Comparison of success and cost after retrieval of two inferior vena cava filters.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to help guide inferior vena cava (IVC) filter choices by better understanding the retrieval characteristics, complications, and total costs between two commonly used IVC filters. METHODS: All patients who underwent retrieval or attempted retrieval of Denali (Bard Peripheral Vascular) or Option (Argon Medical Devices) IVC filters were identified between March 2016 and October 2021 at a single tertiary care center. Those with imaging studies that permitted evaluation of filter placement, presence or degree of tilt, and/or hooking of the filter into the IVC wall were included in the present study. Filter retrieval success, number of attempts, use of advanced techniques, and fluoroscopy and procedural times were recorded and compared between the two filters. RESULTS: A total of 87 patients presented for retrieval of 52 Denali and 35 Option Elite filters during the study period. Denali filters were more likely to be successfully retrieved at the first attempt (94% vs 77%; P = .019). The procedural and fluoroscopy times were shorter for Denali filters (29 minutes vs 63 minutes [P < .001] and 7 minutes vs 25 minutes [P < .001], respectively). Denali filters were less likely to be significantly tilted (≥15○) at retrieval (12% vs 29%; P < .001) or to have the filter hook embedded in the IVC wall (6% vs 40%; P < .001). Tilting of the filter of ≥15○ had no significant effects on the retrieval success rate (no tilt or tilt <15○ vs tilt of ≥15○: 98% vs 100%; P = .58). In contrast, filter hook penetration into the IVC wall significantly reduced successful recovery (41% vs 99%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study suggest that although the filter designs are similar, a benefit exists in the ease of retrievability of the Denali over the Option filter. We found that tilting and hooking of the filter in the IVC wall occurred significantly more with the Option filter. These factors likely made retrieval more difficult and contributed to the longer procedure and fluoroscopy times.

Racial and ethnic disparities in inferior vena cava filter placement for deep vein thrombosis in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether racial and ethnic disparities existed in inferior vena cava (IVC) filter (IVCF) placement rates among Black and Latino patients for the treatment of acute proximal lower extremity (LE) deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in the United States from 2016 to 2019. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of National Inpatient Sample data to identify adult patients with a primary discharge diagnosis of acute proximal LE DVT from January 2016 to December 2019, including self-reported patient race and ethnicity. IVCF placement rates were identified using International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision, codes. Weighted multivariable logistic regression was used to compare IVCF use by race and ethnicity. The regression model was adjusted for patient demographics (ie, sex, primary payer, quartile classification of household income), hospital information (ie, region, location, teaching status, bed size), weekend admission, and clinical characteristics (ie, modified Charlson comorbidity index, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, diabetes mellitus type 2, congestive heart failure, dyslipidemia, coronary artery disease, smoking, obesity, alcohol abuse, chronic kidney disease, pulmonary embolism, malignancy, contraindications to anticoagulation, including other major bleeding). RESULTS: Of 134,499 acute proximal LE DVT patients, 18,909 (14.1%) received an IVCF. Of the patients who received an IVCF, 12,733 were White (67.3%), 3563 were Black (18.8%), and 1679 were Latino (8.9%). IVCF placement decreased for all patient groups between 2016 and 2019. After adjusting for the U.S. population distribution, the IVCF placement rates were 11 to 12/100,000 persons for Black patients, 7 to 8/100,000 persons for White patients, and 4 to 5/100,000 persons for Latino patients. The difference in IVCF placement rates was statistically significant between patient groups (Black patients vs White patients, P < .05; Black patients vs Latino patients, P < .05; Latino patients vs White patients, P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: This nationwide study showed that Black patients have higher IVCF placement rates compared with White and Latino patients. Given the known long-term complications and uncertain benefits of IVCFs, coupled with the 2010 U.S. Food and Drug Administration safety warning regarding adverse patient events for these devices, proactive measures should be taken to address this disparity among the Black patient population to promote health equity. Future work should assess whether clinician bias might be perpetuating this disparity.

Supply Costs in Complex and Routine Inferior Vena Cava Filter Retrieval: 10 Years' Data from a Single Center.

