = .845), abbreviated injury scale (AIS) by anatomic region (P = .899), and traumatic brain injury (TBI) prevalence (P = .182). Time-to-filter was not associated with significant differences in DVT, PE, or in-hospital mortality (P > .05 for all). Filter placement in the first 48 hours was associated with shorter ICU-LOS and hospital-LOS.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there are no investigations in the trauma literature looking at the impact of time-to-filter on complications related to venous thromboembolism and potential survival benefit. Results of this investigation showed that IVCF placement within the first 48 hours was significantly associated with shorter ICU- and hospital- LOS.

Excimer Laser Sheath-Assisted Retrieval of "Closed-Cell" Design Inferior Vena Cava Filters

Background Numerous reports have shown that inferior vena cava filters are associated with clinically significant adverse events. Complicating factors, such as caval incorporation, may lead to technical challenges at retrieval. The use of advanced techniques including the laser sheath have increased technical success rates; however, the data are limited on which filter types necessitate and benefit from its use. Methods and Results From October 2011 to September 2019, patients with inferior vena cava filter dwell times >6 months or with prior failed retrievals were considered for laser sheath-assisted retrieval. Standard and nonlaser advanced retrieval techniques were attempted first; if the filter could not be safely or successfully detached from the caval wall using these techniques, the laser sheath was used. Technical success, filter type, necessity for laser sheath application based on "open" versus "closed-cell" filter design, dwell times, and adverse events were evaluated. A total of 441 patients (216 men; mean age, 54 years) were encountered. Mean dwell times for all filters was 56.6 months, 54.4 among closed-cell filters and 58.5 among open-cell filters (P=0.63). Technical success of retrieval was 98%, with the laser sheath required in 143 cases (40%). Successful retrieval of closed-cell filters required laser sheath assistance in 60% of cases as compared with 7% of open-cell filters (odds ratio, 20.1; P<0.01). In closed-cell inferior vena cava filters, dwell time was significantly associated with need for laser, requiring it in 64% of retrievals with dwell times >6 months (P=0.01). One major adverse event occurred among laser sheath retrievals when a patient required a 2-day inpatient admission for a femoral access site hemorrhage. Conclusions Closed-cell filters may necessitate the use of the laser sheath for higher rates of successful and safe retrieval.

Readmission after inferior vena cava filter placement for acute venous thromboembolism in the United States: Impact of a cancer diagnosis

BACKGROUND

Inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) use is common after a venous thromboembolic event (VTE). Cancer is associated with higher rates of VTEs and is also seen in a significant proportion of patients requiring IVCF. As hospital readmissions remain a frequently scrutinized metric, we sought to evaluate the impact of cancer on hospital-readmission rates and in-hospital outcomes among patients with VTEs who received an IVCF.

METHODS

Leveraging the 2013 to 2014 Nationwide Readmission Database, we identified adult patients presenting with a VTE in the United States and evaluated 30-day readmission rates and readmission in-hospital outcomes postindex-admission. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with readmission after an index-procedure, including traditional and nontraditional cardiovascular risk factors, as well as hospital-level characteristics.

RESULTS

Among the 619 241 patients presenting with a VTE at index-admission, 11.2% of patients received IVCF on index-admission, of which 30.9% had cancer. The 30-day readmission rate amongst IVCF recipients was 15.8% (N = 10 927), and 19.9% amongst those with cancer compared to 13.9% in patients without cancer (P < .001). Moreover, cancer patients had longer lengths of stay in the hospital (4.5 ± 0.2 vs 4.0 ± 0.1 days; P = .02), higher cost of care ($10 900 ± 308 vs $9242 ± 206; P = .007), but no difference in mortality (8.3% vs 6.3%; P = .70) during readmission compared to noncancer patients.

CONCLUSION

Readmission after IVCF placement is common. In patients readmitted after an IVCF implantation, those with cancer have longer hospital stays and higher costs of care. However, in-hospital mortality is similar to those without cancer.

Hemodynamic effects of blood clots trapped by an inferior vena cava filter

The alteration of blood flow around an OPTEASE inferior vena cava filter with one or two blood clots attached was investigated by means of computational fluid dynamics. We used a patient-specific vein wall geometry, and we generated different clot models with shapes adapted to the filter and vein wall geometries. A total of eight geometries, with one or two clots and a total clot volume of 0.5 or 1 cm³ , were considered. A non-Newtonian model for blood viscosity was adopted and the possible development of turbulence was accounted for by means of a three-equation model. Two blood flow rates were considered for each case, representative for rest and exercise conditions. In exercise conditions, flow unsteadiness and even turbulence was detected in some cases. Pressure and wall shear stress (WSS) distributions were modified in all cases. Clots attached to the filter downstream basket considerably increased averaged WSS values by up to almost 50%. In all the cases a flow recirculation region appeared downstream of the clot. The degree of flow stagnation in these regions, an indicator of propensity to thrombogenesis, was estimated in terms of mean residence times and mean blood viscosity. High levels of flow stagnation were detected in rest conditions in the wake of those clots that were placed upstream from the filter. Our results suggest that one downstream placed big clot, showing a higher tendency to induce flow instabilities and turbulence, might be more harmful than two small clots placed in tandem.

