“Death Knell” for Prophylactic Vena Cava Filters? A 20-Year Experience with a Venous Thromboembolism Guideline

2019 ◽  
Vol 85 (8) ◽  
pp. 806-812
Author(s):  
Rathna Shenoy ◽  
Kyle W. Cunningham ◽  
Samuel Wade Ross ◽  
A. Britton Christmas ◽  
Bradley W. Thomas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Deep Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Vena Cava ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Vena Cava Filters ◽  
Level I ◽  
Deep Vein

The role of prophylactic vena cava filters (pVCFs) in trauma patients remains controversial. After 20 years of data collection and experience, we reviewed our venous thromboembolism guideline for the efficacy of pVCFs in preventing pulmonary embolism (PE). A retrospective cohort study was performed using our Level I trauma center registry from January 1997 thru December 2016. This population was then divided by the presence of pVCFs. Univariate analysis was performed comparing the incidence of PEs, deep vein thrombosis, and mortality between those with and without a pVCF. There were 35,658 patients identified, of whom 2 per cent (n = 847) received pVCFs. The PE rate was 0.4 per cent in both groups. The deep vein thrombosis rate for pVCFs was 3.9 per cent compared with 0.6 per cent in the no-VCF group ( P < 0.0001). Given that there was no difference in the rates of PEs between the cohorts, the subset of patients with a PE were analyzed by their risk factors. Only ventilator days > 3 were associated with a higher risk in the no-pVCF group (0.2 vs 1.5%, P = 0.033). pVCFs did not confer benefit reducing PE rate. In addition, despite their intended purpose, pVCFs cannot eliminate PEs in high-risk trauma patients, suggesting a lack of utility for prophylaxis in this population.

Deep Vein Thrombosis and Venous Thromboembolism in the Critically Ill

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn L. Butler ◽  
George Velmahos
Keyword(s):  
Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Deep Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Anticoagulation Therapy ◽  
Vena Cava ◽  
Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Vena Cava Filters ◽  
Deep Vein

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) poses unique diagnostic and therapeutic dilemmas in the intensive care unit (ICU). Immobility, inflammatory states, and trauma uniquely predispose surgical ICU patients to deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Concurrently, the risks of perioperative and traumatic bleeding complicate management of VTE, with anticoagulation contraindicated in many scenarios. This review surveys the latest evidence in the diagnosis and management of VTE among critically ill surgical patients. It discusses evidence-based guidelines regarding diagnostic imaging, anticoagulation, prophylaxis, inferior vena cava filters, non–vitamin K oral anticoagulants, and surgical and catheter-based therapies. The review also examines the special challenges encountered when treating multisystem trauma patients.  Key words: anticoagulation therapy, deep vein thrombosis, pharmacoprophylaxis, pulmonary embolism, venous thromboembolism  

Venous Thromboembolism in Trauma Patients

2007 ◽  
Vol 73 (11) ◽  
pp. 1173-1180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Om P. Sharma ◽  
Michael F. Oswanski ◽  
Rusin J. Joseph ◽  
Peter Tonui ◽  
Libby Westrick Pa-C ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factor ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Injury Severity Score ◽  
Severity Score ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Cord Injury ◽  
Deep Vein

