Contemporary nationwide trends and in-hospital outcomes of adjunctive stenting in patients undergoing catheter-directed thrombolysis for proximal deep venous thrombosis.

OBJECTIVE: Outflow venous stenting as an adjunct to catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) is performed to prevent recurrent thrombosis and to reduce the risk of post-thrombotic syndrome. Historical data show that stenting improves outcomes of surgical thrombectomy in patients with iliofemoral deep venous thrombosis (DVT), and recent observational data suggest that stenting improves long-term outcomes of CDT. However, the impact of stenting during CDT on acute safety outcomes is unknown. We sought to investigate the contemporary trends, safety outcomes, and resource utilization of adjunctive stent placement in patients undergoing CDT. METHODS: Patients with proximal lower extremity and caval DVT were identified within the National Inpatient Sample from January 2005 to December 2013. From this data set, we stratified our patients into three groups: patients who received CDT alone, patients who received CDT plus angioplasty, and patients who received CDT plus angioplasty with stenting. We used an inverse probability treatment weighting algorithm to create three weighted cohorts. Cochran-Armitage test was used to evaluate the trends of stent placement among patients treated with CDT. The primary outcome was a composite end point of all-cause mortality, gastrointestinal bleed, or intracranial hemorrhage. RESULTS: A total of 138,049 patients were discharged with a principal diagnosis of proximal and caval DVT; 7097 of these patients received CDT (5.1%). From this group, 2854 (40.2%) were treated with CDT alone, 2311 (32.6%) received adjunctive angioplasty alone, and 1932 (27.2%) received adjunctive angioplasty and stent. Adjunctive stenting had a significantly lower rate of primary composite outcome compared with CDT alone (2.7% vs 3.8%; P = .04). Stent placement was associated with a similar length of stay compared with angioplasty and CDT alone groups (6.8 vs 6.9 vs 7.1 days, respectively; P = .94) and higher in-hospital charges ($115,164.01 ± $76,985.31 vs $98,089.82 ± $72,921.94 vs $80,441.63 ± $74,024.98; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This nationwide study suggests that one in four patients undergoing CDT is treated with adjunctive stent placement in the United States. This observational study showed that adjunctive stenting does not adversely affect the acute safety outcomes of CDT; however, it was associated with increased hospital charges.

In-hospital outcomes of catheter-directed thrombolysis versus anticoagulation in cancer patients with proximal deep venous thrombosis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the rate of complications of catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) in cancer patients with deep venous thrombosis (DVT) compared with anticoagulation therapy alone. METHODS: This observational study used the National Inpatient Sample database to screen for any cancer patients who were admitted with a principal discharge diagnosis of proximal lower extremity or caval DVT between January 2005 and December 2013. Patients treated with CDT plus anticoagulation were compared with those treated with anticoagulation alone using propensity score matching for comorbidities and demographic characteristics. The primary end point was in-hospital mortality. Secondary end points were acute intracranial hemorrhage, inferior vena cava filter placement, acute renal failure, blood transfusion rates, length of stay, and hospital charges. RESULTS: We identified 31,124 cancer patients with lower extremity proximal or caval DVT, and 1290 (4%) patients were treated with CDT. Comparative outcomes as assessed in the two matched groups of 1297 patients showed that there was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality of patients undergoing CDT plus anticoagulation compared with those treated with anticoagulation alone (2.6% vs 1.9%; P = .23). However, CDT was associated with increased risk of intracranial hemorrhage (1.3% vs 0.4%; P = .017), greater blood transfusion rates (18.6% vs 13.1 %; P < .001), and higher rates of procedure-related hematoma (2.4% vs 0.4%; P < .001). The length of stay (6.0 [4.0-10.0] days vs 4.0 [2.0-7.0] days; P < .001) and hospital charges ($81,535 [$50,968-$127,045] vs $22,320 [$11,482-$41,005]; P < .001) were also higher in the CDT group compared with the control group. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality of cancer patients who underwent CDT plus anticoagulation compared with anticoagulation alone. CDT was associated with increased in-hospital morbidity and resource utilization compared with anticoagulation alone. Further studies are needed to examine the effect of CDT on the development of PTS in this population.

