Inferior Vena Cava Filters: Outcomes In Patients With Active Cancer

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 1148-1148
Author(s):  
Ana Isabel Casanegra ◽  
Alfonso Tafur ◽  
Halima Suria ◽  
Peter Mseti

Abstract Introduction Active cancer (ACa) is strongly associated with venous thromboembolism. This group of patients has a higher risk of bleeding, and often need surgical procedures as part of their treatment. Retrievable inferior vena cava filters (RIVCF) are frequently placed in this scenario, when anticoagulation cannot be continued. However, it is not known if the complication rates and retrieval rates of RIVCF in these patients are similar to those without cancer. Objectives To compare the rate of RIVCF related complications between patients with ACa and those without. Methods We reviewed the records of all the consecutive adult patients with RIVCF placed in a single institution from January 2010 to December 2012. ACa was defined as metastatic disease or any cancer treatment (radiation, chemotherapy or surgery) within 6 months before the filter placement. The selected outcomes were: Major filter complications (migration, embolization, fracture, penetration and tilting or thrombosis preventing retrieval), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE) and mortality. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) events were considered new if they involved a previously unaffected segment. Statistical analysis was performed with SAS (version 9.2, SAS Institute, Cary, NC). A p value of 0.05 was considered clinically significant. Quantitative variables were expressed as mean ± Standard deviation. Non parametric variables were reported as median and interquartile range (IQR). Qualitative data are presented as percentages. Results We reviewed 267 patients with RIVCF. The mean age was 57.6 ±16.5 years, and the mean follow up was 8.2 months. There were 134 males (50.2%), 222(83%) had a DVT, and 91 (34%) had a PE at baseline. One third of the patients (n=91, 34%) had ACa, (49% metastatic, 32% on chemotherapy). The primary site was gynecologic in 41%, central nervous system in 12%, gastrointestinal tract and pancreas 12%, urological 7%, lung 7%, other 22%. Most of these patients with VTE had high-grade tumors (35 patients, 51%). The indications to have the RIVCF were not different in the patients with ACa compared with those without (p=0.1). In the In ACa patients, indications for placing the filters were surgery in 36%, active bleeding in 36%, bleeding risk in 19%, failed anticoagulation in 2%, other in 7%. The bleeding risk was assessed a posteriori with HAS-BLED (Hypertension, Abnormal liver or renal function, Stroke, Bleeding, Labile INR, Elderly, Drug therapy/alcohol), and 88 % of the patients had a low bleeding risk of less than 2% (HAS-BLED score 0 to 2). Patients with ACa were older (62 ± 13.5 vs. 55.4 ± 17.4 years p<0.01), more frequently females (65.9% vs. 34% p<0.01), and more likely to have PE at baseline (55% vs. 23% p<0.01). There was no difference in recurrence of DVT (12% vs. 18% p=ns) or major filter complications (11% vs. 7% p=ns) between patients with ACa and those without. However, more patients with ACa were diagnosed with a new PE (4% vs 0.6% p=0.03) or died during follow up (53% vs 25% p<0.01). There was no difference in filter retrieval between groups at 3 and 6 months. The retrieval rate at 6 months was 72% vs. 75%, (p=ns) in patients with and without ACa. The time elapsed to filter retrieval (median 32 days IQR 11.5-62.5 vs. 31 days IQR 17-91, p=ns) was not different. The time to thrombotic or filter-specific complication (median 28.5 days IQR 16.5-72 vs. 16 days IQR 10-66, p=ns) was no different between groups and in both, approximately half of the complications happened during the first month. In patients with ACa, filter extraction was less frequent if they had metastatic disease (p<0.01), active bleeding/bleeding risk (p=ns) or a non-surgical indication for filter placement (p=0.04) Conclusions We found no difference in retrieval rate, DVT or filter complications between patients with and without ACa. When RIVCF are indicated, ACa should not preclude their use. In patients with ACa, filters were left in place more often if they had metastatic cancer or filter placement for reasons other than surgery. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Ana I. Casanegra ◽  
Lisa M. Landrum ◽  
Alfonso J. Tafur

