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  

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.

scholarly journals Extensive deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism as a unique clinical manifestation of COVID-19 in a young healthy patient

Vascular ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 170853812110409
Author(s):  
Alejandro Llausas-Villarreal ◽  
Marycarmen Mendoza-Silva ◽  
Oliver Antonio Gómez-Gutiérrez ◽  
Mauricio Gonzalez-Urquijo ◽  
Mario Alejandro Fabiani
Keyword(s):  
Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Deep Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Clinical Manifestation ◽  
Vena Cava ◽  
Healthy Patient ◽  
Filter Placement ◽  
Symptomatic Disease ◽  
Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Deep Vein

Background/Objective Deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism have been described as complications in previously diagnosed COVID-19 patients, especially in those admitted in critical ill units, but, to our knowledge, there is no report of venous thromboembolism in an otherwise asymptomatic COVID-19 patient. Methods We report the case of a 22-year-old female, healthy patient with pulmonary embolism (Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index Score 22 points, low risk) and extensive proximal deep vein thrombosis as a unique clinical manifestation of the new coronavirus disease. Results The patient had no risk factors and no familial history of venous thromboembolism. All thrombophilia markers were negative. The patient was treated as first by an independent vascular team, performing vena cava filter placement and open thrombectomy. Her symptoms worsened, and after 3 weeks, she underwent US-enhanced thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy. She was isolated for 10 days and did not develop any other clinical manifestation of COVID-19 disease. During follow-up, she remained asymptomatic and complete patency of the venous system was achieved. Full oral anticoagulation was conducted for 6 months. Conclusion COVID-19 appears to be a multi-symptomatic disease, and venous thromboembolism without any other previous described COVID-19 symptom could be considered one of its diverse clinical presentations and RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 tests emerge to be mandatory in patients with otherwise unexpected venous thrombosis.

“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.

The short-term efficacy of vena cava filters for the prevention of pulmonary embolism in patients with venous thromboembolism receiving anticoagulation: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (9) ◽  
pp. 620-627 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jun Jiang ◽  
Yuanyong Jiao ◽  
Xiwei Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Deep Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Inferior Vena Cava ◽  
Inferior Vena ◽  
Vena Cava ◽  
Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Inferior Vena Cava Filters ◽  
Vena Cava Filters ◽  
Deep Vein

Objectives To perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of inferior vena cava filters in patients with deep vein thrombosis for preventing pulmonary embolism. Method Relevant randomized controlled trials of inferior vena cava filters for the prevention of pulmonary embolism were identified by searching electronic databases updated in February 2016. Relative risks of recurrent pulmonary embolism, recurrent deep vein thrombosis, and mortality at three months were analyzed. Results Three published randomized controlled trials were included involving a total of 863 deep vein thrombosis patients. No significant differences were detected with inferior vena cava filters placement with regard to the incidence of recurrent pulmonary embolism or fatal pulmonary embolism. There were also no significant differences in the incidence of recurrent deep vein thrombosis or mortality with inferior vena cava filters placement at three months. Conclusions Inferior vena cava filter in addition to anticoagulation was not associated with a reduction in the incidence of recurrent pulmonary embolism as compared with anticoagulation alone in patients with deep vein thrombosis in the short term.

scholarly journals Inferior vena cava filters: a review

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. 2496
Author(s):  
José Ángel Barajas-Colón ◽  
Baltazar Barrera-Mera ◽  
Rodrigo Banegas-Ruiz ◽  
José Juan Vargas-Morales ◽  
Elvira Barrera-Calva ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Deep Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Inferior Vena Cava ◽  
Inferior Vena ◽  
Vena Cava ◽  
Vena Cava Filter ◽  
Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Inferior Vena Cava Filters ◽  
Vena Cava Filters ◽  
Deep Vein

Venous thromboembolism is an entity that ranges from deep vein thrombosis to pulmonary embolism, both are highly prevalent diseases in our environment and potentially fatal. The intention of this review is to compile information regarding the indications, contraindications, complications and comparison of different therapeutic methods in order to create an algorithm. An exhaustive review was performed with the available literature, using the PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus and Cochrane databases from 2004 to 2021. The search criteria were formulated to identify reports related to inferior vena cava filters. Venous thrombosis manifested as deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism is a highly prevalent disease in our setting with high morbidity and mortality. Currently, different therapeutic options have been presented to address this pathology, in this review we focus on the developments regarding the use of vena cava filters. Reviewing the indications for the placement of a vena cava filter, we find absolute indications such as a contraindication to anticoagulation and high risk of massive pulmonary embolism. Pulmonary thromboembolism is a disease with high prevalence and mortality, we have highly effective and novel treatments such as the vena cava filter, patients should be selected carefully always taking into account the absolute and relative indications.

Treatment: catheter-based intervention and inferior vena cava filters

ESC CardioMed ◽  
2018 ◽  
pp. 2781-2786
Author(s):  
Andrew Kesselman ◽  
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