BACKGROUND: Placement of retrievable inferior vena cava filters (rIVCF) may be beneficial in high-risk morbidly obese patients undergoing bariatric procedures. Patients with a previous history of venous thromboembolism (VTE) are at high risk for postoperative deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). METHODS: A prospective database of bariatric surgery patients was studied from April 2003 to May 2007. A total of 791 patients underwent bariatric procedures, of which 30 (4%) had a previous history of VTE. These patients underwent preoperative venous duplex and concurrent placement of a rIVCF. Patient demographics and clinical outcomes were examined. RESULTS: Thirty patients (12 (40%) men) had a mean age of 49 +/- 8 years and a mean body mass index of 50 +/- 8 kg/m(2). Sixteen patients (53%) underwent laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, ten (33%) underwent laparoscopic adjustable gastric band, and four (14%) underwent open Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Mean operative time, including rIVCF placement, was 162 +/- 66 minutes. All patients had successful rIVCF placement with standard perioperative chemoprophylaxis. Twenty-nine patients (97%) had a follow-up ultrasound on postoperative day (POD) 19 +/- 25. Six patients (21%) had recurrent DVT. Twenty-seven patients (90%) underwent a follow-up venogram, and four patients (15%) had significant thrombus in the rIVCF. Retrieval was successful in 21 patients (70%). Nine patients (30%) did not undergo retrieval: four had significant thrombus in the filter, four had an above-knee DVT, and one due to technical reasons. We observed one complication with a DVT at the access site and no PE or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: We observed a 21% incidence of recurrent DVT and 15% incidence of thrombus in the IVCF, yet no PE occurred. IVCF retrieval was successful in 70% with one complication. Concurrent IVCF placement is safe, feasible, and an effective preventative measure in high-risk morbidly obese patients. We recommend the use of rIVCFs in conjunction with standard VTE prophylaxis in this patient population.
BACKGROUND: Placement of retrievable inferior vena cava filters (rIVCF) may be beneficial in high-risk morbidly obesepatients undergoing bariatric procedures. Patients with a previous history of venous thromboembolism (VTE) are at high risk for postoperative deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). METHODS: A prospective database of bariatric surgery patients was studied from April 2003 to May 2007. A total of 791 patients underwent bariatric procedures, of which 30 (4%) had a previous history of VTE. These patients underwent preoperative venous duplex and concurrent placement of a rIVCF. Patient demographics and clinical outcomes were examined. RESULTS: Thirty patients (12 (40%) men) had a mean age of 49 +/- 8 years and a mean body mass index of 50 +/- 8 kg/m(2). Sixteen patients (53%) underwent laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, ten (33%) underwent laparoscopic adjustable gastric band, and four (14%) underwent open Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Mean operative time, including rIVCF placement, was 162 +/- 66 minutes. All patients had successful rIVCF placement with standard perioperative chemoprophylaxis. Twenty-nine patients (97%) had a follow-up ultrasound on postoperative day (POD) 19 +/- 25. Six patients (21%) had recurrent DVT. Twenty-seven patients (90%) underwent a follow-up venogram, and four patients (15%) had significant thrombus in the rIVCF. Retrieval was successful in 21 patients (70%). Nine patients (30%) did not undergo retrieval: four had significant thrombus in the filter, four had an above-knee DVT, and one due to technical reasons. We observed one complication with a DVT at the access site and no PE or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: We observed a 21% incidence of recurrent DVT and 15% incidence of thrombus in the IVCF, yet no PE occurred. IVCF retrieval was successful in 70% with one complication. Concurrent IVCF placement is safe, feasible, and an effective preventative measure in high-risk morbidly obesepatients. We recommend the use of rIVCFs in conjunction with standard VTE prophylaxis in this patient population.
Authors: Brennan J Carmody; Harvey J Sugerman; John M Kellum; Mohammed K Jamal; Jason M Johnson; Alfredo M Carbonell; James W Maher; Luke G Wolfe; Eric J DeMaria Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2006-10-25 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: S Z Goldhaber; F Grodstein; M J Stampfer; J E Manson; G A Colditz; F E Speizer; W C Willett; C H Hennekens Journal: JAMA Date: 1997-02-26 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Cynthia L Ogden; Margaret D Carroll; Lester R Curtin; Margaret A McDowell; Carolyn J Tabak; Katherine M Flegal Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-04-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Nicholas J Gargiulo; Frank J Veith; Evan C Lipsitz; William D Suggs; Takao Ohki; Elliot Goodman; Pratt Vemulapalli; Karen Gibbs; Julio Teixeira Journal: Ann Vasc Surg Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 1.466
Authors: Q H Gonzalez; D S Tishler; J J Plata-Munoz; A Bondora; S M Vickers; T Leath; R H Clements Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2004-05-27 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Christa M Trigilio-Black; Chad D Ringley; Corrigan L McBride; Victor J Sorensen; Jon S Thompson; G Matthew Longo; Iraklis I Pipinos; Jason M Johanning Journal: Surg Obes Relat Dis Date: 2007-06-04 Impact factor: 4.734
Authors: Kimberley Eden Steele; Michael A Schweitzer; Gregory Prokopowicz; Andrew D Shore; Lisa C B Eaton; Anne O Lidor; Martin A Makary; Jeanne Clark; Thomas H Magnuson Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Khashayar Vaziri; J Devin Watson; Amy P Harper; Juliet Lee; Fredrick J Brody; Shawn Sarin; Elizabeth A Ignacio; Albert Chun; Anthony C Venbrux; Paul P Lin Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 4.129