Society of Interventional Radiology Clinical Practice Guideline for Inferior Vena Cava Filters in the Treatment of Patients with Venous Thromboembolic Disease: Developed in collaboration with the American College of Cardiology, American College of Chest Physicians, American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma, American Heart Association, Society for Vascular Surgery, and Society for Vascular Medicine.

PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters in the treatment of patients with or at substantial risk of venous thromboembolic disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multidisciplinary expert panel developed key questions to address in the guideline, and a systematic review of the literature was conducted. Evidence was graded based on a standard methodology, which was used to inform the development of recommendations. RESULTS: The systematic review identified a total of 34 studies that provided the evidence base for the guideline. The expert panel agreed on 18 recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Although the evidence on the use of IVC filters in patients with or at risk of venous thromboembolic disease varies in strength and quality, the panel provides recommendations for the use of IVC filters in a variety of clinical scenarios. Additional research is needed to optimize care for this patient population.

Perioperative mortality secondary to a pulmonary embolism during a surgical implantation of the Endo-Exo-Prosthesis: a case report.

We report on a 53-year-old female patient who suffered a perioperative death secondary to a pulmonary embolism (PE) during an implantation of Endo-Exo-Prosthesis. This is a retrospective review of medical case for a patient who had a previous above-the-knee amputation secondary to a failed previous arthroplasty surgery. Our planned surgery was a stage 1 implantation of an Endo-Exo-Prosthesis, and it was performed under general anaesthesia. After 25 min from starting the surgical procedure, the patient sustained a cardiac arrest, and despite an active cardiopulmonary resuscitation for 50 min, the patient did not recover, the ventilator machine was stopped later on, and the patient was declared deceased at that stage. Fatal intraoperative PE is a rare but significant complication during orthopaedic procedures. There are few reports of similar events but include mainly trauma patients with fractured neck of femur. Endo-Exo-Prosthesis is a relatively newly evolved procedure in a unique group of patients. To our knowledge, this is the first case report of such complication during Endo-Exo-Prosthesis implantation. Patient and surgeon should be aware of it, and additional preventive measures like preoperative scoring systems and in special cases using inferior vena cava filter should be considered in patients with high risk of developing venous thromboembolism.

Removal of retrievable inferior vena cava filters before discharge: Is it associated with increased incidence of pulmonary embolism?

BACKGROUND: Severely injured trauma patients are at high risk of developing deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary emboli (PE), and may have contraindications to prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation. Retrievable inferior vena cava filters (rIVCFs) are used to act as a mechanical obstruction to prevent PE in high risk populations and those with deep venous thrombosis who cannot be anticoagulated. The removal rate of rIVCFs is variable in trauma centers, including our previous published rate of 50% to 89%/year. Indwelling filters carry a risk of significant morbidity and the success of retrieval decreases as the dwell time increases. We hypothesized that once patients could receive appropriate prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation, rIVCF could be removed before hospital discharge without impact on occurrence or recurrence of PE. METHODS: All trauma patients with rIVCF placed and removed between January 2006 and August 2018 were reviewed. We collected data from record review from admission to 6 months postfilter removal, including demographics, filter indication, filter type, dwell time, placement and removal complications, antithrombosis medications, location of venous thromboembolism, complications, and discharge disposition. Exposure of interest was timing of filter removal: before (BEF) or after hospital discharge (AFT). The outcome of interest was whether the patient had a documented PE within 6 months of filter removal. RESULTS: A total of 281 rIVCFs were placed, 218 were eligible for removal, 72.4% (158/218) were retrieved with 63% (100/158) removed before discharge. Mean filter duration was 26 days and 103 days for the before and after groups, respectively. No differences (p > 0.05) were noted in the distribution of demographic and clinical factors except for filter indication (venous thromboembolism indication, 95% in AFT vs. 74% in BEF, p = 0.0043). Postremoval PE rates were 0% BEF and 1% AFT (Fisher's exact test, p = 1.000). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that removal of rIVCFs before discharge once patients are appropriately anticoagulated is a safe strategy to improve retrieval rates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, level V.

European guidelines on perioperative venous thromboembolism prophylaxis: Inferior vena cava filters.