PURPOSE: To characterize the medical supply costs associated with inferior vena cava filter retrieval (IVCFR) using endobronchial forceps (EFs), a snare, or Recovery Cone (RC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In total, 594 of 845 IVCFRs attempted at a tertiary referral hospital between October 1, 2012, and June 20, 2022 were categorized by intended retrieval strategy informed by, rotational cavography as follows: (a) EF (n = 312) for tilted or tip-embedded/strut-embedded filters and for long-dwelling closed-cell filters and (b) a snare (n = 255) or (c) RC (n = 27) for other well-positioned filters with or mostly without hooks, respectively. List prices of relevant supplies at time of retrieval were obtained or, rarely, estimated using a standard procedure. Contrast use, fluoroscopic time, filter type, dwell time, and patient age and sex were recorded. Mean between-group cost differences were estimated by linear regression, adjusting for date. Additional models evaluated filter type, dwell time, and patient-level effects. RESULTS: Of the 594 IVCFRs, 591 were successful, whereas 2 EF and 1 snare retrievals failed. Moreover, 4 EF retrievals were successful with a snare and 2 with smaller EF, 12 snare retrievals were successful with EF, 1 RC retrieval was successful with a snare and 2 with EF. Principal model indicated a significantly lower mean cost of EF ($564.70, SE ± 9.75) than that of snare ($811.29, SE ± 10.83; P < .0001) and RC ($1,465.48, SE ± 47.12; P < .0001) retrievals. Adjusted models yielded consistent results. Had all retrievals been attempted with EF, estimated undiscounted full-period supplies savings would be $87,201.51. CONCLUSIONS: EFs are affordable for complex IVCFR, and extending their use to routine IVCFR could lead to considerable cost savings.

Cost Burden and Cost Influencers of Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement and Retrieval among Medicare Beneficiaries with Acute Venous Thromboembolism.

PURPOSE: To examine the frequency, costs, and cost influencers of inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) placements and retrievals among a national sample of patients using Medicare data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used the U.S. Medicare 100% database, a nationally representative sample of all U.S. patients aged ≥65 years, from 2014 through 2020. Procedures and clinical characteristics were identified from the diagnosis and procedure codes on Medicare claims. Beneficiaries aged ≥65 years with newly diagnosed venous thromboembolism (VTE) were identified and followed to obtain data on IVCF placements and retrievals. Data on the costs of the index IVCF procedures and any subsequent IVCF placements and retrievals were obtained. Multivariate models were used to estimate the impact of patient and clinical characteristics on costs. RESULTS: Among 501,216 patients with newly diagnosed VTE, 4,995 (1%) received an IVCF placement; of these, 1,215 (24.3%) had a retrieval procedure. Beneficiaries with IVCF placements and retrievals differed from a demographic and clinical perspective than from those without. Costs varied by the site of service, VTE acuity, and VTE type. Cost influencers included age, race, census region, service location, and VTE type. CONCLUSIONS: IVCF placement costs were driven by baseline patient characteristics (age, race, geographic residence, acute VTE diagnosis, and inpatient site of service), whereas retrieval costs were driven by age and deep vein thrombosis diagnosis. Strategies to mitigate the retrieval costs or the need to retrieve IVCFs may reduce the overall cost burden of IVCFs.

Population-Based Disparities in Inferior Vena Cava Filter Procedures Among Medicare Enrollees With Acute Venous Thromboembolism.

PURPOSE: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) imposes a significant clinical and financial burden on patients and society. Inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) are considered for patients with absolute contraindications or failures of anticoagulation. However, studies examining the population-based disparities of IVCF placement and retrieval are limited. The association between patient and clinical characteristics in the likelihood of and time to IVCF placement and retrievals in a nationally representative cohort was examined. METHODS: Medicare patients aged ≥65 years with index VTE claims between 2015 and 2018 were followed through 2019 to identify IVCF placements and retrievals. Rates were compared using survival analysis methods. RESULTS: Of the 516,978 patients with VTE diagnoses, 5,864 (1.1%) had IVCFs placed, and 1,884 (32.1%) of those underwent retrieval procedures. Placement and retrieval rates varied significantly by demographics, comorbidity burden, and geographic region. From Cox regression, older age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.26; P < .0001), higher baseline comorbidity (Elixhauser) score (HR, 1.07; P < .0001), and outpatient (vs inpatient) site of VTE service (HR, 2.11; P < .0001) were associated with increased frequency of IVCF placement. The rate of retrieval was significantly lower for men (HR, 0.83; P = .0393), patients with higher comorbidity scores (HR, 0.95; P = .0037), and those with outpatient (vs inpatient) VTE sites of service (HR, 0.77; P = .0173). Neither facility- nor county-level characteristics were significantly associated with placements or retrievals. CONCLUSIONS: This large cohort of Medicare beneficiaries with newly diagnosed VTE demonstrated inequities in IVCF placement and retrieval.

