Leveraging Generative Artificial Intelligence Models in Patient Education on Inferior Vena Cava Filters.

Background: Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) filters have become an advantageous treatment modality for patients with venous thromboembolism. As the use of these filters continues to grow, it is imperative for providers to appropriately educate patients in a comprehensive yet understandable manner. Likewise, generative artificial intelligence models are a growing tool in patient education, but there is little understanding of the readability of these tools on IVC filters. Methods: This study aimed to determine the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), Flesch-Kincaid, and Gunning Fog readability of IVC Filter patient educational materials generated by these artificial intelligence models. Results: The ChatGPT cohort had the highest mean Gunning Fog score at 17.76 ± 1.62 and the lowest at 11.58 ± 1.55 among the Copilot cohort. The difference between groups for Flesch Reading Ease scores (p = 8.70408 × 10-8) was found to be statistically significant albeit with priori power found to be low at 0.392. Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that the answers generated by the Microsoft Copilot cohort offers a greater degree of readability compared to ChatGPT cohort regarding IVC filters. Nevertheless, the mean Flesch-Kincaid readability for both cohorts does not meet the recommended U.S. grade reading levels.

Evolving Landscape of Inferior Vena Cava Filter Utilization: A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis.

This bibliometric analysis scrutinizes the evolution and current challenges in the use of Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) filters, focusing on trends from 2004 to 2023. Analyzing 2470 records, we report the United States' dominant role, with over half of the studies, and a significant shift towards retrievable filters. Despite technological advancements, controversies persist regarding efficacy, safety, and retrieval issues. Our findings point to the need for refined clinical guidelines and enhanced management strategies to navigate the complex landscape of IVC filter utilization effectively.

Inferior vena cava filters: Concept review and summary of current guidelines.

Anticoagulation is the first-line approach in the prevention and treatment of pulmonary embolism. In some instances, however, anticoagulation fails, or cannot be administered due to a high risk of bleeding. Inferior vena cava filters are metal alloy devices that mechanically trap emboli from the deep leg veins halting their transit to the pulmonary circulation, thus providing a mechanical alternative to anticoagulation in such conditions. The Greenfield filter was developed in 1973 and was later perfected to a model that could be inserted percutaneously. Since then, this model has been the reference standard. The current class I indication for this device includes absolute contraindication to anticoagulants in the presence of acute thromboembolism and recurrent thromboembolism despite adequate therapy. Additional indications have been more recently proposed, due to the development of removable filters and of progressively less invasive techniques. Although the use of inferior vena cava filters has solid theoretical advantages, clinical efficacy and adverse event profile are still unclear. This review analyzes the most important studies related to such devices, open issues, and current guideline recommendations.

Complications Associated With Inferior Vena Cava Filter Retrieval: A Systematic Review.

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters have been used successfully in high-risk patients to prevent thromboembolism. The filters are widely created as retrievable devices, but complication rates progressively increase during IVC filter retrieval. This study aims to analyze IVC filter retrieval cases and associated complications during and following the procedures regarding dwell times, specific filter types, filter positioning, and advanced retrieval techniques. This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to select and analyze relevant articles. A literature search for articles was performed on September 23, 2023, through three research databases: PubMed, ProQuest, and ScienceDirect. The keywords used to identify relevant publications were "IVC Filter retrieval AND complications" and "IVC filter removal AND complications". The articles before 2012 were excluded. Relevant articles were selected based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. In total, 20,435 articles were found: 812 from PubMed, 15,635 from ProQuest, and 3,988 from Science Direct. Among the exclusions were 18,462 articles, which were excluded in the automatic screening process, leaving 1,973 for manual screening. The manual screening of articles was conducted based on title, abstract, article type, duplicates, and case reports, where 1,918 articles were excluded. Ultimately, 55 articles were included in this review. This study demonstrates that IVC filter retrievals have significant complication rates. Many complications have a common theme: prolonged dwell time and lost follow-up appointments. Therefore, importance should be placed on patient education and implementing strict protocols regarding the timelines of IVC filter removals.