: The indications for the use of an inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) in the context of deep venous thrombosis to prevent pulmonary embolism remain controversial. Despite wide use in clinical practice, great variation exists in national and international guidelines in regard to the indications. In addition, clinical practice is based on poor-quality data from trauma and bariatric surgery with a high incidence of complications. It is often difficult to assess their efficacy and lack of filter retrieval appears to be a substantial issue compared with a potential benefit by insertion of these devices. Complications usually refer to increased risk of deep venous thrombosis, filter perforation, filter penetration, filter migration, inferior vena cava occlusion and subsequently failure in pulmonary embolism prevention. Evidence from low-quality studies or registries, with small numbers of patients and conflicting findings, does not allow for a strong recommendation for or against the use of IVCFs. IVCFs should only be considered in cases of very high risk of pulmonary embolism and in perioperative situations at very high risk of bleeding, resulting in a prolonged contra-indication to pharmacological prophylaxis.

Retrospective analysis of outcomes following inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement in a managed care population.

The role of inferior vena cava filter (IVC) filters for prevention of pulmonary embolism (PE) is controversial. This study evaluated outcomes of IVC filter placement in a managed care population. This retrospective cohort study evaluated data for individuals with Humana healthcare coverage 2013-2014. The study population included 435 recipients of prophylactic IVC filters, 4376 recipients of therapeutic filters, and two control groups, each matched to filter recipients. Patients were followed for up to 2 years. Post-index anticoagulant use, mortality, filter removal, device-related complications, and all-cause utilization. Adjusted regression analyses showed a positive association between filter placement and anticoagulant use at 3 months: odds ratio (ORs) 3.403 (95% CI 1.912-6.059), prophylactic; OR, 1.356 (95% CI 1.164-1.58), therapeutic. Filters were removed in 15.67% of prophylactic and 5.69% of therapeutic filter cases. Complication rates were higher with prophylactic procedures than with therapeutic procedures and typically exceeded 2% in the prophylactic group. Each form of filter placement was associated with increases in all-cause hospitalization (regression coefficient 0.295 [95% CI 0.093-0.498], prophylactic; 0.673 [95% CI 0.547-0.798], therapeutic) and readmissions (OR 2.444 [95% CI 1.298-4.602], prophylactic; 2.074 [95% CI 1.644-2.616], therapeutic). IVC filter placement in this managed care population was associated with increased use of anticoagulants and greater healthcare utilization compared to controls, low rates of retrieval, and notable rates of device-related complications, with effects especially pronounced in assessments of prophylactic filters. These findings underscore the need for appropriate use of IVC filters.

Optimizing the use of inferior vena cava filters in oncology patients: are all filters created equally?

Many studies have supported the efficacy of inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) in the setting of venous thromboembolic disease, particularly in oncologic patients who are at increased risk. The advent of retrievable IVCF designs has prompted dramatically expanded use for patients with widely accepted indications but also disproportionately so in patients with so-called extended indications. At the same time, an alarming increase in filter-related complications has been reported both in the literature and through regulatory agencies, leading to government agency-issued warnings. The synergistic effect of these two interconnected phenomena is explained through a careful review of the evolution of IVCF device design. Critical differences exist when comparing retrievable IVCF and permanent IVCF. IVCF utilization can be optimized by prospectively identifying which patients are best served by a specific IVCF device. Careful follow-up strategies are also needed to ensure that all IVCFs are removed as soon as they are no longer needed. Finally, adjunctive techniques for removing "difficult" filters help maximize the number of IVCF removed and minimize IVCF left implanted needlessly.

Indications for inferior vena cava filter placement: do physicians comply with guidelines?

PURPOSE: Inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement has increased significantly over the past few decades, but indications for filter placement vary widely depending on which professional society recommendations are followed, and it is uncertain how compliant physicians are in adhering to guidelines. This study assessed documented indications for IVC filter placement and evaluated compliance with standards set by the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) and the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single-center, retrospective medical record review in a metropolitan, 652-bed, acute care, teaching hospital. Inpatient filter placement over a 26-month period was reviewed. The study measured compliance with established guidelines, relationship of medical specialty to filter placement, and evaluation of self-referral patterns among physicians. RESULTS: Compliance with established ACCP guidelines was poor regardless of whether the IVC filter insertion was performed by interventional radiology (IR; 43.5%), vascular surgery (VS; 39.9%), or interventional cardiology (IC; 33.3%) staff. Compliance with the less restrictive SIR guidelines was better (77.5%, 77.1%, and 80% for IR, VS, and IC, respectively). There was a greater degree of guideline compliance when filter placement was recommended by internal medicine (IM)-trained physicians than by non-IM-trained physicians: 46.3% of IR-placed filters requested by IM physicians met ACCP criteria whereas only 24.0% of filters recommended by non-IM specialties were compliant with criteria (P = .03). In the VS group, these compliance rates were 45.8% and 31.5%, respectively (P = .03). Among IR-placed filters, 84.0% of IM-recommended filter placements were compliant with SIR guidelines, versus only 48.0% of non-IM-recommended placements (P ≤ .001). In the VS group, these compliance rates were 87.8% and 69.6%, respectively (P ≤ .001). CONCLUSIONS: There is poor physician compliance with guidelines for IVC filter placement. Most filter indications meeting SIR guidelines are for patients classified as "falls risks," failures of anticoagulation, patients with limited cardiopulmonary reserve and patients non compliant with anticoagulation medications. This single-center study suggests a need for harmonization of current guidelines espoused by professional societies.