Analysis of Costs and Payments for Inferior Vena Cava Filter Retrieval in the Medicare Population.

Over the past decade, inferior vena cava (IVC) filter retrieval has been increasing, in part due to Food and Drug Administration recommendations and legal pressure. The costs and margin of IVC filter removal are poorly understood. Medicare claims data from 2016 for the 103 highest volume centers for IVC filter retrieval were examined. Pooled mean charges, costs, payments, and margin were calculated by institution. Mean ± SD charges, costs, and payments were $14,138.00 ± $8,400.48, $3,693.28 ± $2,294.27, and $1,949.82 ± $702.91, respectively. Average (range) margin was -$1,706.18 (-$7,509.93 to $362.77). The margin was negative in 99 of the 103 (96%) institutions evaluated. The most significant contributors to the total procedure cost were operating room, supplies, and recovery (44.5%, 23.5%, and 10.4%, respectively). While IVC filter retrieval is often medically indicated, it is typically associated with a financial loss under current reimbursement structure.

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).

Outcomes and Prognosis Factors in Patients With Vena Cava Filters in a Quaternary Medical Center: A 5-Year Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Indications for inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) placement are controversial. This study assesses the proportion of different indications for IVCF placement and the associated 30-day event rates and predictors for all-cause mortality, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism, and bleeding after IVCF placement. METHOD: In this 5-year retrospective cohort observational study in a quaternary care center, consecutive patients with IVCF placement were identified through cross-matching of 3 database sets and classified into 3 indication groups defined as "standard" in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) and contraindication to anticoagulants, "extended" in patients with VTE but no contraindication to anticoagulants, and "prophylactic" in patients without VTE. RESULTS: We identified 1248 IVCF placements, that is, 238 (19.1%) IVCF placements for standard indications, 583 (46.7%) IVCF placements for extended indications, and 427 (34.2%) IVCF placements for prophylactic indications. Deep vein thrombosis rates [95% confidence interval] were higher in the extended (8.06% [5.98-10.58]) and prophylactic (7.73% [5.38-10.68]) groups than in the standard group (3.36% [1.46-6.52]). Mortality rates were higher in the standard group (12.18% [8.31-17.03]) than in the extended group (7.55% [5.54-9.99]) and the prophylactic (5.85% [3.82-8.52]) group. Bleeding rates were higher in the standard group (4.62% [2.33-8.12]) than in the prophylactic group (2.11% [0.97-3.96]). Best predictors for VTE were acute medical conditions; best predictors for mortality were age, acute medical conditions, cancer, and Medicare health insurance. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic and extended indications account for the majority of IVCF placements. The standard indication is associated with the lowest VTE rate that may be explained by the competing risk of mortality higher in this group and related to the underlying medical conditions and bleeding risk. In the prophylactic group (no VTE at baseline), the exceedingly high DVT rate may be related to the IVCF placement.

Costs and complications of hospital admissions for inferior vena cava filter malfunction.

OBJECTIVE: Inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) malfunction can result from penetration, fracture, or migration of the device necessitating retrieval. Endovascular and open retrieval of IVCF have been described in institutional series without comparison. This study examines national hospital admissions for IVCF malfunction and compares the outcomes of open and endovascular retrieval. METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample database (2016-2017) was reviewed for admissions with International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes specific for IVCF malfunction. All ICD-10 procedural codes were reviewed, and patients were divided based on open or endovascular IVCF retrieval. Patient characteristics, outcomes, and costs of hospitalization were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: There were 665 patients admitted with a diagnosis of IVCF malfunction. Open IVCF retrieval was performed in 100 patients and endovascular removal in 90 patients. Of those undergoing open surgery, 45 patients (45%) required median sternotomy and 55 (55%) required abdominal surgeries. Most patients were white females with a mean age of 54.4 years (range, 49.3-59.6 years) with a history of deep venous thrombosis (55.3%) or pulmonary embolism (31.6%). Most patients with IVCF malfunction were treated in large (81.6%) or urban teaching (94.7%) hospitals situated most commonly in the South (42.1%) and Northeast (29.0%) with no difference in characteristics of the patients or the centers between the two groups. Patients undergoing open IVCF retrieval were more likely to undergo surgery on an elective basis compared with endovascular IVCF retrieval (75.0% vs 11.1%; P < .001). Open IVCF retrieval was associated with a higher likelihood of thromboembolic complication compared with endovascular retrieval (20% vs 0%; P = .04). There was a trend toward higher infectious complications and overall complications with endovascular removal, but this difference did not reach statistical significance. Open retrieval was associated with a mortality of 5.0% compared with no inpatient mortality with endovascular retrieval (P = .33). The mean hospital length of stay was no difference between the two groups. Open retrieval was associated with significantly higher hospital costs than endovascular retrieval ($34,276 vs $19,758; P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: Filter removal for patients with IVCF malfunction is associated with significant morbidity and cost, regardless of modality of retrieval. The introduction of specific ICD-10 codes for IVCF malfunction allows researchers to study these events. The development of effective tools for outpatient retrieval of malfunctioning IVCF could decrease related hospitalization and have potential savings for the healthcare system.

