scholarly journals Clinical outcomes of inferior vena cava filter in complicated pulmonary embolism

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 204589401988263
Author(s):  
Muhammad H. Gul ◽  
Zin M. Htun ◽  
Joseph Rigdon ◽  
Belinda Rivera-Lebron ◽  
Vinicio de Jesus Perez

Background: Previous observational studies suggest that inferior vena cava filter placement in pulmonary embolism patients complicated with congestive heart failure, mechanical ventilation, and shock may have a mortality benefit. We sought to analyze the survival benefits of inferior vena cava filter in pulmonary embolism patients complicated with acute myocardial infarction, acute respiratory failure, shock, or requiring treatment with thrombolytics. Methods: This retrospective observational study used hospital discharge data from the National Inpatient Sample Data (NIS). ICD-9-CM coding was used to identify complicated pulmonary embolism patients (N = 254,465) in NIS from 2002 to 2014, including the subgroups of acute myocardial infarction, acute respiratory failure, shock, and thrombolytics. Inferior vena cava filter recipients were 1:1 propensity score-matched on age, sex, race, deep vein thrombosis, Elixhauser comorbidities, and other pulmonary embolism comorbidities (45 covariates) to non-inferior vena cava filter recipients in complicated pulmonary embolism patients and separately in each subgroup. Clinical outcomes were compared between the inferior vena cava filter group and the non-inferior vena cava filter group. Results: Mortality rate in complicated pulmonary embolism patients with inferior vena cava filter placement was lower (20.9% vs. 33%; NNT = 8.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 7.91–8.69, E-value = 2.53) and in the subgroups; acute myocardial infarction (17.9% vs. 30.1%; NNT = 8.19, 95% CI 7.52–8.92, E-value = 2.76), acute respiratory failure (19.5% vs. 29.7%; NNT = 9.76, 95% CI 8.67–11.16, E-value = 2.38), shock (30.7% vs. 47.1%; NNT = 6.08, 95% CI 5.73–6.47, E-value = 2.43), and with the use of thrombolytics (7% vs. 12.9 %; NNT 17.1, 95% CI 14.88–20.12, E-value = 3.01) ( p < 0.001 for all). Conclusion: Inferior vena cava filter placement in pulmonary embolism complicated with acute myocardial infarction, acute respiratory failure, shock, or requiring thrombolytic therapy was associated with reduced mortality.

2007 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 461-464 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christa M. Trigilio-Black ◽  
Chad D. Ringley ◽  
Corrigan L. McBride ◽  
Victor J. Sorensen ◽  
Jon S. Thompson ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Sara Valadares ◽  
Fátima Serrano ◽  
Rita Torres ◽  
Augusta Borges

The authors present a case of a 27-year-old multiparous woman, with multiple thrombophilia, whose pregnancy was complicated with deep venous thrombosis requiring placement of a vena cava filter. At 15th week of gestation, following an acute deep venous thrombosis of the right inferior limb, anticoagulant therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) was instituted without improvement in her clinical status. Subsequently, at 18 weeks of pregnancy, LMWH was switched to warfarin. At 30th week of gestation, the maintenance of high thrombotic risk was the premise for placement of an inferior vena cava filter for prophylaxis of pulmonary embolism during childbirth and postpartum. There were no complications and a vaginal delivery was accomplished at 37 weeks of gestation. Venal placement of inferior vena cava filters is an attractive option as prophylaxis for pulmonary embolism during pregnancy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document