Radiologists' Field Guide to Retrievable and Convertible Inferior Vena Cava Filters

OBJECTIVE. Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are commonly used in patients who are at risk for life-threatening pulmonary embolism. After the introduction of permanent devices, numerous retrievable and convertible designs became available. Inaccurate identification can lead to confusion in options for filter retrieval and anticoagulation. CONCLUSION. This article highlights device designs of retrievable and convertible IVC filters to assist interpretation of diagnostic studies.

State-Level Variation in Inferior Vena Cava Filter Utilization Across Medicare and Commercially Insured Populations

OBJECTIVE. Recent research on inferior vena cava (IVC) filter utilization in the United States has largely focused on national aggregate Medicare datasets, showing recent declines. Whether these national Medicare trends are generalizable across regions and payer populations is unknown. We studied recent state-level variation in IVC filter utilization across both Medicare and private insurance populations. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Using large individual beneficiary claims-level Medicare research identifiable files and a proprietary U.S. research database of the commercially insured population, we identified all billed IVC filter placement procedures performed between 2009 and 2015. We compared population-adjusted utilization rates by state and payer type. RESULTS. Between 2009 and 2015, IVC filter utilization across the United States declined by 36.3% (from 177.9 to 113.3 procedures per 100,000 beneficiaries) in the Medicare population and by 26.6% (from 32.7 to 24.0 procedures per 100,000 beneficiaries) in the privately insured population. For the Medicare population, state-level utilization rates varied 5.2-fold, from 48.4 to 251.3 procedures per 100,000 beneficiaries in Alaska and New Jersey, respectively. For the private insurance population, rates varied 5.5-fold, from 10.8 to 59.5 procedures per 100,000 beneficiaries in Oregon and Michigan, respectively. Nationally, utilization in the Medicare population was 5.0 times higher than that in the private insurance population (range by state, from 2.0 times higher in Hawaii to 11.1 times higher in Utah). Despite the national decline, utilization in Medicare and private insurance populations increased in five and seven states, respectively. State-level IVC filter utilization rates for the Medicare population correlated strongly with those for the privately insured population (r = 0.74; p < 0.001). In both the Medicare and privately insured populations, utilization rates correlated moderately with beneficiary age (r = 0.44 and r = 0.50, respectively; p < 0.001 for both). CONCLUSION. IVC filter utilization rates vary dramatically by state and payer population, and they likely depend in part on the age of the covered population. To better identify demographic and socioeconomic drivers of utilization, future research should prioritize nonaggregate multipayer claims-level approaches.

A comparative CFD study of four inferior vena cava filters

Computational fluid dynamics was used to simulate the flow of blood within an inferior vena cava (IVC) geometry model that was reconstructed from computed tomography images obtained from a real patient. The main novelty of the present work is that we simulated the implantation of 4 different filter models in this realistic IVC geometry. We considered different blood flow rates in the range between V_in =20 and V_in =80 cm³ /s, and all simulations were performed with both the Newtonian and a non-Newtonian model for the blood viscosity. We compared the hemodynamics performance of the different filter models, and we paid a special attention to the total drag force, F_d , exerted by the blood flow on the filter surface. This force is the sum of 2 contributions: the viscous skin friction force, which was found to be roughly proportional to the filter surface area, and the pressure force, which depended on the particular filter geometry design. The F_d force is relevant because it must be balanced by the total force exerted by the filter hooks/struts on the IVC wall at the attachment locations. For the highest V_in value investigated, the variation in F_d among filters was from 116 to 308 dyne. We also showed how the present results can be extrapolated to obtain good estimates of the drag forces if the blood viscosity levels change, ie, if the patient with a filter implanted is treated with anticoagulant therapy.

Inferior Vena Cava Filters and Prevention of Recurrent Pulmonary Embolism

Although inferior vena cava (IVC) filters have a clear role in preventing recurrent pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients with venous thromboembolism who cannot be anticoagulated, the role of filters in patients who are candidates for anticoagulation is controversial. With limited and conflicting data, practitioners often have to make an educated patient-specific decision when encountering this scenario. This article reviews the available data on the efficacy and risks associated with adjunctive IVC filter use to prevent recurrent PE.

