Inferior vena cava filter thromboprophylaxis in surgical cancer patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the utilization and outcomes of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters as thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients undergoing surgery. METHODS: This single-center retrospective study analyzed baseline patient characteristics and clinical outcomes of surgical cancer patients who received perioperative prophylactic IVC filters. Primary clinical endpoints included venous thromboembolism (VTE) incidence and filter complications. A statistical correlative analysis was conducted to identify risk factors related to pulmonary embolism (PE), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and filter thrombi, as well as advanced technique filter removal and mortality at 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 252 surgical oncology patients (median age, 59; female 51%) received IVC filters for the perioperative prevention of PE. Primary surgical sites included spine (n = 91, 36%), orthopedic extremity/joint (n = 49, 19%), genitourinary (n = 47, 19%), brain/cranial (n = 40, 16%), abdominal (n = 18, 7%), multisite (n = 4, 2%), and chest (n = 3, 1%). Moreover, 15% of patients experienced DVTs in the postplacement preretrieval period, while 2% (n = 6) of patients experienced definitive PEs. A total of 36% of IVC filters were ultimately retrieved, with an average filter dwell time of 7.4 months. Complications occurred in one retrieval. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic perioperative IVC filters in surgical cancer patients resulted in minimal complications while ultimately resulting in a low incidence of PE.

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.

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.

Hypercoagulability Due to COVID-19 Leading to Impending Phlegmasia Cerulea Dolens and Sub-Massive Bilateral Pulmonary Embolism.

This is a case report of a 47-year-old male with a history of hypertension and pre-diabetes who presented to the emergency department with dyspnea, progressive unilateral leg swelling and pain. The patient tested positive for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection about a week earlier. The patient was found to have an extensive clot burden of his lower extremity veins, both deep and superficial, which extended to his inferior vena cava (IVC). Based on the patient's clinical exam and ultrasound findings, the patient was diagnosed with impending phlegmasia cerulea dolens. Due to his renal failure, the patient was taken for a ventilation/perfusion (V/Q) scan which found widespread V/Q mismatch highly suggestive of pulmonary embolism. Interventional radiology took the patient for lower extremity venogram, catheter-directed alteplase administration, and IVC filter placement. The patient was admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for further management and had a stable recovery.

Iliocaval reconstruction of chronically thrombosed cylindrical inferior vena cava filters with balloon expandable covered stent-grafts.

The use of a Viabahn VBX endoprosthesis (W. L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, Ariz) to exclude chronically thrombosed inferior vena cava (IVC) filters refractory to exclusion with self-expanding stents was evaluated. The mean duration of TrapEase IVC (Cordis, Milpitas, Calif) implantation was 7.6 years (range, 2-11 years). Symptoms included leg pain, edema, color changes, and back pain. The mean Villalta score and venous clinical severity score were 17 (range, 13-23) and 13 (range, 11-15), respectively. Indirect ultrasound evidence of stent patency was demonstrated at a mean of 8 months after intervention. The mean Villalta score and venous clinical severity score had decreased by 13 and 10, respectively, at a mean of 9.5 months after intervention. Iliocaval reconstruction with Viabahn VBX balloon expandable stent-graft exclusion of chronically thrombosed TrapEase IVC filters is safe, with favorable short-term results.

Cost-effectiveness of early placement of vena cava filters to prevent symptomatic pulmonary embolism in patients with contraindications to prophylactic anticoagulant.

INTRODUCTION: Vena cava filters have been used as a primary means to prevent symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) in trauma patients who cannot be anticoagulated after severe injury, but the economic implications for this practice remain unclear. METHODS: Using a healthcare system perspective to analyze the a priori primary outcome of the da Vinci trial, we report the cost-effectiveness of using vena cava filters as a primary means to prevent PE in patients who have contraindications to prophylactic anticoagulation after major trauma. RESULTS: Of the 240 patients enrolled, complete, prospectively collected, hospital cost data during the entire hospital stay - including costs for the filter, medical/nursing/allied health staff, medical supplies, pathology tests, and radiological imaging - were available in 223 patients (93%). Patients allocated to the filter group (n = 114) were associated with a reduced risk of PE (0.9%) compared to those in the control group (n = 109, 5.5%; p = 0.048); and the filter's benefit was more pronounced among those who could not be anticoagulated within 7 days (filter: 0% vs control: 16%, Bonferroni-corrected p = 0.02). Overall, the cost needed to prevent one PE was high (AUD $379,760), but among those who could not be anticoagulated within 7 days, the costs to prevent one PE (AUD $36,156; ~ USD $26,032) and gain one quality-adjusted life-year (AUD $30,903; ~ USD $22,250) were substantially lower. CONCLUSION: The cost of using a vena cava filter to prevent PE for those who have contraindications to prophylactic anticoagulation within 3 days of injury is prohibitive, unless such contraindications remain for longer than 7 days. (Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry no.: ACTRN12614000963628).

