Retrievable inferior vena cava filters in trauma patients: factors that influence removal rate and an argument for institutional protocols

Albrecht, Roxie M.; Garwe, Tabitha; Carter, Sandra M.; Maurer, Adrian J.

doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2011.09.006

Cited by 16 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Like Young et al, we believe there is very limited evidence concerning VCF outcomes when used within their currently approved indications, especially of retrievable filters. Several studies have reported on varied percentages of transient filter's mechanical complications and irretrievability when treating orthopaedic patients, especially in trauma cases 7,[32][33][34][35][36][37][38] . Fullen et al 30 reported that technical difficulties, largely mechanical, were more frequent in women and related to the small size of the jugular vein.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are there any risk factors for developing complications with the use of retrievable vena cava filters in orthopaedic surgery?

Slullitel

Dilernia²,

Stagnaro³

et al. 2018

Rev Fac Cien Med Univ Nac Cordoba

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<p>Introducción: En pacientes sometidos a cirugía ortopédica y con antecedente de Enfermedad tromboembolica, la profilaxis común suele ser insuficiente para prevenir eventos tromboembólicos. Los filtros de vena cava (FVC) removibles pueden considerarse una alternativa. Objetivos: Estimar la tasa de complicaciones hematológicas, mecánicas y muertes asociadas al uso de FVC removibles en cirugía ortopédica. Métodos: Se diseñó una cohorte retrospectiva de pacientes con historia previa de Enfermedad tromboembolica (ETE) sometidos a procedimientos ortopédicos que requirieron FVC removible, entre el 2006-2014 en el servicio de ortopedia del Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires. Se definió complicación asociada al FVC a las complicaciones mecánicas, hematológicas (recurrencia de ETE, síndrome postrombotico y sangrado mayor) y muerte. Para estimar la asociación con factores de riesgo, subclasificamos a las cirugías en 5 grupos: 1, artroplastia/no artroplastia; 2, primaria/revisión; 3, electiva/urgente; 4, oncológica/no oncológica; 5, filtro pre/postoperatorio. Resultados: Se incluyeron 68 pacientes, de los cuales 31 presentaron algún tipo de complicación. Las complicaciones mecánicas ostentaron un 16%, precisando de una revisión del filtro. 64% de los filtros revisados fallaron mecánicamente y no pudieron ser extraídos. Las tasas de recurrencia de ETE, síndrome postrombotico y sangrado mayor fueron del 33%, 15% y 4.5%, respectivamente. Las cirugías espinales presentaron un mayor riesgo de recurrencia de ETE. La mortalidad global fue del 28% y 4% asociada a recurrencia de ETE. Conclusiones: Las cirugías ortopédicas exhibieron un riesgo elevado de complicaciones mecánicas y hematológicas luego de usar un FVC removible. Empero, la mortalidad debido a dichas complicaciones fue baja.</p>

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are there any risk factors for developing complications with the use of retrievable vena cava filters in orthopaedic surgery?

Slullitel

Dilernia²,

Stagnaro³

et al. 2018

Rev Fac Cien Med Univ Nac Cordoba

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Multiple studies have found advanced age (>80 years old), Medicare coverage, and a long commute to the hospital to be associated with IVC filter nonretrieval. [12][13][14][15][16][17] These groups of patients have decreased access to transportation and limited resources for medical appointments. Additionally, the elderly patients are prone to have multiple medical comorbidities that complicate follow-up and the use of medical therapy for VTE.…”

Section: Patient Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Medical comorbidities, such as acute hemorrhage, malignancy, neurological conditions, and contraindication to anticoagulation, predispose patients to have low filter retrieval rates. [11][12][13][14][15][16] Many of these patients have a high shortterm morbidity and mortality rate. This makes them less likely to meet the eligibility criteria for retrieval or receive long-term benefit from retrieval.…”

Section: Patient Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, in spite of the FDA recommendations, the retrieval rate of IVC filters continues to remain below 58%. 4,[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] The factors that affect filter removal are studied in various clinical settings focusing on clinical, technical, and process factors. In this report, we review reported data-driven variables that affect retrieval rates of IVC filters.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Factors Affecting Inferior Vena Cava Filter Retrieval: A Review

Crumley

Hyatt

Kalva

et al. 2018

Vasc Endovascular Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Over the last 2 decades, there has been an exponential rise in placement of retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters, while the retrieval rate has remained steadily low. Approaches to increasing filter retrieval rates have been extensively studied. Conclusion: This review presents an up-to-date review of reported data-driven variables that affect retrieval rates of IVC filters, with a focus on clinical, technical, and process factors.

show abstract

“…The establishment of dedicated IVC filter clinics has been demonstrated to significantly increase the retrieval rate of rIVCF, 38 as do registry-enhanced institutional follow-up protocols. 39…”

Section: Prospective Patient Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Permanent versus Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters: Rethinking the “One-Filter-for-All” Approach to Mechanical Thromboembolic Prophylaxis

Ghatan

Ryu

2016

Semin intervent Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filtration for thromboembolic protection is not without risks, and there are important differences among commercially available IVC filters. While retrievable filters are approved for permanent implantation, they may be associated with higher device-related complications in the long term when compared with permanent filters. Prospective patient selection in determining which patients might be better served by permanent or retrievable filter devices is central to resource optimization, in addition to improved clinical follow-up and a concerted effort to retrieve filters when no longer needed. This article highlights the differences between permanent and retrievable devices, describes the interplay between these differences and the clinical indications for IVC filtration, advises against a ?one-filter-for-all? approach to mechanical thromboembolic prophylaxis, and discusses strategies for optimizing personalized device selection.

show abstract

Retrievable inferior vena cava filters in trauma patients: factors that influence removal rate and an argument for institutional protocols

Cited by 16 publications

References 12 publications

Are there any risk factors for developing complications with the use of retrievable vena cava filters in orthopaedic surgery?

Are there any risk factors for developing complications with the use of retrievable vena cava filters in orthopaedic surgery?

Factors Affecting Inferior Vena Cava Filter Retrieval: A Review

Permanent versus Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters: Rethinking the “One-Filter-for-All” Approach to Mechanical Thromboembolic Prophylaxis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About