John Chung1, Richard J T Owen. 1. Department of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, University of Alberta, Edmonton.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the evidence for using inferior vena cava (IVC) filters to prevent pulmonary embolism (PE) in high-risk patients. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: Ovid MEDLINE was searched from 1966 to 2006 for all English-language papers on IVC filters. Evidence was graded according to the 3-level classification system. Most evidence found was level II. MAIN MESSAGE: Inferior vena cava filters are used to prevent PE in patients with contraindications to, complications of, or failure of anticoagulation therapy and patients with extensive free-floating thrombi or residual thrombi following massive PE. Current evidence indicates that IVC filters are largely effective; breakthrough PE occurs in only 0% to 6.2% of cases. Contraindications to implantation of IVC filters include lack of venous access, caval occlusion, uncorrectable coagulopathy, and sepsis. Complications include misplacement or embolization of the filter, vascular injury or thrombosis, pneumothorax, and air emboli. Recurrent PE, IVC thrombosis, filter migration, filter fracture, or penetration of the caval wall sometimes occur with long-term use. CONCLUSION: When used appropriately, IVC filters are a safe and effective method of preventing PE. Using retrievable filters might reduce long-term complications.
OBJECTIVE: To review the evidence for using inferior vena cava (IVC) filters to prevent pulmonary embolism (PE) in high-risk patients. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: Ovid MEDLINE was searched from 1966 to 2006 for all English-language papers on IVC filters. Evidence was graded according to the 3-level classification system. Most evidence found was level II. MAIN MESSAGE: Inferior vena cava filters are used to prevent PE in patients with contraindications to, complications of, or failure of anticoagulation therapy and patients with extensive free-floating thrombi or residual thrombi following massive PE. Current evidence indicates that IVC filters are largely effective; breakthrough PE occurs in only 0% to 6.2% of cases. Contraindications to implantation of IVC filters include lack of venous access, caval occlusion, uncorrectable coagulopathy, and sepsis. Complications include misplacement or embolization of the filter, vascular injury or thrombosis, pneumothorax, and air emboli. Recurrent PE, IVC thrombosis, filter migration, filter fracture, or penetration of the caval wall sometimes occur with long-term use. CONCLUSION: When used appropriately, IVC filters are a safe and effective method of preventing PE. Using retrievable filters might reduce long-term complications.
Authors: Olaf Alfons Terhaar; Stuart Macalister Lyon; Mark Frank Given; Anne Elizabeth Foster; Frank Mc Grath; Michael J Lee Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: William S Hoff; Brian A Hoey; Gail A Wainwright; James F Reed; David S Ball; Michael Ringold; Michael D Grossman Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: H Rousseau; P Perreault; P Otal; L Stockx; J Golzarian; V Oliva; P Reynaud; F Raat; F Szatmari; G Santoro; G Emanuelli; M Nonent; Y Hoogeveen Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Thomas L Ortel; Ignacio Neumann; Walter Ageno; Rebecca Beyth; Nathan P Clark; Adam Cuker; Barbara A Hutten; Michael R Jaff; Veena Manja; Sam Schulman; Caitlin Thurston; Suresh Vedantham; Peter Verhamme; Daniel M Witt; Ivan D Florez; Ariel Izcovich; Robby Nieuwlaat; Stephanie Ross; Holger J Schünemann; Wojtek Wiercioch; Yuan Zhang; Yuqing Zhang Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2020-10-13
Authors: Caitriona Logan; Niamh O'Connell; John Kavanagh; Niall McEniff; Mark Ryan; Michael Guiney; Orla Seery; James O'Donnell; Kevin Ryan; Barry White Journal: Thrombosis Date: 2016-03-27