BACKGROUND: Cancer patients have an increased incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are used extensively in the US, and more than 40 000 are inserted annually. The impact on survival of cancer patients receiving IVC filters has not been studied. METHODS: A retrospective study examined 206 consecutive cancer patients with VTE to compare the effects of IVC filter placement with anticoagulation (AC) therapy on overall survival (OS), as measured from the time of VTE. Patients were classified into 3 treatment groups: AC (n = 62), IVC filter (77), or combination IVC filter + AC (67). RESULTS: Treatment groups did not differ with respect to age, sex, or albumin levels. Median OS was significantly greater in patients treated with AC (13 months) compared with those treated with IVC filters (2 months) or IVC + AC (3.25 months; P < .0002). IVC patients were 1.9 times more at risk of death than AC only (hazard ratio = .528; 95% confidence interval = .374 to .745). Multivariate analysis revealed that performance status and type of thrombus were not confounders and had no effect on OS. CONCLUSION: The need for the insertion of an IVC filter projected markedly reduced survival. Patients requiring an IVC filter rather than AC as initial therapy face a 2-fold increase in risk of death. Whether or not this therapeutic procedure has a positive impact on outcome in cancer patients is uncertain. Complications resulting from thrombosis were also analyzed in this cohort. A prospective randomized trial at our institution is addressing this issue.
BACKGROUND:Cancerpatients have an increased incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are used extensively in the US, and more than 40 000 are inserted annually. The impact on survival of cancerpatients receiving IVC filters has not been studied. METHODS: A retrospective study examined 206 consecutive cancerpatients with VTE to compare the effects of IVC filter placement with anticoagulation (AC) therapy on overall survival (OS), as measured from the time of VTE. Patients were classified into 3 treatment groups: AC (n = 62), IVC filter (77), or combination IVC filter + AC (67). RESULTS: Treatment groups did not differ with respect to age, sex, or albumin levels. Median OS was significantly greater in patients treated with AC (13 months) compared with those treated with IVC filters (2 months) or IVC + AC (3.25 months; P < .0002). IVC patients were 1.9 times more at risk of death than AC only (hazard ratio = .528; 95% confidence interval = .374 to .745). Multivariate analysis revealed that performance status and type of thrombus were not confounders and had no effect on OS. CONCLUSION: The need for the insertion of an IVC filter projected markedly reduced survival. Patients requiring an IVC filter rather than AC as initial therapy face a 2-fold increase in risk of death. Whether or not this therapeutic procedure has a positive impact on outcome in cancerpatients is uncertain. Complications resulting from thrombosis were also analyzed in this cohort. A prospective randomized trial at our institution is addressing this issue.
Authors: Myra F Barginear; Richard J Gralla; Thomas P Bradley; Syed S Ali; Iuliana Shapira; Craig Greben; Nanette Nier-Shoulson; Meredith Akerman; Martin Lesser; Daniel R Budman Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2012-03-16 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Anand Narayan; Kelvin Hong; Michael Streiff; Russell Shinohara; Constantine Frangakis; Josef Coresh; Hyun S Kim Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Catherine Coombs; Deborah Kuk; Sean Devlin; Robert H Siegelbaum; Jeremy C Durack; Rekha Parameswaran; Simon Mantha; Kathy Deng; Gerald Soff Journal: J Thromb Thrombolysis Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 2.300