Prophylactic Inferior Vena Cava Filters Prior to Bariatric Surgery: Insights From the National Inpatient Sample.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine in-hospital mortality, post-surgical thromboembolic events, and health care costs associated with the placement of prophylactic inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) prior to bariatric surgery. BACKGROUND: The role of prophylactic IVCFs prior to bariatric surgery is controversial, and the nationwide clinical outcomes associated with this practice are unknown. METHODS: This observational study used the National Inpatient Sample database to identify obese patients who underwent bariatric surgery from January 2005 to September 2015. Using propensity score matching, outcomes associated with patients receiving prophylactic IVCFs prior to their bariatric surgery were compared with those among patients who did not receive IVCFs. RESULTS: A total of 258,480 patients underwent bariatric surgery, of whom 1,047 (0.41%) had prophylactic IVCFs implanted. Patients with prophylactic IVCFs compared with those without IVCFs had a significantly higher rate of the combined endpoint of in-hospital mortality or pulmonary embolism (1.4% vs. 0.4%; odds ratio: 3.75; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.25 to 11.30; p = 0.019). Additionally, prophylactic IVCFs were associated with higher rates of lower extremity or caval deep vein thrombosis (1.8% vs. 0.3%; odds ratio: 6.33; 95% CI: 1.87 to 21.4; p < 0.01), length of stay (median 3 days vs. 2 days; p < 0.01), and hospital charges (median $63,000 vs. $37,000; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide observational study, prophylactic IVCF implantation prior to bariatric surgery was associated with worse clinical outcomes and increased health care resource utilization.

Contemporary Trends and Comparative Outcomes With Adjunctive Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement in Patients Undergoing Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Deep Vein Thrombosis in the United States: Insights From the National Inpatient Sample.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the contemporary trends and comparative effectiveness of adjunctive inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) placement in patients undergoing catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) for treatment of proximal lower extremity or caval deep vein thrombosis. BACKGROUND: CDT is being increasingly used in the management of proximal deep vein thrombosis. Although a significant number of patients treated with CDT undergo adjunctive IVCF placement, the benefit of this practice remains unknown. METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample database was used to identify all patients with proximal or caval deep vein thrombosis who underwent CDT (with and without adjunctive IVCF placement) in the United States between January 2005 and December 2013. A propensity score-matching algorithm was then used to derive 2 matched groups of patients (IVCF and no IVCF) for comparative outcomes (mortality and major and minor bleeding) and resource use analysis. RESULTS: Of the 7,119 patients treated with CDT, 2,421 (34%) received IVCFs. There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality (0.7% vs 1.0%; p = 0.20), procedure-related hemorrhage (1.4% vs. 1.0%; p = 0.23), or intracranial hemorrhage (0.7% vs. 0.6%; p = 0.70) between the IVCF (n = 2,259) and no-IVCF (n = 2,259) groups, respectively. Patients undergoing IVCF placement had higher rates of hematoma (3.4% vs 2.1%; p = 0.009), higher in-hospital charges ($104,049 ± 75,572 vs. $92,881 ± 80,194; p < 0.001) and increased length of stay (7.3 ± 5.6 days vs. 6.9 ± 6.9 days; p = 0.046) compared with the no-IVCF group. CONCLUSIONS: This nationwide observational study suggests that one-third of all patients undergoing CDT receive IVCFs. IVCF use was not associated with a decrease in in-hospital mortality but was associated with higher inpatient charges and longer length of stay.

Sex differences in utilization and outcomes of catheter-directed thrombolysis in patients with proximal lower extremity deep venous thrombosis - Insights from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample.

Catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) is being increasingly used for the treatment of proximal lower extremity (LE) deep venous thrombosis (DVT). However, sex differences in utilization and safety outcomes of CDT in these patients are unknown. The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database was used to identify all patients with a principal discharge diagnosis of proximal LE or caval DVT who underwent CDT between January 2005 and December 2011 in the United States. We evaluated the comparative safety outcomes of CDT among a propensity-matched group of 1731 men versus 1731 women. Among 108,243 patients with proximal LE or caval DVT, 4826 patients (4.5%) underwent CDT. Overall, women underwent CDT less often compared to men (4.1% vs 4.9%, p<0.01, respectively). The rates of CDT increased between 2005 and 2011 for both women (2.1% to 5.9%, p<0.01) and men (2.5% to 7.5%, p<0.01). There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality (1.2% vs 1.3%, p=0.76). Women were noted to have higher rates of blood transfusions (11.7% vs 8.8%, p<0.01), but lower rates of intracranial hemorrhage (0.5% vs 1.2%, p=0.03) and gastrointestinal bleeding (0.9% vs 2.2%, p<0.01) compared with men. Women were more likely to undergo inferior vena cava filter placement (37.0% vs 32.1%, p<0.01). In this large nationwide cohort, women with proximal DVT were less likely to receive CDT compared to men. Although mortality rates were similar, women were noted to have higher blood transfusion rates while men had more episodes of intracranial and gastrointestinal bleeding.

Comparative outcomes of catheter-directed thrombolysis plus anticoagulation vs anticoagulation alone to treat lower-extremity proximal deep vein thrombosis.

IMPORTANCE: The role of catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) in the treatment of acute proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is controversial, and the nationwide safety outcomes are unknown. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to compare in-hospital outcomes of CDT plus anticoagulation with those of anticoagulation alone. The secondary objective was to evaluate the temporal trends in the utilization and outcomes of CDT in the treatment of proximal DVT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational study of patients with a principal discharge diagnosis of proximal or caval DVT from 2005 to 2010 in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. We compared patients treated with CDT plus anticoagulation with the patients treated with anticoagulation alone. We used propensity scores to construct 2 matched groups of 3594 patients in each group for comparative outcomes analysis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary study outcome was in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes included bleeding complications, length of stay, and hospital charges. RESULTS: Among a total of 90,618 patients hospitalized for DVT (national estimate of 449,200 hospitalizations), 3649 (4.1%) underwent CDT. The CDT utilization rates increased from 2.3% in 2005 to 5.9% in 2010. Based on the propensity-matched comparison, the in-hospital mortality was not significantly different between the CDT and the anticoagulation groups (1.2% vs 0.9%) (OR, 1.40 [95% CI, 0.88-2.25]) (P = .15). The rates of blood transfusion (11.1% vs 6.5%) (OR, 1.85 [95% CI, 1.57-2.20]) (P < .001), pulmonary embolism (17.9% vs 11.4%) (OR, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.49-1.94]) (P < .001), intracranial hemorrhage (0.9% vs 0.3%) (OR, 2.72 [95% CI, 1.40-5.30]) (P = .03), and vena cava filter placement (34.8% vs 15.6%) (OR, 2.89 [95% CI, 2.58-3.23]) (P < .001) were significantly higher in the CDT group. The CDT group had longer mean (SD) length of stay (7.2 [5.8] vs 5.0 [4.7] days) (OR, 2.27 [95% CI, 1.49-1.94]) (P < .001) and higher hospital charges ($85,094 [$69,121] vs $28,164 [$42,067]) (P < .001) compared with the anticoagulation group. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this study, we did not find any difference in the mortality between the CDT and the anticoagulation groups, but evidence of higher adverse events was noted in the CDT group. In the context of this observational data and continued improvements in technology, a randomized trial with outcomes such as mortality and postthrombotic syndrome is needed to definitively address this comparative effectiveness.