Indications for Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) Filter Placement - Assessing Compliance with Accepted Standards Set by Two Professional Societies

Abstract 2553 Background: Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) filter placement has increased significantly over the past few decades, due to expanding indications for filter placement. Indications for filter placement vary widely depending on which professional society recommendations are followed. Our objectives were to record the number of IVC filters placed in our medium sized metropolitan teaching hospital, assess the effect of medical specialty on placement and evaluate compliance with accepted standards as set by the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) and the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR). Methods: Single-center, retrospective medical record review of all patients who received an IVC filter over 26 months (01/30/2008 - 4/5/2010). Inclusion criteria included patients from both sexes, all ages, filter placement within the aforementioned dates and inpatient procedures performed by interventional radiology. A total of 443 IVC filters were placed in our institution over the time period studied. 48.1% (213) of these filters were placed by interventional radiology. Of these, 187 were reviewed with 26 excluded do to incomplete patient records available at the time of review (July 2010). Medical records were reviewed for patient demographics, clinical course, and compliance with accepted guidelines set by the ACCP and SIR. Results: The average age was 75.3 years and 43.9% of the patients were males. 76.2% of patients were on the medical service (internal medicine and its subspecialties) whereas 22.8% were on non medical services. 87.2 % of filters were recommended by medicine and its subspecialties and 12.8% by non medical specialties. 43.3% of filters placed met guidelines established by the ACCP (Table 1). 79.1% of filters placed met SIR guidelines (Table 2). No documentation was available to assess compliance for 20.9% of filters. 46% of filters placed by internal medicine and its subspecialties met ACCP criteria whereas only 25% of filters recommended by non medicine specialties were compliant with criteria (p value=0.039, 95% CI). Physicians within internal medicine and its subspecialties were compliant with SIR guidelines for 84% of the filters placed, whereas only 46% of non medicine physicians met these indications (p=0.001, 95% CI). 35.8% of filters placed met SIR criteria but did not meet ACCP guidelines. Conclusions: Indications for IVC filter placement varied significantly in this study, less than half of filters placed met ACCP guidelines, yet over three-fourths met criteria set by the SIR, especially when comparing medicine and non medicine specialties. In analyzing the filters which meet indications set by SIR but not ACCP it becomes apparent that most of these are placed for patients classified as “fall risks”, failures of anticoagulation, limited cardiopulmonary reserve and medication noncompliance. Further research needs to be guided towards evaluating if these indications truly merit the placement of an IVC filter. This study strongly suggests a need for harmonization of current guidelines espoused by professional societies. A limitation of our study was that 230 filters placed by vascular surgery and interventional cardiology were not reviewed. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.