Recommended reporting standards for vena caval filter placement and patient follow-up

Greenfield, Lazar J.; Rutherford, Robert B.

doi:10.1016/s0741-5214(99)70088-1

Cited by 64 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 79 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The algorithm was prospectively implemented on January 1, 2008, with a 1-year enrollment phase. Accepted reporting standards were used to collect the data, 32 and a quality assurance data review was performed based on intent-to-treat at 6, 12, and 18 months. Technical feasibility was defined as intent to place the filter with IVUS guidance and determined by ability to obtain appropriate access and adequate visualization.…”

Section: Filter Algorithmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prospective implementation of an algorithm for bedside intravascular ultrasound-guided filter placement in critically ill patients

Killingsworth

Taylor

Patterson

et al. 2010

Journal of Vascular Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Filter Algorithmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prospective implementation of an algorithm for bedside intravascular ultrasound-guided filter placement in critically ill patients

Killingsworth

Taylor

Patterson

et al. 2010

Journal of Vascular Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…IVCT was noted in 3.6-11.2% of cases while IST was noted in 23-36% of filter insertions. Other acute (within 24 h) and chronic complications included misplacement, local hematoma, pneumothorax, cerebrovascular accident, IVC perforation, guide wire entrapment, infection, air embolism, arrhythmias, migration, tilting, strut fracture, venous gangrene and phlegmasia cerulea dolens [14,37]. These events were infrequent and rarely fatal (migration to the heart, fracture and retroperitoneal hemorrhage, ventricular arrhythmias, IVCT and renal failure).…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inferior vena cava filters in the management of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: a systematic review

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study systematically reviews outcomes after inferior vena cava (IVC) filtration in cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE). A comprehensive review of the English language literature was performed using MEDLINE, COCHRANE library, Embase and CINAHL on outcomes (i.e., pulmonary embolism, recurrent DVT, postphlebitic syndrome and survival) following IVC filtration in cancer-associated VTE. Fourteen studies with 2,154 cancer patients receiving IVC filters post-VTE were included. All were observational studies. The mean duration of followup was 0.7-38 months and mean patient age was 56.8-68 years. Among study participants, 47-87% had stage 3 or 4 cancers. Of the 47-93% of filters inserted for contraindications to anticoagulation (AC), 10-33% were placed for relative contraindications. Recurrent PE was seen in 0-6%, fatal PE in 0-4.5%, recurrent DVT in 0-18.2%, postphlebitic syndrome (PPS) in 0-2.7%, and IVC thrombosis (ICVT) in 3% of cancer patients. Median survival post-filter insertion was 2-10 months. Evidence supporting the utility of IVC filter insertion in cancer-associated VTE is limited to observational studies only. Preliminary data demonstrate similar safety and efficacy of filters in cancer and noncancer populations. The combination of filters and anticoagulation is no more effective than either modality alone. Retrievable filters are an attractive option for prevention of VTE in the presence of temporary risk factors or temporary contraindications to anticoagulation in patients who have a reasonable life expectancy, but there is no evidence to support their preferential use in patients with advanced malignancy.

show abstract

“…Clinical examination of insertion site at 24 h is recommended to rule out access site haematoma. Abdominal X-Ray should be acquired the next day, then every 6 months for 2 years, then yearly to ensure filter position [65]. Doppler ultrasound of the IVC is recommended at 3 months, then every 6 months for 2 years, then yearly [65].…”

Section: Which Filter Should I Use?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Abdominal X-Ray should be acquired the next day, then every 6 months for 2 years, then yearly to ensure filter position [65]. Doppler ultrasound of the IVC is recommended at 3 months, then every 6 months for 2 years, then yearly [65]. Routine anticoagulation follow-up is mandatory if the patient is anticoagulated.…”

Section: Which Filter Should I Use?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Optional inferior vena caval filters: where are we now?

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the advent of newer optional/retrievable inferior vena caval filters, there has been a rise in the number of filters inserted globally. This review article examines the currently available approved optional filter models, outlines the clinical indications for filter insertion and examines the expanding indications. Additionally, the available evidence behind the use of optional filters is reviewed, the issue of anticoagulation is discussed and possible future filter developments are considered.

show abstract

Recommended reporting standards for vena caval filter placement and patient follow-up

Cited by 64 publications

References 79 publications

Prospective implementation of an algorithm for bedside intravascular ultrasound-guided filter placement in critically ill patients

Prospective implementation of an algorithm for bedside intravascular ultrasound-guided filter placement in critically ill patients

Inferior vena cava filters in the management of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: a systematic review

Optional inferior vena caval filters: where are we now?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About