BACKGROUND: Temporary inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) are uniquely suited for trauma patients in whom the high risk of venous thromboembolism is transient. Currently, few "retrievable filters" are actually retrieved, with most published series documenting a retrieval rate between 20% and 50%. We sought to determine whether we could achieve a higher rate of retrieval with an improved process of care. METHODS: All permanent and temporary filters were entered prospectively into a dedicated filter registry. Within 60 days of filter placement, all temporary filter patients were contacted by a trauma case manager to evaluate ongoing venous thromboembolism risk. Low-risk patients were then evaluated by radiology for removal of the IVCF. If appropriate, removal of the IVCF was scheduled. Initial contacts with patients were made by telephone. If unsuccessful with phone contact, family members, rehabilitation facility, and social work were all contacted to obtain the most recent phone number and address. A follow-up letter was sent to the patient with follow-up visit instructions. Finally, if prior contact measures did not work, a certified letter was sent to the last known address. RESULTS: Between 2006 and 2009, of 7,949 trauma admissions, 420 (5.2%) met indications for filter placement. Of those, 160 were available for removal and 94 were successfully removed (59%). CONCLUSIONS: A retrieval rate of 59% can be achieved with an explicit process of care emphasizing disciplined follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
BACKGROUND: Temporary inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) are uniquely suited for traumapatients in whom the high risk of venous thromboembolism is transient. Currently, few "retrievable filters" are actually retrieved, with most published series documenting a retrieval rate between 20% and 50%. We sought to determine whether we could achieve a higher rate of retrieval with an improved process of care. METHODS: All permanent and temporary filters were entered prospectively into a dedicated filter registry. Within 60 days of filter placement, all temporary filter patients were contacted by a trauma case manager to evaluate ongoing venous thromboembolism risk. Low-risk patients were then evaluated by radiology for removal of the IVCF. If appropriate, removal of the IVCF was scheduled. Initial contacts with patients were made by telephone. If unsuccessful with phone contact, family members, rehabilitation facility, and social work were all contacted to obtain the most recent phone number and address. A follow-up letter was sent to the patient with follow-up visit instructions. Finally, if prior contact measures did not work, a certified letter was sent to the last known address. RESULTS: Between 2006 and 2009, of 7,949 trauma admissions, 420 (5.2%) met indications for filter placement. Of those, 160 were available for removal and 94 were successfully removed (59%). CONCLUSIONS: A retrieval rate of 59% can be achieved with an explicit process of care emphasizing disciplined follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Authors: W R Leeper; P B Murphy; K N Vogt; T J Leeper; S W Kribs; D K Gray; N G Parry Journal: Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg Date: 2015-07-23 Impact factor: 3.693
Authors: Peter A Gaines; Frank D Kolodgie; Gordon Crowley; Steven Horan; Megan MacDonagh; Emily McLucas; David Rosenthal; Ashley Strong; Michael Sweet; Deepal K Panchal Journal: Int J Vasc Med Date: 2018-07-19
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