Literature DB >> 24176068

Effect of delayed inferior vena cava filter retrieval after early initiation of anticoagulation.

Ido Weinberg1, Farhad Abtahian2, Ralph Debiasi3, Philip Cefalo4, Cheryl Mackay5, Beau M Hawkins6, Michael R Jaff5.   

Abstract

Retrievable inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) were designed to provide temporary protection from pulmonary embolism in high-risk situations. However, little is known about their effectiveness, and many remain permanently implanted, leading to potential complications. The aim of this study was to determine patient characteristics, indications for IVCF placement, retrieval rates, complications, and post-IVCF anticoagulation (AC) practices in patients who have received IVCFs. A retrospective review of IVCF use by 3 specialty groups from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2011, was conducted at a tertiary referral center. Indications for IVCF, procedural success and complications, post-IVCF AC practices, and patient outcomes were assessed. Seven hundred fifty-eight IVCFs were placed. Follow-up was available for 688 patients (90.7%) at a median of 342.0 days (interquartile range 81.5 to 758.0). Indications for IVCF placement included contraindication to AC in the presence of acute venous thromboembolism (n = 287 [41.7%]) and prophylaxis (n = 235 [34.2%]). Insertion-related complications occurred in 28 patients (4.1%). After IVCF placement, adequate AC was initiated in 454 patients (66.0%) <3.0 days (interquartile range 0 to 13.0) after insertion, but the overall retrieval rate was only 252 of 688 (36.6%) within a median of 134.0 days (interquartile range 72.50 to 205.8). Significant IVCF-related complications occurred in 122 patients (17.7%) within 32 days (interquartile range 13.0 to 116.8). The most common complication (72 of 131 [55.0%]) was deep vein thrombosis. In conclusion, in a large, modern cohort of patients receiving retrievable IVCFs for a variety of indications by various specialties, IVCF insertion remains safe. However, many patients have IVCF-related complications, and often, even when IVCFs are retrieved, there is a delay between AC and retrieval. Quality improvement initiatives that facilitate the expeditious retrieval of IVCF are needed.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24176068     DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.08.053

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Cardiol        ISSN: 0002-9149            Impact factor:   2.778


  5 in total

1.  Inferior Vena Cava Filters: Indications, Outcomes, and Evidence.

Authors:  Jennifer P Montgomery; John A Kaufman
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2015-09

Review 2.  Inferior vena cava filter use and patient safety: legacy or science?

Authors:  William Geerts; Rita Selby
Journal:  Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program       Date:  2017-12-08

3.  Hospital Variation and Patient Characteristics Associated With Vena Cava Filter Utilization.

Authors:  Joshua D Brown; Jeffery C Talbert
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 2.983

4.  Successful cases of difficult inferior vena cava filter retrieval with the use of biopsy forceps: Biopsy forceps technique.

Authors:  Masaya Nakashima; Hideaki Kobayashi; Yasushi Takenouchi; Takashi Nakayama; Masayoshi Kobayashi
Journal:  SAGE Open Med Case Rep       Date:  2014-12-12

5.  Structured team-oriented program to follow patients after vena cava filter placement: a step forward in improving quality for filter retrieval.

Authors:  Salah D Qanadli; Kiara Rezaei-Kalantari; Laurence Crivelli; Francesco Doenz; Anne-Marie Jouannic; David C Rotzinger
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-02-10       Impact factor: 4.379

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.