Comparative efficacy and safety of the Captus device for inferior vena cava filter retrieval.

PURPOSE: Retrievable inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) have been increasingly used for mechanical pulmonary embolism prophylaxis since their development. The Captus Vascular Retrieval System (Avantec Vascular, Sunnyvale, California) is a new device developed for retrieval of IVCF. This study compared the safety and efficacy of the new Captus device against the existing EnSnare Endovascular Snare System (Merit Medical, South Jordan, Utah) for IVCF retrieval. METHODS: Patients undergoing IVCF retrieval at a single institution between July 2015 and July 2020 were retrospectively identified. All adult patients (>18 years) undergoing filter retrieval with either Captus or Ensnare were included. Technical success and complications were compared by device. A complexity score was assigned to each case to adjust for selection bias. Logistic regression was used to model the association between device type and primary technical success. RESULTS: 99 IVCF retrievals met inclusion criteria, 59 with Captus and 40 with Ensnare. The majority of the cohort consisted of low complexity cases (n = 51, 86% Captus versus n = 31, 78% Ensnare; p = 0.28). Technical success for low and medium complexity retrievals was 88% and 62% with Captus and 96% and 33% with Ensnare. There was no significant association between device type and technical success, adjusting for case complexity (Captus OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.08-2.72, p = 0.49). There were no device-related complications. CONCLUSION: No statistically significant difference in device technical success or complications between the Ensnare and Captus devices for uncomplicated IVCF retrieval. PRECIS: The Captus Vascular Retrieval System is a new device for IVC filter retrieval which has similar technical success to the existing EnSnare.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiologic Management of Venous Thromboembolism-Inferior Vena Cava Filters.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE)-deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism-is a common cause of morbidity and mortality. The mainstay of VTE prophylaxis and therapy is anticoagulation. In select patients with VTE, inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are used to prevent pulmonary embolism by trapping emboli as they pass from the lower extremity venous system through the IVC. These guidelines review the indications for placement of IVC filters in acute and chronic VTE, as well as the indications for retrieval of implanted IVC filters. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Single-session inferior vena cava filter removal, recanalization, and endovenous reconstruction for chronic iliocaval thrombosis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of treatment of inferior vena cava filter (IVCF)-related chronic iliocaval thrombosis with single-session IVCF retrieval and iliocaval recanalization, thereby optimizing stent deployment and avoiding adverse events (AEs) related to stent placement across an obstructed filter. METHODS: From January 2015 to April 2018, a cohort of 25 consecutive patients presented for treatment of IVCF-related chronic iliocaval thrombosis with filter retrieval, followed by recanalization with stent placement and adjunctive iliofemoral thrombectomy as needed. Inclusion criteria included computed tomography (CT) imaging and clinical presentations consistent with chronic (>30 days) IVCF-related chronic thrombosis. A retrospective analysis of technical success, clinical success as measured with the Venous Clinical Severity Score, use of advanced filter retrieval techniques, and AEs was performed. Primary patency was evaluated with CT at 1 to 3 months and 1 year. Data analysis was performed using a paired t-test. RESULTS: There were 25 patients (median age, 58.0 years; standard deviation, 15.6 years) with eight types of IVCF encountered; all were treated in a single session. Technical success was achieved in all patients. Mean improvement in the Venous Clinical Severity Score was 1.4 (95% confidence interval, 1.0-1.7; P < .01) in the venous edema subscore and 0.6 (95% confidence interval, 0.2-1.0; P < .01) in the pain subscore. At 1 to 3 months, iliocaval stent patency was maintained in 96% of patients; unilateral iliac vein stent thrombus was seen in one patient. One-year follow-up was available in eight patients, with CT imaging demonstrating maintained patency. Median filter implantation time was 12.3 months (mean, 41.9 months; range, 0.8-245.1 months; standard deviation, 63.3 months). Advanced IVCF retrieval techniques were required for 17 procedures. One major AE and minor AE occurred; no patients died in the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Single-session iliocaval recanalization with IVCF retrieval has high rates of technical and clinical success in patients with IVCF-related chronic iliocaval thrombosis.