Inferior vena cava filters in children: our experience and suggested guidelines.

Although use of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters for prophylaxis against pulmonary embolism (PE) is well reported in adults, long-term studies in children are lacking. We performed retrospective review of imaging and clinical database of IVC filters for the last 12 years. Thirty-five patients (mean age: 15.5 y) underwent filter placement and/or retrieval. Indications for placement were contraindication to anticoagulation with known deep venous thrombosis (DVT) (18) or high risk of venous thromboembolism (5), recurrent DVT despite anticoagulation (1), and prophylaxis before endovascular thrombolysis (8). All filter placements were technically successful without any complications. Filter retrieval was successful in 15 of 19 attempted (79%) at a mean of 42 days. Two complications occurred during retrieval: IVC stenosis successfully treated with angioplasty and contained IVC perforation. Endothelialization of filter prevented retrieval in 4 patients. Mean follow-up was 29.3 months. No patients had IVC thrombosis, breakthrough pulmonary embolism, filter fracture, or embolism. Two patients had recurrent DVT. Our results indicate that IVC filters can be successfully placed and retrieved in children with minimal procedural complications; follow-up demonstrates acceptable complication rate owing to presence of filters. Prophylactic IVC filter placement may be considered before endovascular thrombolysis for lower extremity DVT. Retrievable filters should be used in children for appropriate indications.

Vena caval filters: a review for intensive care specialists.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication among patients in the intensive care unit. While anticoagulation remains standard therapy, vena caval filters are an important alternative when anticoagulation is contraindicated. To determine the safety and efficacy of vena caval filters in the treatment of VTE, a comprehensive review of the English-language medical literature was performed. Except for one randomized controlled trial, the literature supporting the use of vena caval filters consists almost exclusively of case series, which in many instances are limited by incomplete and short follow-up. While case series suggest that filters function effectively in the prevention of pulmonary embolism (2%-4% symptomatic pulmonary embolism [PE], fatal PE < 2%), recent higher quality studies indicate that filters may not provide significant additional protection to that provided by anticoagulation alone. Furthermore, filters are associated with a 2- fold increase in the incidence of recurrent DVT. Until randomized comparative studies are available, the safety and efficacy of all the available devices should be considered to be roughly equivalent. Since filters do not inhibit continued clot formation, all filter patients should receive anticoagulation for durations appropriate for their thrombotic disorder. Although extended anticoagulation may prevent thrombotic complications associated with filter placement, this strategy has yet to be experimentally tested. While many additional indications for vena caval filter use have been proposed (VTE in cancer patients, PE prophylaxis in trauma patients, etc), well-designed clinical trials demonstrating their efficacy in these situations are lacking. Further development of temporary/retrievable filters, which offer the potential to avoid the long-term complications of permanent filters, should be a research priority. Until additional data are available, vena caval filters should generally be restricted to patients with VTE who cannot receive anticoagulation.

Placement of vena cava filters: factors affecting technical success and immediate complications.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to evaluate factors affecting technical success and the immediate complications of placement of vena cava filters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The medical records of 148 consecutive patients who underwent filter placement between December 1995 and February 1999 were retrospectively reviewed for cavography, technical success, complications, and operator specialty. RESULTS: The records of 143 filter placements in 142 patients were complete (one patient underwent two placements). One hundred twenty filter placements were preceded by cavography, and 23 were not. Three misplacements (2.5%) were preceded by cavography and 10 (43%) were not (p<0.0001). One hundred fourteen filter placements were performed by radiologists and 29 by surgeons. Cavography was performed before 98% of placements by radiologists but in only 28% of placements by surgeons (p<0.0001). Filter misplacement occurred in 12 placements (41%) by surgeons and in only one (0.9%) by radiologists (p<0.0001). Major complications occurred in three placements (10%) by surgeons and in none of the placements by radiologists (p<0.01). CONCLUSION: Vena cava filters were placed with greater technical success and fewer complications when preceded by cavography. Radiologists placed filters with greater technical success and fewer complications than surgeons, which may be the result of radiologists generally having more training and more familiarity with imaging-guided procedures and adhering more to cavography protocol. A credentialing requirement for physician operators and evaluation using quality improvement standards may be advisable.

