John M Falatko1, Bhavinkumar Dalal2, Lihua Qu3. 1. Critical Care/Pulmonary Medicine, Beaumont Health System, Detroit, MI, USA; Outcomes Research, Beaumont Research Institute, Detroit, MI, USA. Electronic address: john.falatko@beaumont.edu. 2. Critical Care/Pulmonary Medicine, Beaumont Health System, Detroit, MI, USA. 3. Outcomes Research, Beaumont Research Institute, Detroit, MI, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anticoagulation is the primary treatment for pulmonary embolism (PE). Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are an adjunctive intervention to prevent recurrent pulmonary embolism. Long-term outcomes in elderly patients with contraindications to anticoagulation after IVC filter placement for prevention of recurrent pulmonary embolism have yet to be assessed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients ≥60years of age, that had an IVC filter placed between 1 January, 2008 and 2 February, 2013, with a primary diagnosis of pulmonary embolism, were included. Patients that died during index hospitalisation, were discharged to hospice, or had active malignancy were excluded. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Patients were divided depending on whether they were treated with an approved anticoagulant for VTE or had no anticoagulant. RESULTS: Of the 152 patients identified, 55 were not anti-coagulated after IVC filter placement. The incidence of death was 0.4 per 1000 filter days and 0.7 per 1000 filter days in the anti-coagulated and untreated groups respectively (p-value=0.06). After statistical correction for co-morbid conditions, the effect of anticoagulation was not significant (HR 0.82 CI 0.49-1.37, p-value 0.46). Age was a significant confounder that was associated with death. Increased BMI was protective. Indications for IVC filter placement were numerous, but similar between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Treatment with an approved anticoagulant is recommended after IVC filter placement for prevention of recurrent PE, however its effect may be attenuated by advanced age. In elderly patients that have undergone IVC filter placement for prevention of recurrent PE, survival may be more dependent on age and co-morbid conditions than exposure to anticoagulation.
BACKGROUND: Anticoagulation is the primary treatment for pulmonary embolism (PE). Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are an adjunctive intervention to prevent recurrent pulmonary embolism. Long-term outcomes in elderly patients with contraindications to anticoagulation after IVC filter placement for prevention of recurrent pulmonary embolism have yet to be assessed. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients ≥60years of age, that had an IVC filter placed between 1 January, 2008 and 2 February, 2013, with a primary diagnosis of pulmonary embolism, were included. Patients that died during index hospitalisation, were discharged to hospice, or had active malignancy were excluded. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Patients were divided depending on whether they were treated with an approved anticoagulant for VTE or had no anticoagulant. RESULTS: Of the 152 patients identified, 55 were not anti-coagulated after IVC filter placement. The incidence of death was 0.4 per 1000 filter days and 0.7 per 1000 filter days in the anti-coagulated and untreated groups respectively (p-value=0.06). After statistical correction for co-morbid conditions, the effect of anticoagulation was not significant (HR 0.82 CI 0.49-1.37, p-value 0.46). Age was a significant confounder that was associated with death. Increased BMI was protective. Indications for IVC filter placement were numerous, but similar between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Treatment with an approved anticoagulant is recommended after IVC filter placement for prevention of recurrent PE, however its effect may be attenuated by advanced age. In elderly patients that have undergone IVC filter placement for prevention of recurrent PE, survival may be more dependent on age and co-morbid conditions than exposure to anticoagulation.