Serial venous duplex scans (VDS) were done in 507 trauma patients with at least one risk factor (RF) for venous thromboembolism (VTE) during a 2-year study period. Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) was detected in 31 (6.1%) patients. This incidence was 3.1 per cent in low (1–2 RFs), 3.4 per cent in moderate (3–5 RFs), and 7.7 per cent in high (≥6 RFs) VTE scores ( P = 0.172). Incidence was statistically different (3% vs 7.2%, P = 0.048) on reanalyzing patients in two risk categories, low-risk (1–4 RFs) and high-risk (≥5 RFs). Only 4 of 16 RFs had statistically higher incidence of DVT in patients with or without RFs: previous VTE (27.3% vs 5.6%, odds ratio (OR) 6.628, P = 0.024), spinal cord injury (22.6% vs 5%, OR 5.493, P = 0.001), pelvic fractures (11.4% vs 5.1%, OR 2.373, P = 0.042), and head injury with a greater than two Abbreviated Injury Score (10.5% vs 4.2%, OR 2.639, P = 0.014). On reanalyzing patients with ≥5 RFs vs <5RFs, obesity (14.3 vs 6.1%, P = 0.007), malignancy (5.6% vs 0.6%, P = 0.006), coagulopathy (10.8% vs 1.8%, P = 0.000), and previous VTE (3.2% vs 0%, P = 0.019) were significant on univariate analysis. Patients with DVT had 3.70 ± 1.75 RFs and a 9.61 ± 4.93 VTE score, whereas, patients without DVT had 2.66 ± 1.50 RFs and a 6.83 ± 3.91 VTE score ( P = 0.000). DVTs had a direct positive relationship with higher VTE scores, length of stay, and number of VDS (>1 r, P ≤ 0.001). Increasing age was a weak risk factor (0.03 r, P = 0.5). First two VDS diagnosed 77 per cent of DVTs. Patients with injury severity score of ≥15 and 25 had higher DVTs compared with the ones with lower injury severity score levels ( P ≤ 0.05). Pulmonary embolism was silent in 63 per cent and DVTs were asymptomatic in 68 per cent.

High utilization rate of vena cava filters in deep vein thrombosis

2005 ◽  
Vol 93 (06) ◽  
pp. 1117-1119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel Goldhaber ◽  
Victor Tapson ◽  
Michael Jaff
Keyword(s):  
Deep Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Anticoagulation Therapy ◽  
Vena Cava ◽  
Duplex Ultrasound ◽  
Physician Education ◽  
Utilization Rate ◽  
Thromboembolism Prophylaxis ◽  
Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Vena Cava Filters ◽  
Deep Vein

SummaryThe objective was to investigate newly diagnosed patients with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) who received inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs). A prospective registry enrolled 5451 patients from 183 US study sites. In all patients, examination by venous duplex ultrasound confirmed the diagnosis of DVT. We collected and analyzed data on 781 patients who received an IVCF . The most frequently prescribed treatments were low–molecular-weight heparin and unfractionated heparin, which were used as a bridge to warfarin in 39% (n=2143) and 35% (n=1926) of patients, respectively. Of the total population, 781 (14%) (235 outpatients, 546 inpatients) underwent IVCF placement. The most common reasons for IVCF placement were contraindication to anticoagulation (n = 271), prophylaxis (n = 259), major bleeding related to anticoagulation therapy (n = 92), and anticoagulation failure (n = 73). Multivariate analysis revealed that patients were more likely to undergo IVCF insertion with multiple system organ failure (odds ratio [OR], 3.6; 95% CI, 1.48–8.60), previous stroke (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 2.11–4.74), or history of pulmonary embolism (OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.95–2.91). In conclusion, a surprisingly high 14% (781) of patients with confirmed DVT received an IVCF. Many of these patients may have warranted less invasive methods of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. Improved physician education regarding mechanical and pharmacologic prophylaxis alternatives might reduce the use of IVCFs.

Treatment: catheter-based intervention and inferior vena cava filters

ESC CardioMed ◽  
2018 ◽  
pp. 2781-2786
Author(s):  
Ronald S. Winokur ◽  
Akhilesh K. Sista
Keyword(s):  
Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Deep Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Inferior Vena Cava ◽  
Inferior Vena ◽  
Vena Cava ◽  
Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Inferior Vena Cava Filters ◽  
Vena Cava Filters ◽  
Physiological Benefits ◽  
Deep Vein

Venous thromboembolism including pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis leads to short- and long-term morbidity and in some cases mortality. Although treatment approaches vary among institutions based on local expertise, the employment of interventional techniques is of great interest. Several studies have shown clinical and physiological benefits from catheter-based techniques. However, these therapies are not without risk, especially with the use of powerful thrombolytic agents that increase the rate of bleeding. This chapter reviews the catheter-based techniques for the management of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism as well as the indications and complications of inferior vena cava filters.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document