Permanent inferior vena cava filters offer greater expected patient utility at lower predicted cost.

OBJECTIVE: Retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters were first approved for use in the United States in 2003 to address the long-term complications of migration, thrombosis, fracture, and perforation observed with permanent IVC filter implantation. Although Food and Drug Administration approval of retrievable IVC filters includes permanent implantation, the incidence of complications from long-term implantation appears to be greater than that reported with existing permanent IVC filters. Also, only a small fraction of such retrievable IVC filters are ever retrieved. The purpose of the present study was to determine the threshold retrieval rate at which the use of retrievable IVC filters could be justified. METHODS: A Markov decision tree was constructed comparing retrievable and permanent IVC filters regarding their effectiveness and cost. A review of the reported data provided outcome probabilities, and the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry was the source of the utility values for the various potential outcomes. Medicare reimbursement rates served as a proxy for costs. A sensitivity analysis was performed for various parameters, primarily to determine the retrieval rate threshold at which the use of retrievable IVC filters would outperform the use of permanent IVC filters. RESULTS: Base case analysis demonstrated a greater predicted effectiveness for permanent compared with retrievable IVC filter implantation (5.41 quality-adjusted life-years [QALY] vs 5.33 QALY) at a lower cost ($2070 vs $4650). Monte Carlo simulation at 10,000 iterations confirmed the expected utility (5.4 ± 3.0 QALY vs 5.3 ± 3.0 QALY; P = .0002) and cost ($1900 ± $7400 vs $4800 ± 9900; P < .0001) to be statistically superior for permanent IVC filters. A sensitivity analysis for the filter retrieval rate demonstrated that the strategy of using a retrievable IVC filter was never preferable for utility or cost. The superiority of permanent IVC filter placement for effectiveness and cost persisted, regardless of anticipated patient-predicted annual mortality. A two-way sensitivity analysis for both IVC filter removal rate and annual patient mortality confirmed the superiority of permanent IVC filter placement at all levels. CONCLUSIONS: The predicted effectiveness of permanent IVC filters was greater and the predicted cost lower than those for retrievable IVC filters, regardless of the IVC filter retrieval rate. This interpretation of existing reported data using Markov decision analysis modeling supports the argument that unless the long-term complication rate of retrievable IVC filters can be significantly improved, their use should be abandoned in favor of currently available permanent IVC filters.

Practice Variation in Vena Cava Filter Use Among Trauma Centers in the National Trauma Database.

BACKGROUND: Agreement regarding indications for vena cava filter (VCF) utilization in trauma patients has been in flux since the filter's introduction. As VCF technology and practice guidelines have evolved, the use of VCF in trauma patients has changed. This study examines variation in VCF placement among trauma centers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was performed using data from the National Trauma Data Bank (2005-2014). Trauma centers were grouped according to whether they placed VCFs during the study period (VCF+/VCF-). A multivariable probit regression model was fit to predict the number of VCFs used among the VCF+ centers (the expected [E] number of VCF per center). The ratio of observed VCF placement (O) to expected VCFs (O:E) was computed and rank ordered to compare interfacility practice variation. RESULTS: In total, 65,482 VCFs were placed by 448 centers. Twenty centers (4.3%) placed no VCFs. The greatest predictors of VCF placement were deep vein thrombosis, spinal cord paralysis, and major procedure. The strongest negative predictor of VCF placement was admission during the year 2014. Among the VCF+ centers, O:E varied by nearly 500%. One hundred fifty centers had an O:E greater than one. One hundred sixty-nine centers had an O:E less than one. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial variation in practice is present in VCF placement. This variation cannot be explained only by the characteristics of the patients treated at these centers but could be also due to conflicting guidelines, changing evidence, decreasing reimbursement rates, or the culture of trauma centers.

