Literature DB >> 16168892

Prophylactic indications for vena cava filters: critical appraisal.

Robert B Rutherford1.   

Abstract

Vena caval filters (VCFs) were developed and initially used for therapeutic indications, primarily to prevent recurrence of pulmonary embolism (PE) or its occurrence in selected cases of deep venous thrombosis (DVT), where risk of PE was very high and anticoagulant therapy (AC Rx) was deemed ineffective, contraindicated by concurrent disease, or had to be discontinued because of complications. Prophylactic indications-where there was no DVT or PE but the risk of them was considered very high and AC Rx was contraindicated or considered ineffective-were invoked relatively infrequently at first, but when percutaneous placement became routine in the late 1980s, this indication increased steadily. The categories of patients considered at high-enough risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), albeit temporary, to justify VCF have also expanded steadily, most with little objective basis for choosing VCFs over other methods of prophylaxis. In many of these prophylactic categories, eg, patients undergoing surgery associated with a high risk of VTE, the risk is for a limited period only, until the patient is ambulatory or AC Rx can be instituted. In addition, there are potential disadvantages to leaving a permanent filter in, especially in younger patients with an extended longevity outlook and no ongoing risk of VTE. This was brought out in the PREPIC trial. This realization has, in turn, spurred interest in developing temporary or retrievable filters for short-term prophylactic use. No design has yet proven entirely satisfactory for this purpose, but the practice of placing such filters for prophylactic indications has steadily grown, using available devices. This article critically reviews these trends, suggests directions for future developments, and recommends necessary studies on which to base the practice of prophylactic VCF use.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16168892     DOI: 10.1053/j.semvascsurg.2005.05.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Semin Vasc Surg        ISSN: 0895-7967            Impact factor:   1.000


  7 in total

1.  Pulmonary embolism after IVC filter.

Authors:  M K Urban; K Jules-Elysee; C R MacKenzie
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2007-12-21

Review 2.  Are too many inferior vena cava filters used? Controversial evidences in different clinical settings: a narrative review.

Authors:  Michele Dalla Vestra; Elisabetta Grolla; Luca Bonanni; Raffaele Pesavento
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2016-11-21       Impact factor: 3.397

Review 3.  Retrievable vena cava filters: a clinical review.

Authors:  Davide Imberti; Walter Ageno; Francesco Dentali; Marco Donadini; Roberto Manfredini; Massimo Gallerani
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 2.300

4.  [Vena cava filters in trauma patients].

Authors:  D Baschera; J Sebunya; C Walter; R Zellweger
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 1.000

5.  Update on vena cava filters.

Authors:  Teresa L Carman; Alaa Alahmad
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2008-04

6.  Vena Cava Filter Complications: Aortic Pseudoaneurysm Presenting as a Gastrointestinal Bleed.

Authors:  Patrick G McEnulty; William J Salyers; Akash Joshi
Journal:  Kans J Med       Date:  2019-05-15

7.  Role of hybrid operating room in surgery for the right atrial thrombus, pulmonary thrombi, and ventricular septal rupture after myocardial infarction.

Authors:  Ajmer Singh; Yatin Mehta; Rajiv Parakh; Vijay Kohli; Naresh Trehan
Journal:  Ann Card Anaesth       Date:  2016 Oct-Dec
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.