Detecting and Characterizing Inferior Vena Cava Filters on Abdominal Computed Tomography with Data-Driven Computational Frameworks.

Two data-driven algorithms were developed for detecting and characterizing Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) filters on abdominal computed tomography to assist healthcare providers with the appropriate management of these devices to decrease complications: one based on 2-dimensional data and transfer learning (2D + TL) and an augmented version of the same algorithm which accounts for the 3-dimensional information leveraging recurrent convolutional neural networks (3D + RCNN). The study contains 2048 abdominal computed tomography studies obtained from 439 patients who underwent IVC filter placement during the 10-year period from January 1st, 2009, to January 1st, 2019. Among these, 399 patients had retrievable filters, and 40 had non-retrievable filter types. The reference annotations for the filter location were obtained through a custom-developed interface. The ground truth annotations for the filter types were determined based on the electronic medical record and physician review of imaging. The initial stage of the framework returns a list of locations containing metallic objects based on the density of the structure. The second stage processes the candidate locations and determines which one contains an IVC filter. The final stage of the pipeline classifies the filter types as retrievable vs. non-retrievable. The computational models are trained using Tensorflow Keras API on an Nvidia Quadro GV100 system. We utilized a fine-tuning supervised training strategy to conduct our experiments. We find that the system achieves high sensitivity on detecting the filter locations with a high confidence value. The 2D + TL model achieved a sensitivity of 0.911 and a precision of 0.804, and the 3D + RCNN model achieved a sensitivity of 0.923 and a precision of 0.853 for filter detection. The system confidence for the IVC location predictions is high: 0.993 for 2D + TL and 0.996 for 3D + RCNN. The filter type prediction component of the system achieved 0.945 sensitivity, 0.882 specificity, and 0.97 AUC score with 2D + TL and 0. 940 sensitivity, 0.927 specificity, and 0.975 AUC score with 3D + RCNN. With the intent to create tools to improve patient outcomes, this study describes the initial phase of a computational framework to support healthcare providers in detecting patients with retained IVC filters, so an individualized decision can be made to remove these devices when appropriate, to decrease complications. To our knowledge, this is the first study that curates abdominal computed tomography (CT) scans and presents an algorithm for automated detection and characterization of IVC filters.

Venous Thromboembolism: The Need for Transitions of Care.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that approximately 900,000 patients are diagnosed with venous thromboembolism (VTE) annually in the United States leading to approximately 548,000 hospitalizations and 100,000 deaths. Approximately 274 people die daily in the United States from VTE. The numbers are staggering with 1 person dying every 5 minutes! There are more deaths annually in the United States from VTE than breast cancer (41,000), AIDS (16,000), and motor vehicle accidents (32,000) combined! VTE is recognized as a leading cause of preventable hospital deaths and a leading cause of maternal deaths.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Immediate and delayed complications of inferior vena cava filters.

OBJECTIVE: Inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement has increased dramatically in the past two decades. However, literature supporting the efficacy of these devices has been limited and controversial. In the present study, we have evaluated the predictors and rates of technical complications after IVC filter insertion in a large national database. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative registry was explored (January 2013 to December 2020). Immediate complications were defined as venous injury requiring treatment, filter misplacement (failure to open, deployed >20 mm from intended site or in wrong vein, embolized to the heart), angulation >20°, and insertion site complications. Delayed complications were defined as migration, angulation >15°, fracture, caval and/or iliac thrombosis, filter thrombus, fragment embolization, and perforation. The Pearson χ2 test was used to compare the baseline characteristics between the patients who had developed immediate and/or delayed complications and those who had not. The predictors of these complications were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression, Cox proportional hazard regression, and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. RESULTS: A total of 14,784 patients were included in the present analysis, with a median follow-up of 11 months (interquartile range, 4-16 months). The rate of immediate and delayed complications was 1.8% and 3.1%, respectively. Angulation (1.2%) was the most common immediate complication, and filter thrombosis (1.6%) was the most common delayed complication. Compared with the patients with no immediate complications, those with immediate complications were more likely to have had abnormal anatomy (6.0% vs 1.7%; P < .001) and a landing zone other than infrarenal (7.0% vs 4.2%; P = .02). Compared with their counterparts, those with delayed complications were less likely to have received statins (21.0% vs 29.5%; P = .006) and were more likely to have a family history of venous thromboembolism (8.0% vs 5.1%; P = .047). Logistic regression analysis revealed that renal vein visualization was associated a 50% reduction (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27-0.92; P = .027) in the odds of immediate complications and female sex and abnormal anatomy were associated with a 41% (aOR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.08-1.85; P = .013) and 244% (aOR, 3.44; 95% CI, 1.66-7.16; P < .001) increase in the odds of immediate complications, respectively. Immediate (P = .21) and delayed (P = .51) complications did not result in increased mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The immediate and delayed IVC filter complication rates were 1.8% and 3.1%, respectively, but the occurrence of complications was not associated with increased mortality. Female sex was associated with an increase in the development of immediate complications. The incidence of immediate complications might be mitigated if advanced imaging were used for renal vein visualization before IVC filter deployment. Delayed complications might be avoided if IVC filter retrieval were performed in a timely fashion and institutional retrieval protocols were optimized.