Duplex scan-directed placement of inferior vena cava filters: a five-year institutional experience.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was the assessment of the safety, efficacy, and hospital charges of bedside duplex ultrasound-directed inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement. METHODS: All duplex ultrasound-directed IVC filters that were placed from August 8, 1995, to December 31, 2000, are reviewed. Chart review combined with mailed questionnaires and telephone follow-up examinations were used to collect demographic and outcome data. RESULTS: Three hundred twenty-five patients underwent evaluation, and 284 underwent duplex ultrasound-directed IVC filter placement. Two hundred three (71%) were male patients, and 81 (29%) were female patients. Poor IVC visualization, IVC thrombosis, and unsuitable anatomy prevented duplex-directed filter placement in 41 patients (12%). Indication for filter placement included venous prophylaxis in the absence of thromboembolism in 235 patients (83%), contraindication to anticoagulation therapy in 34 patients (12%), prophylaxis with therapeutic anticoagulation therapy in the presence of thromboembolism in 7 patients (2%), and complication of anticoagulation therapy in 8 patients (3%). There were no procedure-related deaths or septic complications. Technical complications occurred in 12 patients (4%). Filter misplacement occurred in 6 patients (2%), access thrombosis in 1 (<1%), migration in 1 (<1%), bleeding in 1 (<1%), and IVC occlusion in 3 (1%). Pulmonary emboli after IVC filter placement occurred in one patient with a misplaced filter. Average hospital charges related to duplex ultrasound-directed filter placement were $2388 less than fluoroscopic placement charges in the year 2000. CONCLUSION: Our experience indicates that duplex ultrasound-directed IVC filter placement is safe, cost-effective, and convenient for patients who need IVC filter placement.

Implantación de filtros en el sector suprarrenal de la vena cava / Percutaneous placement of suprarenal greenfield vena cava filters

Se presentan dos casos de implantación de filtros en el sector suprarrenal de la vena cava inferior. Este sitio de implantación es infrecuente. La principal indicación es la trombosis aguda de la vena cava extendida hasta el nivel de las venas renales. En ambos casos se implantaron filtros de Greenfield por abordaje percutáneo transyugular. La evolución postoperatoria fue favorable. El seguimiento de 9 y 19 meses respectivamente, demostró vena cava inferior permeable, ausencia de tromboembolismo pulmonar y función renal normal

Filtros de vena cava inferior: presentación de 28 casos

Introducción: El tromboembolismo pulmonar (TEP) sigue siendo una causa importante de morbilidad y mortalidad en el mundo. Su origen más común es la trombosis venosa profunda (TVP). La anticoagulación y el control de los factores de riesgo son el tratamiento convencional. En un número importante de casos este tratamiento no es suficiente o no es aplicable, por lo cual la interrupción parcial del retorno venoso está indicada. Esta interrupción se puede efectuar mediante la colocación de filtros en la vena cava inferior. Objetivo: Describir la experiencia de la Fundación Santafé de Bogotá (FSFB) en la colaboración de filtros de vena cava inferior. Diseño: Estudio observacional, descriptivo, de una serie de casos. Pacientes y Métodos: Se incluyeron los pacientes a quienes se colocó filtro de vena cava inferior entre 1991 y 1995. Se revisaron las historias, haciendo énfasis en factores de riesgo para TVP-TEP, indicación de la colocación del filtro de vena cava inferior, tipo de filtro y complicaciones. Resultado: Se presentaron 28 casos con las variables descritas. No se presentan datos de seguimiento a mediano y largo plazo.

Vena cava filters: a nursing perspective.

Healthcare professionals increasingly are using vena cava filters to prevent pulmonary emboli (PE) in patients with cancer. Patients with cancer are predisposed to developing thrombosis and subsequent PE for a variety of reasons. These patients commonly have contraindications to anticoagulant therapy because of their disease or cancer treatment; therefore, vena cava filters are an appealing option for managing potential emboli. This article describes the etiologies of thrombosis in patients with cancer; problems associated with conventional anticoagulant therapy; vena cava filters and placement procedures; complications associated with filter placement; and related nursing implications pre- and postinsertion and during long-term follow-up.