BACKGROUND: The antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a disease with a high prevalence of thromboembolic events, especially pulmonary emboli (PE). These events may recur despite anticoagulation therapy. In such cases, placement of an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter may be considered to prevent propagation of a distal thrombus toward the pulmonary vessels. It is unclear whether the placement of such a filter is beneficial in patients with APS. OBJECTIVE: Retrospective evaluation of the value of IVC filter placement as prophylaxis against recurrent pulmonary emboli in patients with medically treated APS. METHODS: We identified 10 patients suffering from APS who, despite anticoagulation treatment, had recurrent thromboembolic events. All of them underwent placement of an IVC filter. We examined their medical files for further recurrences. RESULTS: Of the 10 patients in our study, only 1 had a documented PE following the intervention. The remaining patients had no evidence of PE after the filter insertion. Five of the 10 patients died, 2 of them suddenly. In those 2 patients, the cause of death is unknown, but PE cannot be excluded. CONCLUSION: IVC filters seem to be protective against recurrent PE in APS patients but the true extent of their efficacy requires further study.
BACKGROUND: The antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a disease with a high prevalence of thromboembolic events, especially pulmonary emboli (PE). These events may recur despite anticoagulation therapy. In such cases, placement of an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter may be considered to prevent propagation of a distal thrombus toward the pulmonary vessels. It is unclear whether the placement of such a filter is beneficial in patients with APS. OBJECTIVE: Retrospective evaluation of the value of IVC filter placement as prophylaxis against recurrent pulmonary emboli in patients with medically treated APS. METHODS: We identified 10 patients suffering from APS who, despite anticoagulation treatment, had recurrent thromboembolic events. All of them underwent placement of an IVC filter. We examined their medical files for further recurrences. RESULTS: Of the 10 patients in our study, only 1 had a documented PE following the intervention. The remaining patients had no evidence of PE after the filter insertion. Five of the 10 patients died, 2 of them suddenly. In those 2 patients, the cause of death is unknown, but PE cannot be excluded. CONCLUSION: IVC filters seem to be protective against recurrent PE in APSpatients but the true extent of their efficacy requires further study.