Magnification Spot Radiographs Improve Assessment for Inferior Vena Cava Filter Fractures prior to Removal Compared to CT.

PURPOSE: To determine if magnification spot radiographs acquired before attempting inferior vena cava (IVC) filter removal have value in the assessment for filter fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of complex IVC filter removals performed at a tertiary referral center from October 2015 to May 2017 was performed. Magnification spot radiographs (frontal and at least 2 oblique views) were obtained with the fluoroscopic unit in the procedure suite prior to venous access for filter removal. Patients were included in the study if a computed tomography (CT) scan of the abdomen/pelvis before filter removal was available. Ninety-six patients (47 women and 49 men) were included. Most removed filters were the Recovery/G2/G2X/Eclipse/Meridian (n = 28), the Günther Tulip (n = 26), and the Celect/Celect Platinum (n = 22). Blinded review of the pre-procedural CT scans and spot radiographs for the presence of filter fractures was performed by 2 interventional radiologists. Accuracy of each modality was assessed using the status of the explanted filter as the gold standard. Agreement between the 2 readers was assessed with the kappa statistic. RESULTS: Fractures were present in 27 explanted filters (28%). Accuracy of CT was 88% and 68% for readers 1 and 2, respectively, which increased to 98% and 97% with magnification spot radiographs. The kappa statistic was 0.12 for CT and 0.97 for spot radiographs. CONCLUSIONS: Magnification spot radiographs acquired before attempting IVC filter removal improve detection of filter fractures and agreement among interventional radiologists. Therefore, these should be performed routinely to allow for optimal treatment planning.

Stratification of Pre-procedure Risk Factors Associated with Difficult-to-remove Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) Filters: A 6-year Retrospective Analysis at a Tertiary Center.

PURPOSE: Currently, data surrounding predicting difficulty of IVC filter retrievals are heterogenous and conflicting. We aimed to identify which of many variables associated with IVC filters is a risk for procedural difficulty. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study retrospectively reviewed 6 years of IVC filter retrievals at a tertiary center identifying 356 consecutive retrievals. A difficult retrieval was defined as any case where the fluoroscopy time exceeded 7 min, an advanced technique was required, the retrieval attempt failed and required an additional attempt or was left permanent, or there was major complication such as IVC filter fracture/migration/vessel injury. RESULTS: There were 105 filter retrievals defined as difficult (29.5%). Univariate analysis showed significantly increased risk for retrievals with an embedded top. Multivariate analysis assessed the association between dwell time, tilt, age, non-hooked filters, leg penetration and difficult retrieval. This showed a significant increase in the difficulty of retrieval for filters tilted between 5° and 15° (odds ratio 2.38, p < 0.001), for filters tilted more than 15° (odds ratio 7.91, p < 0.001), and dwell time greater than 6 months (odds ratio 2.06, p = 0.033). No significant increase in difficulty was seen with filters with a dwell time of less than 6 months, leg penetration, non-hooked filters, or with increasing patient age. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying these risks in patients in advance of the procedure allows appropriate planning and improved workflow efficiency.

Impact of Multidisciplinary Pulmonary Embolism Response Team Availability on Management and Outcomes.

Treatment strategies for complex patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) are often debated given patient heterogeneity, multitude of available treatment modalities, and lack of consensus guidelines. Although multidisciplinary Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams (PERT) are emerging to address this lack of consensus, their impact on patient outcomes is not entirely clear. This analysis was conducted to compare outcomes of all patients with PE before and after PERT availability. We analyzed all adult patients admitted with acute PE diagnosed on computed tomography scans in the 18 months before and after the institution of PERT at a large tertiary care hospital. Among 769 consecutive inpatients with PE, PERT era patients had lower rates of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (17.0% vs 8.3%, p = 0.002), shorter time-to-therapeutic anticoagulation (16.3 hour vs 12.6 hour, p = 0.009) and decreased use of inferior vena cava filters (22.2% vs 16.4%, p = 0.004). There was an increase in the use of thrombolytics/catheter-based strategies, however, this did not achieve statistical significance (p = 0.07). There was a significant decrease in 30-day/inpatient mortality (8.5% vs 4.7%, p = 0.03). These differences in outcomes were more pronounced in intermediate and high-risk patients (mortality 10.0% vs 5.3%, p = 0.02). The availability of multidisciplinary PERT was associated with improved outcomes including 30-day mortality. Patients with higher severity of PE seemed to derive most benefit from PERT availability.