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.

Patient and hospital characteristics predictive of inferior vena cava filter usage in venous thromboembolism patients: A study from the 2013 to 2014 Nationwide Readmissions Database

To examine the association between patient and hospital characteristics and inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) utilization in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE).The 2013 to 2014 Nationwide Readmissions Database was used to define a cohort of patients with VTE aged ≥18 after a primary VTE diagnosis. Comorbidities of interest were classified via diagnosis codes and IVCF placement was identified via procedure code. Chi square analysis tested differences between patient and hospital-level characteristics and whether or not IVCFs were placed. A hierarchical logistic regression model estimated the relationship between patient-level factors (demographics, socioeconomic status, comorbidities), hospital-level factors (bed size, teaching status, urbanity) and whether or not IVCFs were placed. Additional models were specified to examine goodness of fit across methodological alternatives.There were 212,395 VTE hospitalizations, with 12.18% (n = 25,877) receiving IVCF placement. There were significant differences between those who did and did not receive IVCF placement; notably, those receiving IVCFs were older (P < .001), had Medicare insurance more than private (P < .001), longer lengths of stay (P < .001), and were in privately owned hospitals (P < .001). IVCF placement remained significantly associated with patient and hospital-level characteristics following multivariate adjustment via hierarchical logistic regression; notably, age >80 (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR]: 2.53, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.25-2.85), ≥13 comorbid conditions (aOR: 3.85, 95% CI: 3.25-4.27), and privately owned hospitals (aOR: 1.21, 95% CI: 1.08-1.36). Optimal goodness-of-fit was achieved with a combination of random effects and patient-level fixed effects.These findings provide evidence that combinations of patient and hospital-level factors are related to whether patients with VTE receive IVCFs.

Deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis: Are we overdoing? An Asian survey on trends in bariatric surgery with a systematic review of literature

Background:

Obesity is a risk factor for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and venous thromboembolism (VTE). VTE is the most common cause of mortality in patients undergoing bariatric surgery. There is considerable variation in practice regarding methods, dosages and duration of prophylaxis in this patient population. Most of the literature is based on Western patients and specific guidelines for Asians do not exist.

Methods:

We conducted a web-based survey amongst 11 surgeons from high-volume centres in Asia regarding their DVT prophylaxis measures in patients undergoing bariatric surgery. We collected and analysed the data.

Results:

The reported incidence of DVT and VTE ranged from 0% to 0.2%. Most surgeons (63.64%) preferred to use both mechanical and chemoprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin being the most preferred form of chemoprophylaxis (81.82%). There was an equal distribution of weight-based, body mass index-based and fixed-dose regimens. Duration of chemoprophylaxis ranged from 3–5 days after surgery to 2 weeks after surgery. For high-risk patients, 60% surgeons preferred to start chemoprophylaxis at least 1 week before surgery. Routine use of inferior vena cava filters in high-risk patients was not preferred with some surgeons adopting a selective use (36.36%).

Conclusion:

The purpose of this survey was to understand the trends in DVT prophylaxis amongst different high-volume bariatric centres in Asia and to relate the same with the existing literature on the different steps in prophylaxis. There is, however, a need for consensus guidelines for DVT prophylaxis in Asian obese.

Pulmonary Embolism: The Astute Interventional Radiology Clinician

There has been a resurgence of interest in defining the optimal treatment for severe pulmonary embolism (PE), fueled by pivotal and provocative trials, new catheter-based medical devices, and growing evidence of deleterious short- and long-term outcomes. In this environment, and especially given the multidisciplinary nature of PE care, the interventional radiologist (IR) needs to become an astute, disease-specific expert. This review article describes the following "steps" an IR can take to reach this level: (1) understand PE stratification and epidemiology; (2) recognize the treatment goals for massive PE; (3) recognize the wide range of attitudes toward therapeutic escalation for submassive PE; (4) recognize what we do not know about the treatment of submassive PE and the limitations of current studies; (5) know the literature surrounding inferior vena cava filter insertion for severe PE; (6) integrate into the longitudinal care of the patient; and (7) be at the leading edge of new trials and technologies.

The use of retrievable inferior vena cava filters in pregnancy: Another successful case report, but are we actually making a difference?

BACKGROUND

Pregnant women with venous thromboembolism are traditionally managed with anticoagulation, but inferior vena cava filters are an alternative. We balanced risks and benefits of an inferior vena cava filter in a decision analysis.

