Implications and limitations of the PREPIC2 study—the interventionist’s perspective

Recommendations from the ICM-VTE: General

“…Most studies demonstrating reduced PE risk have included patients also receiving medical anticoagulation, but these standards have also changed over time. Most recently, the Prevention of Recurrent Pulmonary Embolism by Vena Cava Interruption (PREPIC) - 2 trial was unable to demonstrate decreased PE risk after IVC filter placement in patients admitted with VTE who received chemical anticoagulation 1549,1550 .…”

“…In deciding whether to employ a filter, surgeons must also consider the risks associated with the placement of IVC filters. Filter migration, puncture site, hematoma, have been reported [1548][1549][1550][1551] . In addition, IVC filters are associated with increased risk of long-term complications such as postthrombotic syndrome.…”

Evaluation of a Device Combining an Inferior Vena Cava Filter and a Central Venous Catheter for Preventing Pulmonary Embolism Among Critically Ill Trauma Patients

“…It was a single-arm clinical trial. It was not feasible to randomly assign these critically ill patients to the Angel Catheter versus no device or a placebo because the insertion of retrievable IVC filters is the standard of care for many critically ill trauma patients (27). In addition, the median duration of follow-up was relatively short.…”

Inferior vena cava filter – comprehensive overview of current indications, techniques, complications and retrieval rates

“…Therefore, IVC filter placement may be potentially indicated in this patient population. However, this indication has not been extensively studied and further research is warranted [22].…”