Hospitalization metrics associated with hospital-level variation in inferior vena cava filter utilization for patients with venous thromboembolism in the United States: Implications for quality of care.

Variation in the use of inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) across hospitals has been observed, suggesting differences in quality of care. Hospitalization metrics associated with venous thromboembolism (VTE) patients have not been compared based on IVCF utilization rates using a national sample. We conducted a descriptive retrospective study using the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) to delineate the variability of hospitalization metrics across the hospital quartiles of IVCF utilization for VTE patients. The NRD included all-payer administrative inpatient records drawn from 22 states. Adult (≥ 18 years) patients with VTE hospitalizations with or without IVCF were identified from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2014 and hospitals were divided into quartiles based on the IVCF utilization rate as a proportion of VTE patients. Primary outcome measures were observed rates of in-hospital mortality, 30-day all-cause readmissions and VTE-related readmissions, cost, and length of stay. Patient case-mix characteristics and hospital-level factors by hospital quartiles of IVCF utilization rates, were compared. Overall, 12.29% of VTE patients had IVCF placement, with IVCF utilization ranging from 0% to 46.84%. The highest quartile had fewer pulmonary embolism patients relative to deep vein thrombosis patients, and older patient ages were present in higher quartiles. The highest quartile of hospitals placing IVCFs were more often private, for-profit, and non-teaching. Patient and hospital characteristics and hospitalization metrics varied by IVCF utilization rates, but hospitalization outcomes for non-IVCF patients varied most between quartiles. Future work investigating the implications of IVCF utilization rates as a measure of quality of care for VTE patients is needed.

Predicting inferior vena cava (IVC) filter retrievability using positional parameters: A comparative study of various filter types.

PURPOSE: To compare changes in inferior vena cava (IVC) filter positional parameters from insertion to removal and examine how they affect retrievability amongst various filter types. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 447 patients (260 men, 187 women) with a mean age of 55 years (range: 13-91 years) who underwent IVC filter retrieval between 2007-2014 were retrospectively included. Post-insertion and pre-retrieval angiographic studies were assessed for filter tilt, migration, strut wall penetration and retrieval outcomes. ANCOVA and multiple logistic regression models were used to analyze factors affecting retrieval success. Pairwise comparisons between filter types were performed. RESULTS: Of 488 IVC filter retrieval attempts, 94.1% were ultimately successful. The ALN filter had the highest mean absolute value of tilt (5.6 degrees), the Optease filter demonstrated the largest mean migration (-8.0mm) and the Bard G2 filter showed highest mean penetration (5.2mm). Dwell time of 0-90 days (OR, 11.1; P=0.01) or 90-180 days (OR, 2.6; P=0.02), net tilt of 10-15 degrees (OR 8.9; P=0.05), caudal migration of -10 to 0mm (OR, 3.46; P=0.03) and penetration less than 3mm (OR, 2.6; P=0.01) were positive predictors of successful retrievability. Higher odds of successful retrieval were obtained for the Bard G2X, Bard G2 and Cook Celect when compared to the ALN and Cordis Optease filters. CONCLUSION: Shorter dwell time, lower mean tilt, caudal migration and less caval wall penetration are positive predictors of successful IVC filter retrieval.

The Role of Inferior Vena Cava Filters in Cancer Patients.

Cancer induces a hypercoagulable state and renders patients susceptible to venous thromboembolism. While anticoagulation remains the mainstay of treatment, many of these patients require placement of an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter, often due to a contraindication to or failure of anticoagulation. In this article, the available data on IVC filter usage in cancer patients will be reviewed.

Evidence-Based Evaluation of Inferior Vena Cava Filter Complications Based on Filter Type.

Many inferior vena cava (IVC) filter types, along with their specific risks and complications, are not recognized. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the various FDA-approved IVC filter types to determine device-specific risks, as a way to help identify patients who may benefit from ongoing follow-up versus prompt filter retrieval. An evidence-based electronic search (FDA Premarket Notification, MEDLINE, FDA MAUDE) was performed to identify all IVC filter types and device-specific complications from 1980 to 2014. Twenty-three IVC filter types (14 retrievable, 9 permanent) were identified. The devices were categorized as follows: conical (n = 14), conical with umbrella (n = 1), conical with cylindrical element (n = 2), biconical with cylindrical element (n = 2), helical (n = 1), spiral (n = 1), and complex (n = 1). Purely conical filters were associated with the highest reported risks of penetration (90-100%). Filters with cylindrical or umbrella elements were associated with the highest reported risk of IVC thrombosis (30-50%). Conical Bard filters were associated with the highest reported risks of fracture (40%). The various FDA-approved IVC filter types were evaluated for device-specific complications based on best current evidence. This information can be used to guide and optimize clinical management in patients with indwelling IVC filters.

