Lodewyk E Du Plessis1, Ben W Mol2, John M Svigos3. 1. Women's and Babies Division, Women's and Children's Hospital, North Adelaide, SA, Australia. 2. Discipline of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Adelaide, SA, Australia; The Robinson Research Institute, School of Paediatrics and Reproductive Health, University of Adelaide, SA, Australia. 3. Women's and Babies Division, Women's and Children's Hospital, North Adelaide, SA, Australia; Discipline of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pregnant women with venous thromboembolism are traditionally managed with anticoagulation, but inferior vena cava filters are an alternative. We balanced risks and benefits of an inferior vena cava filter in a decision analysis. METHODS: We constructed a decision model to compare in pregnant women with VTE the outcome of (1) inferior vena cava filter and anticoagulant treatment versus (2) anticoagulant treatment only. RESULTS: Assuming a 63% risk reduction from an inferior vena cava filter (baseline mortality rate of venous thromboembolism of 0.5%), 318 women would need to be treated with inferior vena cava filters to prevent one venous thromboembolism related maternal death. Sensitivity analyses indicated that at a mortality rate of 0.5% the risk reduction from inferior vena cava filters needed to be 80%, while at a mortality rate of 2% a risk reduction of 20% would justify inferior vena cava filters. CONCLUSIONS: In view of their potential morbidity, inferior vena cava filters should be restricted to pregnant woman at strongly increased risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism.
BACKGROUND: Pregnant women with venous thromboembolism are traditionally managed with anticoagulation, but inferior vena cava filters are an alternative. We balanced risks and benefits of an inferior vena cava filter in a decision analysis. METHODS: We constructed a decision model to compare in pregnant women with VTE the outcome of (1) inferior vena cava filter and anticoagulant treatment versus (2) anticoagulant treatment only. RESULTS: Assuming a 63% risk reduction from an inferior vena cava filter (baseline mortality rate of venous thromboembolism of 0.5%), 318 women would need to be treated with inferior vena cava filters to prevent one venous thromboembolism related maternal death. Sensitivity analyses indicated that at a mortality rate of 0.5% the risk reduction from inferior vena cava filters needed to be 80%, while at a mortality rate of 2% a risk reduction of 20% would justify inferior vena cava filters. CONCLUSIONS: In view of their potential morbidity, inferior vena cava filters should be restricted to pregnant woman at strongly increased risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism.
Authors: Claire McLintock; Tim Brighton; Sanjeev Chunilal; Gus Dekker; Nolan McDonnell; Simon McRae; Peter Muller; Huyen Tran; Barry N J Walters; Laura Young Journal: Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol Date: 2011-09-23 Impact factor: 2.100
Authors: Roch Cantwell; Thomas Clutton-Brock; Griselda Cooper; Andrew Dawson; James Drife; Debbie Garrod; Ann Harper; Diana Hulbert; Sebastian Lucas; John McClure; Harry Millward-Sadler; James Neilson; Catherine Nelson-Piercy; Jane Norman; Colm O'Herlihy; Margaret Oates; Judy Shakespeare; Michael de Swiet; Catherine Williamson; Valerie Beale; Marian Knight; Christopher Lennox; Alison Miller; Dharmishta Parmar; Jane Rogers; Anna Springett Journal: BJOG Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 6.531
Authors: Steven L Clark; Michael A Belfort; Gary A Dildy; Melissa A Herbst; Janet A Meyers; Gary D Hankins Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2008-05-02 Impact factor: 8.661