Active cancer (ACa) is strongly associated with venous thromboembolism and bleeding. Retrievable inferior vena cava filters (RIVCF) are frequently placed in these patients when anticoagulation cannot be continued.Objectives. To describe the complications and retrieval rate of inferior vena cava filters in patients with ACa.Methods. Retrospective review of 251 consecutive patients with RIVCF in a single institution.Results. We included 251 patients with RIVCF with a mean age of 58.1 years and a median follow-up of 5.4 months (164 days, IQR: 34–385). Of these patients 32% had ACa. There were no differences in recurrence rate of DVT between patients with ACa and those without ACa (13% versus 17%,p= ns). Also, there were no differences in major filter complications (11% ACa versus 7% no ACa,p= ns). The filter retrieval was not different between groups (log-rank = 0.16). Retrieval rate at 6 months was 49% in ACa patients versus 64% in patients without ACa (p= ns). Filter retrieval was less frequent in ACa patients with metastatic disease (p< 0.01) or a nonsurgical indication for filter placement (p= 0.04).Conclusions. No differences were noted in retrieval rate, recurrent DVT, or filter complications between the two groups. ACa should not preclude the use of RIVCF.


2012 ◽  
Vol 55 (6) ◽  
pp. 60S
Author(s):  
Elsie Gyang ◽  
Mohamed Zayed ◽  
E. John Harris ◽  
Jason T. Lee ◽  
Ronald L. Dalman ◽  
...  

1999 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 484-490 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eugene M. Langan ◽  
Richard S. Miller ◽  
William J. Casey ◽  
Christopher G. Carsten ◽  
Robin M. Graham ◽  
...  

2003 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 994-1000 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephan Wicky ◽  
Francesco Doenz ◽  
Jean-Yves Meuwly ◽  
François Portier ◽  
Pierre Schnyder ◽  
...  

Purpose: To report clinical experience with retrievable Günther Tulip filters from implantation to retrieval and their status in nonretrieved situations. Methods: Seventy-five Günther Tulip filter implantations were performed in 71 patients (43 women; mean age 55 years). Indications for filter placement were pulmonary embolism (PE) or iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in patients with a contraindication to anticoagulation (43, 61%) or perioperative PE prophylaxis (28, 39%) in patients with confirmed iliofemoral DVT. Retrieval procedures were planned for each patient. Patients with nonretrieved filters were followed with plain radiography and duplex sonography. Results: Technical success of filter insertion was 97.3% (73/75). Eighteen (25%) patients died from unrelated causes prior to retrieval attempts, and 6 other patients were too critically ill for a retrieval procedure. Of 49 (67%) planned retrieval attempts, 14 (19%) filters could not be removed owing to large trapped thrombi. The mean implantation period for the 35 (48%) retrieved filters was 8.2 days (range 1–13). Delivery tilt was observed in 12 (16%) filters and during retrieval attempts in 1 more case. For 9 nonretrieved filters, tilt and migration were observed in 22% at a mean follow-up of 30 months, but no venous thrombosis was assessed. Conclusions: Our data confirm the clinical efficacy of the Günther Tulip filter during implantation and the feasibility of its retrieval. Further long-term follow-up should be conducted on nonretrieved filters to confirm our results.


2011 ◽  
Vol 77 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terence O'Keeffe ◽  
Joby J. Thekkumel ◽  
Susan Friese ◽  
Shahid Shafi ◽  
Shellie C. Josephs

Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters (IVCF) for prophylaxis against pulmonary embolus have been associated with low rates of removal. Strategies for improving the rates of retrieval have not been described. We hypothesized that a policy of dedicated follow-up would achieve a higher rate of filter removal. Trauma and Nontrauma patients who had a retrievable IVCF placed during 2006 were identified. A protocol existed for trauma patients with chart stickers, arm bracelets, and dedicated follow-up by nurse practitioners from three trauma teams. No protocol existed for nontrauma patients. Statistical analysis was performed using χ2 analysis or analysis of variance. One hundred sixty-seven retrievable IVCFs were placed over 12 months; 91 in trauma patients and 76 in nontrauma patients. Trauma patients were more likely to have their IVCF removed than nontrauma patients, 55 per cent versus 19 per cent, P < 0.001. There were differences between the three trauma teams, with removal rates of 44 per cent, 42 per cent, and 86 per cent respectively ( P < 0.05). On multivariate analysis young age and trauma patient status were independent predictors of filter removal. A policy of dedicated follow-up of patients with IVCFs can achieve significantly higher rates of filter removal than have been previously reported. Similar policies should be adopted by all centers placing retrievable IVCFs to maximize retrieval rates.


2014 ◽  
Vol 80 (12) ◽  
pp. 1237-1244 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anita Rajasekhar ◽  
Hany Elmariah ◽  
Lawrence Lottenberg ◽  
Rebecca Beyth ◽  
Richard Lottenberg ◽  
...  

Inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) for thromboprophylaxis in trauma patients are being increasingly used despite a lack of strong clinical data in support of their efficacy and conflicting clinical practice guidelines. This national survey elucidates practice patterns of IVCF use across U.S. trauma centers. A web-based survey was administered to members of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma between September 2011 and October 2011. The survey queried: 1) background and professional practice; 2) trauma patient population; 3) IVCF placement; 4) IVCF retrieval and follow-up; and 5) pharmacologic prophylaxis. Two hundred eighty-one of 1059 eligible providers completed the survey (27%). Respondents were from a wide spectrum of training backgrounds and clinical practice settings. IVCFs were used by 98.9 per cent of respondents. IVCFs in patients without known venous thromboembolism were considered by 93.2 per cent of respondents. Indications and timing of IVCF retrieval vary. Follow-up care of patients with IVCFs was not uniform. An IVCF registry was maintained by 38 per cent of trauma programs. Adjunctive pharmacologic prophylaxis was used by 96.8 per cent of respondents. This study elucidates the gaps and variations in contemporary practices of IVCF use in trauma patients. Identification of best practices in IVCF use and retrieval awaits well-designed comparative effectiveness studies.


2013 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 440-445 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elsie Gyang ◽  
Mohamed Zayed ◽  
E. John Harris ◽  
Jason T. Lee ◽  
Ronald L. Dalman ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 583
Author(s):  
Elsie Gyang ◽  
Mohamed Zayed ◽  
E. John Harris ◽  
Jason Lee ◽  
Ronald Dalman ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 77
Author(s):  
Miguel A. De Gregorio ◽  
Jose A. Guirola ◽  
Sergio Sierre ◽  
Jose Urbano ◽  
Juan Jose Ciampi-Dopazo ◽  
...  

Objectives: to present an interventional radiology standard of practice on the use of inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) in patients with or at risk to develop venous thromboembolism (VTE) from the Iberoamerican Interventional Society (SIDI) and Spanish Vascular and Interventional Radiology Society (SERVEI). Methods: a group of twenty-two interventional radiologist experts, from the SIDI and SERVEI societies, attended online meetings to develop a current clinical practice guideline on the proper indication for the placement and retrieval of IVCFs. A broad review was undertaken to determine the participation of interventional radiologists in the current guidelines and a consensus on inferior vena cava filters. Twenty-two experts from both societies worked on a common draft and received a questionnaire where they had to assess, for IVCF placement, the absolute, relative, and prophylactic indications. The experts voted on the different indications and reasoned their decision. Results: a total of two-hundred-thirty-three articles were reviewed. Interventional radiologists participated in the development of just two of the eight guidelines. The threshold for inclusion was 100% agreement. Three absolute and four relative indications for the IVCF placement were identified. No indications for the prophylactic filter placement reached the threshold. Conclusion: interventional radiologists are highly involved in the management of IVCFs but have limited participation in the development of multidisciplinary clinical practice guidelines.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document