A Dedicated Inferior Vena Cava Filter Service Line: How to Optimize Your Practice.

Despite the increased placement of retrievable inferior vena cava filters (rIVCFs), efforts to remove these devices are not commensurate. The majority of rIVCFs are left in place beyond their indicated usage, and often are retained permanently. With a growing understanding of the clinical issues associated with these devices, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has prompted clinicians to remove rIVCF when they are no longer indicated. However, major obstacles exist to filter retrieval, chief among them being poor clinical follow-up. The establishment of a dedicated IVC filter service line, or clinic, has been shown to improve filter retrieval rates. Usage of particular devices, specifically permanent versus retrievable filters, is enhanced by prospective physician consultation. In this article, the rationale behind a dedicated IVC filter service line is presented as well as described the structure and activities of the authors' IVC filter clinic; supporting data will also be provided when appropriate.

Observations on failed retrieval of optional inferior vena cava filters.

PURPOSE: To evaluate causes of failed optional inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) retrievals. METHODS: Single-center retrospective study. RESULTS: IVCF retrievals were attempted in 26/211 (12%) patients at a mean 42.9 days. There were 9 failures (all OptEase) due to: inability to snare the hook (n=5), noncollapsible IVCF (n=3), and unusual procedural pain (n=1). Median duration of retrieved IVCFs was 31 days compared to 53 days for failures (P<.05). IVCFs aligned with the IVC's cephalocaudal axis were retrieved in 13/16 cases, while misaligned IVCFs were retrieved 4/10 cases (P<.05). CONCLUSION: Filter duration and misalignment were significantly associated with retrieval failures.

A fractured inferior vena cava filter strut migrating to the left pulmonary artery.

Inferior vena cava filters are increasingly used in patients with recurrent venous thromboembolism who are contraindicated to anticoagulation. Migration of a broken strut to the pulmonary artery is a very rare complication of these filters. We report the case of an 83-year-old female who experienced this complication with the migratory strut remaining in the same position for years. This case provides evidence that such filters probably have higher rates of complications than what has been thought that remain asymptomatic. The indications and the management of complications of such devices need to be studied further.

A single center experience with retrievable IVC filters.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate retrievable IVC filters in our institution and assess their retrieval following a well-structured follow up program. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. MATERIALS: The medical records of patients implanted with retrievable IVC filters were reviewed. METHODS: All retrievable filter insertions between July 2007 and August 2011 at our institution were reviewed. Data was analyzed for age, gender, indication, complications, retrieval rate, and brand of filter inserted. Statistical analysis was done using SPSS software v19. Chi-square was used to compare discrete data and t-test for continuous data. P < 0.05 was significant. RESULTS: A total of 484 patients were reviewed of which 258 (53.1%) had a complete medical record. And 96 (37.2%) filters were placed as permanent at the time of insertion. An additional 40 (15.5%) filters were converted to permanent (total permanent filters 136; 52.7%). Death was reported in 26 (10%) patients and 96 (37.2%) out of the remaining 232 patients presented for potential retrieval. Also, 73 (28.2%) had an attempt to retrieve the filters, 69 (94.5%) were successful and 4 (5.4%) failed to retrieve. The remaining 23 (8.9%) patients declined retrieval. Filters studied include Celect (38%), Bard (31.4%), Option (26.2%), Tulip (4.1%), and Recovery (0.2%). Bard was more commonly used as a retrievable filter (80.9%). Retrieval on the first attempt was 90.4% (n = 66) successful. Of the remaining seven filters, three were successfully retrieved on a second attempt, and four failed to retrieve due to filter tilt. The success rates of retrieval for Celect and Tulip were significantly lower than for Bard (p = 0.04 and 0.023, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our study showed that a variety of IVC filters can be retrieved successfully with minimal complication rates. In more than half of our patients, IVC filters were used as permanent. Failure of retrieval was most frequently due to filter tilting.