PURPOSE: The efficacy of prophylactic inferior vena cava filters in selected trauma patients at high risk has come into question in relation to risk/benefit assessment. To evaluate the usefulness of prophylactic inferior vena cava filters, we reviewed our experience and overall complication rate. METHODS: From February 1991 to April 1998, the trauma registry identified 7333 admissions. One hundred eighty-seven prophylactic inferior vena cava filters were inserted. After the exclusion of 27 trauma-related deaths (none caused by thromboembolism), 160 patients were eligible for the study. The eligible patients were contacted and asked to complete a survey and return for a follow-up examination to include physical examination, Doppler scan study, vena cava duplex scanning, and fluoroscopic examination. The patients' hospital charts were reviewed in detail. The indications for prophylactic inferior vena cava filter insertion included prolonged immobilization with multiple injuries, closed head injury, pelvic fracture, spine fracture, multiple long bone fracture, and attending discretion. RESULTS: Of the 160 eligible patients, 127 were men, the mean age was 40.3 years, and the mean injury severity score was 26.1. The mean day of insertion was hospital day 6. Seventy-five patients (47%) returned for evaluation, with a mean follow-up period of 19.4 months after implantation (range, 7 to 60 months). On survey, patients had leg swelling (n = 27), lower extremity numbness (n = 14), shortness of breath (n = 9), chest pain (n = 7), and skin changes (n = 4). All the survey symptoms appeared to be attributable to patient injuries and not related to prophylactic inferior vena cava filter. Physical examination results revealed edema (n = 12) and skin changes (n = 2). Ten Doppler scan studies had results that were suggestive of venous insufficiency, nine of which had histories of deep vein thrombosis. With duplex scanning, 93% (70 of 75) of the vena cavas were visualized, and all were patent. Only 52% (39 of 75) of the prophylactic inferior vena cava filters were visualized with duplex scanning. All the prophylactic inferior vena cava filters were visualized with fluoroscopy, with no evidence of filter migration. Of the total 187 patients, 24 (12.8%) had deep vein thrombosis develop after prophylactic inferior vena cava filter insertion, including 10 of 75 (13.3%) in the follow-up group, and one patient had a nonfatal pulmonary embolism despite filter placement. Filter insertion complications occurred in 1.6% (three of 187) of patients and included one groin hematoma, one arteriovenous fistula, and one misplacement in the common iliac vein. CONCLUSION: This study's results show that prophylactic inferior vena cava filters can be placed safely with low morbidity and no attributable long-term disabilities. In this patient population with a high risk of pulmonary embolism, prophylactic inferior vena cava filters offered a 99.5% protection rate, with only one of 187 patients having a nonfatal pulmonary embolism.
PURPOSE: The efficacy of prophylactic inferior vena cava filters in selected traumapatients at high risk has come into question in relation to risk/benefit assessment. To evaluate the usefulness of prophylactic inferior vena cava filters, we reviewed our experience and overall complication rate. METHODS: From February 1991 to April 1998, the trauma registry identified 7333 admissions. One hundred eighty-seven prophylactic inferior vena cava filters were inserted. After the exclusion of 27 trauma-related deaths (none caused by thromboembolism), 160 patients were eligible for the study. The eligible patients were contacted and asked to complete a survey and return for a follow-up examination to include physical examination, Doppler scan study, vena cava duplex scanning, and fluoroscopic examination. The patients' hospital charts were reviewed in detail. The indications for prophylactic inferior vena cava filter insertion included prolonged immobilization with multiple injuries, closed head injury, pelvic fracture, spine fracture, multiple long bone fracture, and attending discretion. RESULTS: Of the 160 eligible patients, 127 were men, the mean age was 40.3 years, and the mean injury severity score was 26.1. The mean day of insertion was hospital day 6. Seventy-five patients (47%) returned for evaluation, with a mean follow-up period of 19.4 months after implantation (range, 7 to 60 months). On survey, patients had leg swelling (n = 27), lower extremity numbness (n = 14), shortness of breath (n = 9), chest pain (n = 7), and skin changes (n = 4). All the survey symptoms appeared to be attributable to patientinjuries and not related to prophylactic inferior vena cava filter. Physical examination results revealed edema (n = 12) and skin changes (n = 2). Ten Doppler scan studies had results that were suggestive of venous insufficiency, nine of which had histories of deep vein thrombosis. With duplex scanning, 93% (70 of 75) of the vena cavas were visualized, and all were patent. Only 52% (39 of 75) of the prophylactic inferior vena cava filters were visualized with duplex scanning. All the prophylactic inferior vena cava filters were visualized with fluoroscopy, with no evidence of filter migration. Of the total 187 patients, 24 (12.8%) had deep vein thrombosis develop after prophylactic inferior vena cava filter insertion, including 10 of 75 (13.3%) in the follow-up group, and one patient had a nonfatal pulmonary embolism despite filter placement. Filter insertion complications occurred in 1.6% (three of 187) of patients and included one groin hematoma, one arteriovenous fistula, and one misplacement in the common iliac vein. CONCLUSION: This study's results show that prophylactic inferior vena cava filters can be placed safely with low morbidity and no attributable long-term disabilities. In this patient population with a high risk of pulmonary embolism, prophylactic inferior vena cava filters offered a 99.5% protection rate, with only one of 187 patients having a nonfatal pulmonary embolism.