Literature DB >> 23176967

Optional or permanent: clinical factors that optimize inferior vena cava filter utilization.

Aaron C Eifler1, Robert J Lewandowski, Ramona Gupta, Jennifer Karp, Riad Salem, Jungwha Lee, Robert K Ryu.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To test the hypothesis that patient parameters identifiable at the time of inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement can be used to predict the need for a permanent versus optional filter.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive institutional database of details and patient parameters for all optional IVC filters placed at a single institution between December 2008 and July 2011 was reviewed. IVC filters were categorized as removed if removal was attempted or as kept permanent if not. Patient parameters (age, sex, history of venous thromboembolism [VTE], presence of neurologic disease or malignancy, indication for filter placement) were compared between groups by multiple logistic regression analysis, and a prediction model based on these parameters was constructed.
RESULTS: A total of 265 optional IVC filters were placed and analyzed; 167 were removed and 98 were kept permanent. In the multivariable model predicting filter disposition, significant factors associated with permanence were age (odds ratio [OR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.05), male sex (OR, 3.01; 95% CI, 1.64-5.54), underlying malignancy (OR, 3.27; 95% CI, 1.77-6.03), and an indication of anticoagulation failure (OR, 8.12; 95% CI, 1.83-36.0). Significant factors associated with removal were history of VTE (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.21-0.74), prophylactic filter placement indication (OR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.04-0.43), and high-risk VTE (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.15-0.94). The c-statistic for the prediction model based on these parameters was 0.80.
CONCLUSIONS: Patient parameters can be used to quantitatively predict an optional IVC filter being kept permanent. These findings can aid in optimization of prospective decision-making in IVC filter placement.
Copyright © 2013 SIR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23176967     DOI: 10.1016/j.jvir.2012.09.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vasc Interv Radiol        ISSN: 1051-0443            Impact factor:   3.464


  6 in total

1.  Get off my back! Inferior vena cava filter erosion into the lumbar spine.

Authors:  Jacob Mathew; Michael R Povlow; Allen Fong
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2019-06-06

Review 2.  Permanent versus Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters: Rethinking the "One-Filter-for-All" Approach to Mechanical Thromboembolic Prophylaxis.

Authors:  Christine E Ghatan; Robert K Ryu
Journal:  Semin Intervent Radiol       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 1.513

Review 3.  The Role of Inferior Vena Cava Filters in Cancer Patients.

Authors:  Mithil B Pandhi; Kush R Desai; Robert K Ryu; Robert J Lewandowski
Journal:  Semin Intervent Radiol       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 1.513

Review 4.  A Dedicated Inferior Vena Cava Filter Service Line: How to Optimize Your Practice.

Authors:  Jennifer K Karp; Kush R Desai; Riad Salem; Robert K Ryu; Robert J Lewandowski
Journal:  Semin Intervent Radiol       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 1.513

Review 5.  Vena Cava Filters: Toward Optimal Strategies for Filter Retrieval and Patients' Follow-Up.

Authors:  Kiara Rezaei-Kalantari; David C Rotzinger; Salah D Qanadli
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2022-03-03

6.  Safety and Outcomes of Permanent and Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters in the Oncology Population.

Authors:  Saba S Shaikh; Suneel D Kamath; Debashis Ghosh; Robert J Lewandowski; Brandon J McMahon
Journal:  Int J Vasc Med       Date:  2020-02-05
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.