Predicting venous thromboembolism in multiple myeloma: development and validation of the IMPEDE VTE score.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality among patients with multiple myeloma (MM). The International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) developed guidelines recommending primary thromboprophylaxis, in those identified at high-risk of VTE by the presence of risk factors. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has adopted these guidelines; however, they lack validation. We sought to develop and validate a risk prediction score for VTE in MM and to evaluate the performance of the current IMWG/NCCN guidelines. Using 4446 patients within the Veterans Administration Central Cancer Registry, we used time-to-event analyses to develop a risk score for VTE in patients with newly diagnosed MM starting chemotherapy. We externally validated the score using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, End Results (SEER)-Medicare database (N = 4256). After identifying independent predictors of VTE, we combined the variables to develop the IMPEDE VTE score (Immunomodulatory agent; Body Mass Index ≥25 kg/m2 ; Pelvic, hip or femur fracture; Erythropoietin stimulating agent; Dexamethasone/Doxorubicin; Asian Ethnicity/Race; VTE history; Tunneled line/central venous catheter; Existing thromboprophylaxis). The score showed satisfactory discrimination in the derivation cohort, c-statistic = 0.66. Risk of VTE significantly increased as score increased (hazard ratio 1.20, P = <.0001). Within the external validation cohort, IMPEDE VTE had a c-statistic of 0.64. For comparison, when evaluating the performance of the IMWG/NCCN guidelines, the c-statistic was 0.55. In summary, the IMPEDE VTE score outperformed the current IMWG/NCCN guidelines and could be considered as the new standard risk stratification for VTE in MM.

Costs and complications of endovascular inferior vena cava filter retrieval.

OBJECTIVE: Advanced endovascular techniques are frequently used for challenging inferior vena cava (IVC) filter retrieval. However, the costs of IVC filter retrieval have not been studied. This study compares IVC filter retrieval techniques and estimates procedural costs. METHODS: Consecutive IVC filter retrievals performed at a tertiary center between 2009 and 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Procedures were classified as standard retrieval (SR) if they required only a vascular sheath and a snare device and as advanced endovascular retrieval (AER) if additional endovascular techniques were used for retrieval. Cost data were based on hospital bills for the procedures. Patients' characteristics, filter dwell time, retrieval procedure details, complications, and costs were compared between the groups. All statistical comparisons were performed using SAS 9.3 software. RESULTS: There were 191 IVC filter retrievals (SR, 157; AER, 34) in 183 patients (mean age, 55 years; 51% male). Fifteen filters (7.9%) were placed at an outside hospital. The indications for placement were mostly therapeutic (76% vs 24% for prophylaxis). All IVC filters were retrievable, with Bard Eclipse (Bard Peripheral Vascular, Tempe, Ariz; 34%) and Cook Günther Tulip (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Ind; 24%) the most common. Venous ultrasound examination of the lower extremities of 133 patients (70%) was performed before retrieval, whereas only 5 patients (2.6%) received a computed tomography scan of the abdomen. There was no difference in the mean filter dwell time in the two groups (SR, 147.9 ± 146.1 days; AER, 161.4 ± 91.3 days; P = .49). AERs were more likely to have had prior attempts at retrieval (23.5%) compared with SRs (1.9%; P < .001). The most common AER techniques used were the wire loop and snare sling (47.1%) and the stiff wire displacement (44.1%). Bronchoscopy forceps was used in four cases (11.8%); this was the only off-label device used. AERs were more likely to require more than one venous access site for the retrieval procedure (23.5% vs 0%; P < .001). AERs were significantly more likely to have longer fluoroscopy time (34.4 ± 18.3 vs 8.1 ± 7.9 minutes; P < .001) and longer total procedural time (102.8 ± 59.9 vs 41.1 ± 25.0 minutes; P < .001) compared with SRs. The complication rate was higher with AER (20.6%) than with SR (5.2%; P = .006). Most complications were abnormal radiologic findings that did not require additional intervention. The procedural cost of AER was significantly higher (AER, $14,565 ± $6354; SR, $7644 ± $2810; P < .001) than that of SR. This translated to an average increase in cost of $6921 ± $3544 per retrieval procedure for AER. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced endovascular techniques provide a feasible alternative when standard IVC filter retrieval techniques do not succeed. However, these procedures come with a higher cost and higher rate of complications.

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.