Safety and efficacy of the VenaTech™ Retrievable inferior vena cava filter: a first-in-man single-center prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent condition worldwide, associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Though its primary treatment is anticoagulation, the placement of an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter is recommended in patients with some comorbidities. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the clinical safety and efficacy of the Venatech® retrievable IVC filter. This open-label prospective single-center study was conducted on 40 consecutive patients requiring temporary or permanent IVC filtration. Patient characteristics, technical success rates of filter placement and removal, and the occurrence of complications were assessed. Follow-up imaging was performed using CT-scan before retrieval or at 6 months in the permanent indication population. RESULTS: The filter was successfully implanted at the intended location in all the patients. Retrieval was attempted in 21 (52.5%) patients after a mean period of 50 days (range: 6-94 days), and the filter was successfully removed in 18 patients (85.7%). Reason for retrieval failure was filter with trapped thrombus (n = 2) and a > 15° tilt (n = 1). No complication was observed during the filter placement and retrieval. Follow-up imaging available in 30 patients (75%) demonstrated deep filter penetration (> 3 mm) in four patients (13.3%), severe filter tilt (> 15o) in five patients (16.7%), filter with trapped thrombus in three patients (10%), but no fracture or IVC thrombosis. CONCLUSION: This prospective study showed encouraging preliminary results of the safety and efficacy of the Venatech® retrievable IVC filter. The filter was easily delivered in the intended position and successfully removed in a high percentage of patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02674672.

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.

Pathological Analysis and Clinical Evolution After Radiological Removal of Retrievable Vena Cava Filters.

OBJECTIVE: Retrievable inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) have been developed because permanent filters have been associated with an increased risk of recurrent deep venous thrombosis. There is no data on the interactions of IVCF with the inferior vena cava (intrafilter thrombi, insertion through the venous wall) even though this may alter the course after retrieval of the IVCF. METHODS: A review of 85 consecutive patients undergoing retrieval of IVCF placed at a single center was performed from January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2014. Inferior vena cava filter were examined for presence of intrafilter thrombus at time of retrieval. Filter position and presence of intraluminal thrombus were examined. Patient outcomes, including recurrence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and death, were captured at 3 month followup. RESULTS: Eighty five patients were identified, with intrafilter thrombi found in 69 (81%) patients and venous wall fragments found in 75 (88%) patients. However, their presence was not associated with an increased risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) or death during follow up. CONCLUSIONS: Intrafilter thrombi and venous wall fragments are frequently found in removed IVCF but are not associated with a worse prognosis. They may not modify the therapeutic management of patients.

Complex filter removal using forceps from combined transfemoral and transjugular approach unhooking the filter apex using forceps and dual access: Two case reports.

