Twenty-one-Year Trends in the Use of Inferior Vena Cava Filters

Stein, Paul D.; Kayali, Fadi; Olson, R. E.

doi:10.1001/archinte.164.14.1541

Cited by 313 publications

(203 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

195

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Vena Cava Filters: Vena cava filters are indicated for the prevention of PE in patients who cannot be anticoagulated because of an absolute contraindication to therapeutic anticoagulation or complications from anticoagulation. [126][127][128][129][130] However, placement of an IVC filter does not prevent DVT and has been associated with an increased risk of recurrent DVT. 126,131,132 A randomized, controlled trial has assessed the efficacy and safety of IVC filters in conjunction with anticoagulation compared with anticoagulant therapy alone in the treatment of acute VTE.…”

Section: Mechanical Devicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Venous Thromboembolic Disease

Streiff¹,

Bockenstedt²,

Cataland³

et al. 2013

J Natl Compr Canc Netw

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OverviewVenous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common and life-threatening condition in patients with cancer.1,2 Results from a retrospective study of hospitalized adult patients with cancer with neutropenia (N=66,106) showed that approximately 3% to 12% of these patients, depending on the type of malignancy, experienced VTE during their first hospitalization.1 In a recent health claims database analysis of patients undergoing chemotherapy for solid tumors in the ambulatory setting (N=17,284), VTE NCCN Venous Thromboembolic Disease Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology AbstractVenous thromboembolism (VTE) remains a common and life-threatening complication among patients with cancer. Thromboprophylaxis can be used to prevent the occurrence of VTE in patients with cancer who are considered at high risk for developing this complication. Therefore, it is critical to recognize the various risk factors for VTE in patients with cancer. Risk assessment tools are available to help identify patients for whom discussions regarding the potential benefits and risks of thromboprophylaxis would be appropriate. The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for VTE provide recommendations on risk evaluation, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. (JNCCN 2013;11:1402-1429 NCCN Categories of Evidence and ConsensusCategory 1: Based upon high-level evidence, there is uniform NCCN consensus that the intervention is appropriate. Category 2A: Based upon lower-level evidence, there is uniform NCCN consensus that the intervention is appropriate. Category 2B: Based upon lower-level evidence, there is NCCN consensus that the intervention is appropriate. Category 3: Based upon any level of evidence, there is major NCCN disagreement that the intervention is appropriate. These guidelines are also available on the Internet. For the latest update, visit NCCN.org.

show abstract

Section: Mechanical Devicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Venous Thromboembolic Disease

Streiff¹,

Bockenstedt²,

Cataland³

et al. 2013

J Natl Compr Canc Netw

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Generally, VCFs are reserved for patients who have absolute or relative contraindications to anticoagulation and who are at a high risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) 1, 2, 3. With the advent of retrievable VCFs, there has been a marked increase in overall use 4, 5, 6. Retrievable VCFs differ in that they can be removed once contraindications have subsided and patients can be initiated on anticoagulation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vena Cava Filter Retrieval Rates and Factors Associated With Retrieval in a Large US Cohort

Brown

Raissi

Han

et al. 2017

JAHA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundRetrieval of vena cava filters (VCFs) is important for safety as complications increase with longer dwell times. This study assessed VCF retrieval rates and factors associated with retrieval in a national cohort.Methods and Results VCFs were identified by procedural codes from an administrative claims database. Patients were identified who had a VCF placement during a hospitalization from a national commercial administrative claims database. Indications for VCF placement were identified as pulmonary embolism with or without deep vein thrombosis, deep vein thrombosis only, or prophylactic. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics were included in proportional hazard regression models to find associations with early (90‐day) and 1‐year VCF retrieval. Initiation of anticoagulation and the correlation between time‐to‐retrieval and time‐to‐initiation of anticoagulation were observed. Of 54 766 patients receiving a VCF, 36.9% had pulmonary embolism, 43.9% had deep vein thrombosis only, and 19.2% had no apparent venous thromboembolism present. Over the 1 year of follow‐up, the cumulative incidence of VCF retrieval was 18.4%. Retrieval increased over time from a low of 14.0% in 2010 up to ≈24% in 2014. In adjusted time‐to‐event models, increasing age, differing regions, and some comorbidities were associated with poorer retrieval rates. Initiation of anticoagulation was poorly correlated with retrieval, with anticoagulation preceding retrieval by a median of 51 days while those without retrieval had a median of 278 days of exposure to anticoagulation.Conclusions VCF retrieval increased over the study period but remained suboptimal and was weakly correlated with anticoagulation initiation.

show abstract

“…These findings suggest that patients with similar clinical characteristics are being treated or not treated with an IVCF based largely on local prevalent practice pattern. The frequency of IVCF use in the management of patients with acute VTE has expanded exponentially, with one study showing a 20-fold increase between 1979-1999 [11].…”

Section: Thrombosis Research J O U R N a L H O M E P A G E : W W W mentioning

confidence: 99%

Inferior vena cava filters in patients with cancer and venous thromboembolism (VTE): patterns of use and outcomes

Brunson¹,

Ho²,

White

et al. 2016

Thrombosis Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Twenty-one-Year Trends in the Use of Inferior Vena Cava Filters

Abstract: The use of IVC filters increased markedly during the last 2 decades in patients with PE, patients with DVT alone, and patients at risk who had neither PE nor DVT. Randomized controlled trials may lead to improved risk stratification and limit the number of unnecessary filter insertions.

Cited by 313 publications

References 36 publications

Venous Thromboembolic Disease

Venous Thromboembolic Disease

Vena Cava Filter Retrieval Rates and Factors Associated With Retrieval in a Large US Cohort

Inferior vena cava filters in patients with cancer and venous thromboembolism (VTE): patterns of use and outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About