BACKGROUND: Inferior vena cava thrombosis (IVCT), although rare, has a potential for significant morbidity and mortality. IVCT is often a result of IVC filter thrombosis, but it can also occur de novo. Although anticoagulation remains the standard of care, endovascular techniques to restore IVC patency have become key adjunctive therapies in recent years. This study examines a single-center experience with diagnosis and management of IVCT. METHODS: A retrospective Institutional Review Board-approved review of a single-center institutional database was screened to identify IVCT thrombosis using International Classification of Diseases code 453.2 over a 3-year period. Etiology of IVCT was separated into 2 groups: those with IVC thrombosis in the setting of prior IVC filter place and those in whom IVCT occurred de novo. Patient demographics, presenting characteristics, and management of IVCT were examined. Treatment options included expectant management with anticoagulation versus catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT), mechanical thrombectomy, stenting, or a combination. For those who underwent intervention, technical success, defined as restoration of IVC patency, was assessed. RESULTS: Forty-one unique patients were identified with radiographically confirmed diagnosis of ICVT (mean age 61, range 25-91; 21 female, 51.2%). Eighteen (43.9%) patients presented with thrombosed IVC filter. Risk factors for venous thromboembolism included tobacco usage, current or prior smoking (n = 17, 41.5%), history of prior deep vein thrombosis (n = 25, 61.0%), malignancy (n = 17, 41.5%), use of hormonal supplements (n = 3, 7.3%), known thrombophilia (n = 4, 9.8%), and obesity (body mass index: mean 29, range 18.8-58.53). Eleven patients (26.8%) presented with pulmonary embolism (PE), and of those 63.6% had IVC filter thrombosis (n = 7). Risk of PE was not significantly different between those patients presenting with a thrombosed IVC filter compared to those with de novo IVCT (38.9% vs. 17.4%, P = 0.12) Management of IVCT included anticoagulation alone (n = 27, 65.9%), CDT (n = 5, 12.2%), mechanical thrombolysis (n = 10, 24.4%), and adjunctive IVC stent (n = 3, 7.3%). Among the 14 (34.1%) patients who had intervention for IVCT, patency was restored in 12 patients (85.7%). CONCLUSIONS: IVCT is a rare event and is associated with known risk factors for venous thromboembolism. PE can occur in roughly 25% of patients presenting with IVCT. Presence of a filter does not appear to confer an advantage in preventing PE when IVCT occurs. Although majority of IVCT is managed with anticoagulation alone, endovascular interventions, including lysis and stenting, can safely restore patency in most properly selected patients.
BACKGROUND:Inferior vena cava thrombosis (IVCT), although rare, has a potential for significant morbidity and mortality. IVCT is often a result of IVC filter thrombosis, but it can also occur de novo. Although anticoagulation remains the standard of care, endovascular techniques to restore IVC patency have become key adjunctive therapies in recent years. This study examines a single-center experience with diagnosis and management of IVCT. METHODS: A retrospective Institutional Review Board-approved review of a single-center institutional database was screened to identify IVCT thrombosis using International Classification of Diseases code 453.2 over a 3-year period. Etiology of IVCT was separated into 2 groups: those with IVC thrombosis in the setting of prior IVC filter place and those in whom IVCT occurred de novo. Patient demographics, presenting characteristics, and management of IVCT were examined. Treatment options included expectant management with anticoagulation versus catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT), mechanical thrombectomy, stenting, or a combination. For those who underwent intervention, technical success, defined as restoration of IVC patency, was assessed. RESULTS: Forty-one unique patients were identified with radiographically confirmed diagnosis of ICVT (mean age 61, range 25-91; 21 female, 51.2%). Eighteen (43.9%) patients presented with thrombosed IVC filter. Risk factors for venous thromboembolism included tobacco usage, current or prior smoking (n = 17, 41.5%), history of prior deep vein thrombosis (n = 25, 61.0%), malignancy (n = 17, 41.5%), use of hormonal supplements (n = 3, 7.3%), known thrombophilia (n = 4, 9.8%), and obesity (body mass index: mean 29, range 18.8-58.53). Eleven patients (26.8%) presented with pulmonary embolism (PE), and of those 63.6% had IVC filter thrombosis (n = 7). Risk of PE was not significantly different between those patients presenting with a thrombosed IVC filter compared to those with de novo IVCT (38.9% vs. 17.4%, P = 0.12) Management of IVCT included anticoagulation alone (n = 27, 65.9%), CDT (n = 5, 12.2%), mechanical thrombolysis (n = 10, 24.4%), and adjunctive IVC stent (n = 3, 7.3%). Among the 14 (34.1%) patients who had intervention for IVCT, patency was restored in 12 patients (85.7%). CONCLUSIONS: IVCT is a rare event and is associated with known risk factors for venous thromboembolism. PE can occur in roughly 25% of patients presenting with IVCT. Presence of a filter does not appear to confer an advantage in preventing PE when IVCT occurs. Although majority of IVCT is managed with anticoagulation alone, endovascular interventions, including lysis and stenting, can safely restore patency in most properly selected patients.