Modern inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) are intended to be retrieved once a thrombotic process or risk of pulmonary embolism has resolved independent of administration of anticoagulation. IVCF removal can be challenging with the risk of complications including venous perforation, filter migration, and device fracture. IVCF removal has been described using the nomenclature of routine versus advanced retrieval. Routine retrieval is defined as accessing the filter hook with a loop snare device before advancing a sheath over the filter. Advanced retrieval techniques are employed when routine retrieval fails and can refer to a variety of approaches, including filter realignment with loop snare, stiff wire-displacement, use of a wire and snare with dual access, angioplasty balloon advanced over a guidewire, single access sling approach, the sandwich technique, the endobronchial forceps dissection and removal, photothermic ablation with excimer laser, and the filter eversion technique among others. Successful routine retrieval of IVCF has been reported at 74% and IVCF retrieval with advanced techniques has a success rate of nearly 95%. The complication rate with advanced techniques is higher when compared with routine techniques (5.3% vs. 0.4%; p < .05) and, as expected, requires fluoroscopic time. We report two cases of advanced filter retrieval using endobronchial forceps simultaneously or sequentially through the transfemoral and trans-jugular approach.

Factors Associated With Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement and Retrieval for Patients With Cancer-Associated Thrombosis.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism is a leading cause of death in patients with cancer. Inferior vena cava filters are utilized to mitigate the risk of pulmonary embolism for patients who have contraindication to, or failure of, anticoagulation. METHODS: We reviewed an insurance claims database to identify adults receiving cancer-directed therapy and had a new diagnosis of venous thromboembolism. We then evaluated clinical and sociodemographic characteristics in patients with and without filter placement and retrieval. RESULTS: There were 25,788 patients (mean [SD] age: 68.3 [12.7] years) who met the study inclusion criteria, with 2111 individuals (8.2%) undergoing filter placement. Filter placement was associated with the type of thrombosis, malignancy, recent surgery, comorbidities, and income. A total of 137 patients (6.5%) newly started anticoagulation within 3 days of filter placement, and 612 (29%) patients received anticoagulation within 30 days after filter placement. Despite this, only 159 (7.5%) patients had their filters retrieved during the study period. Patients with income of $75-99K (odds ratio 2.13, P = .012) or above $100K (odds ratio 1.8, P = .038) were more likely to have filter retrieval compared with those with income <$50K. Filter retrieval was also more likely in younger patients and those with fewer comorbidities or without central nervous system or lung malignancies. CONCLUSIONS: Inferior vena cava filter placement and retrieval are associated with several sociodemographic factors. Filter retrieval rates are low despite re-initiation of anticoagulation in many patients. Efforts are needed to address disparities in filter use and improve retrieval rates.

Comparative outcomes of Inferior Vena Cava filters placed at bedside using digital radiography versus conventional fluoroscopy.

PURPOSE: To retrospectively assess the outcomes of Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) filters placed in critically ill patients in the ICU at bedside using digital radiograph (DR) guidance with previous cross-sectional imaging for planning, compared to IVC filters placed by conventional fluoroscopy (CF). METHOD AND MATERIALS: The cohort consisted of 129 IVC filter placements; 48 placed at bedside and 81 placed conventionally from July 2015 to September 2016. Patient demographics, indication, radiation exposures, access site, procedural duration, dwell time, and complications were identified by the EMR. IVC Filter positioning with measurements of tip to renal vein distance and lateral filter tilt were performed when cavograms or post placement CTs were available for review. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata IC 11.2. RESULTS: Technical success of the procedure was 100% in both groups. Procedural duration was longer at the bedside lasting 14.5 +/- 10.2 versus 6.7 +/- 6.0 â€‹min (p<0.0001). The bedside DR group had a median radiation exposure of 25 â€‹mGy (15-35) and the CF group had mean radiation exposure of 256.94 â€‹mGy +/- 158.6. There was no significant difference in distance of IVC tip to renal vein (p=0.31), mispositioning (p=0.59), degree of filter tilt (p=0.33), or rate of complications (p=0.65) between the two groups. CONCLUSION: IVCF placement at the bedside using DR is comparable to CF with no statistical difference in outcomes based on IVCF positioning, degree of lateral tilt or removal issues. It decreased radiation dose, but with overall increased procedural time.

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.