METHODS

We constructed a decision model to compare in pregnant women with VTE the outcome of (1) inferior vena cava filter and anticoagulant treatment versus (2) anticoagulant treatment only.

RESULTS

Assuming a 63% risk reduction from an inferior vena cava filter (baseline mortality rate of venous thromboembolism of 0.5%), 318 women would need to be treated with inferior vena cava filters to prevent one venous thromboembolism related maternal death. Sensitivity analyses indicated that at a mortality rate of 0.5% the risk reduction from inferior vena cava filters needed to be 80%, while at a mortality rate of 2% a risk reduction of 20% would justify inferior vena cava filters.

CONCLUSIONS

In view of their potential morbidity, inferior vena cava filters should be restricted to pregnant woman at strongly increased risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism.

Permanent versus Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters: Rethinking the "One-Filter-for-All" Approach to Mechanical Thromboembolic Prophylaxis

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filtration for thromboembolic protection is not without risks, and there are important differences among commercially available IVC filters. While retrievable filters are approved for permanent implantation, they may be associated with higher device-related complications in the long term when compared with permanent filters. Prospective patient selection in determining which patients might be better served by permanent or retrievable filter devices is central to resource optimization, in addition to improved clinical follow-up and a concerted effort to retrieve filters when no longer needed. This article highlights the differences between permanent and retrievable devices, describes the interplay between these differences and the clinical indications for IVC filtration, advises against a "one-filter-for-all" approach to mechanical thromboembolic prophylaxis, and discusses strategies for optimizing personalized device selection.

Inferior Vena Cava Filters: Guidelines, Best Practice, and Expanding Indications

Vena caval interruption, currently accomplished by percutaneous image-guided insertion of an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter, is an important therapeutic option in the management of selected patients with venous thromboembolism. The availability of optional (or retrievable) filters, in particular, has altered the practice patterns for IVC filters, with a shift to these devices and expansion of indications for filter placement. As new devices have become available and clinicians have become more familiar and comfortable with IVC filters, the indications for filter placement have continued to evolve and expand. This article reviews current guidelines and expanding indications for IVC filter placement.

Retrievable inferior vena cava filters can be placed and removed with a high degree of success: Initial experience

OBJECTIVES

Evaluate the success rate of retrievable inferior vena cava filter (IVC) removal in a tertiary care practice.

BACKGROUND

Retrievable IVC filters became readily available in the United States following Food and Drug Administration approval in 2003, and their use has increased dramatically. They represent an attractive option for patients with contraindications to anticoagulation who may only need short-term protection against pulmonary embolism.

METHODS

All patients who had undergone placement of a retrievable IVC filter at Mayo Clinic between 2003 and 2005 were retrospectively reviewed to evaluate our initial experience with retrievable inferior vena cava filters at a large tertiary care center.

RESULTS

During a three-year-period of time, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN placed 892 IVC filters of which 460 were retrievable. Of the 460 retrievable filters placed (249 Günther Tulip®, 207 Recovery®, and 4 OptEase®), retrieval was attempted in 223 (48.5%). Of 223 initial attempts, 196 (87.9%) were initially successful and 27 (12.1%) were unsuccessful. Of the 27 unsuccessful initial retrieval attempts, 23 (85.2%) were because of the presence of significant thrombus within the filter and 4 (14.8%) were because of tilting and strut perforation. Of the 23 filters containing significant thrombus, 9 (39.1%) were later retrieved after a period of anticoagulation and resolution of the thrombus.

CONCLUSIONS

Retrievable IVC filters can be removed with a high degree of success. Approximately one in ten retrievable IVC filter removal attempts may fail initially, usually because of significant thrombus within the filter. This does not preclude possible removal at a later date.

Troubleshooting OptEase inferior vena cava filter retrieval

For treatment of deep vein thrombosis and prevention of pulmonary thromboembolism, a retrievable inferior vena cava filter is commonly utilized as an effective bridge to anticoagulation. However, we have experienced difficulties in retrieving inferior vena cava filters. Endovascular retrieval assisted by disposable biopsy forceps is an appropriate approach because it provides a less-invasive low-cost way to remove a migrated filter. We suggest this troubleshooting technique to deal with filter hook migration into the caval wall.

Venous thromboembolic disease: the use of "optional" inferior vena cava filters

Approximately 140,000 to 200,000 patients die as a result of pulmonary embolism in the United States each year. If the diagnosis is made and therapy initiated, the mortality rate drops to 8%. Vena cava filters play a role in the management of patients with thromboembolic disease. Deployment of "optional" filters is changing practice paradigms.