Muhammad H Gul1, Zin M Htun2, Joseph Rigdon3, Belinda Rivera-Lebron4, Vinicio de Jesus Perez5. 1. Internal Medicine, Amita-Presence Saint Joseph Hospital Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 2. Internal Medicine, Weiss Memorial Hospital Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 3. Quantitative Sciences Unit, Stanford University California, Stanford, CA, USA. 4. Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 5. Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Stanford University California, Stanford, CA, USA.
Abstract
Background: Previous observational studies suggest that inferior vena cava filter placement in pulmonary embolism patients complicated with congestive heart failure, mechanical ventilation, and shock may have a mortality benefit. We sought to analyze the survival benefits of inferior vena cava filter in pulmonary embolism patients complicated with acute myocardial infarction, acute respiratory failure, shock, or requiring treatment with thrombolytics. Methods: This retrospective observational study used hospital discharge data from the National Inpatient Sample Data (NIS). ICD-9-CM coding was used to identify complicated pulmonary embolism patients (N = 254,465) in NIS from 2002 to 2014, including the subgroups of acute myocardial infarction, acute respiratory failure, shock, and thrombolytics. Inferior vena cava filter recipients were 1:1 propensity score-matched on age, sex, race, deep vein thrombosis, Elixhauser comorbidities, and other pulmonary embolism comorbidities (45 covariates) to non-inferior vena cava filter recipients in complicated pulmonary embolism patients and separately in each subgroup. Clinical outcomes were compared between the inferior vena cava filter group and the non-inferior vena cava filter group. Results: Mortality rate in complicated pulmonary embolism patients with inferior vena cava filter placement was lower (20.9% vs. 33%; NNT = 8.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 7.91-8.69, E-value = 2.53) and in the subgroups; acute myocardial infarction (17.9% vs. 30.1%; NNT = 8.19, 95% CI 7.52-8.92, E-value = 2.76), acute respiratory failure (19.5% vs. 29.7%; NNT = 9.76, 95% CI 8.67-11.16, E-value = 2.38), shock (30.7% vs. 47.1%; NNT = 6.08, 95% CI 5.73-6.47, E-value = 2.43), and with the use of thrombolytics (7% vs. 12.9 %; NNT 17.1, 95% CI 14.88-20.12, E-value = 3.01) (p < 0.001 for all). Conclusion: Inferior vena cava filter placement in pulmonary embolism complicated with acute myocardial infarction, acute respiratory failure, shock, or requiring thrombolytic therapy was associated with reduced mortality.
Background: Previous observational studies suggest that inferior vena cava filter placement in pulmonary embolismpatients complicated with congestive heart failure, mechanical ventilation, and shock may have a mortality benefit. We sought to analyze the survival benefits of inferior vena cava filter in pulmonary embolismpatients complicated with acute myocardial infarction, acute respiratory failure, shock, or requiring treatment with thrombolytics. Methods: This retrospective observational study used hospital discharge data from the National Inpatient Sample Data (NIS). ICD-9-CM coding was used to identify complicated pulmonary embolismpatients (N = 254,465) in NIS from 2002 to 2014, including the subgroups of acute myocardial infarction, acute respiratory failure, shock, and thrombolytics. Inferior vena cava filter recipients were 1:1 propensity score-matched on age, sex, race, deep vein thrombosis, Elixhauser comorbidities, and other pulmonary embolism comorbidities (45 covariates) to non-inferior vena cava filter recipients in complicated pulmonary embolismpatients and separately in each subgroup. Clinical outcomes were compared between the inferior vena cava filter group and the non-inferior vena cava filter group. Results: Mortality rate in complicated pulmonary embolismpatients with inferior vena cava filter placement was lower (20.9% vs. 33%; NNT = 8.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 7.91-8.69, E-value = 2.53) and in the subgroups; acute myocardial infarction (17.9% vs. 30.1%; NNT = 8.19, 95% CI 7.52-8.92, E-value = 2.76), acute respiratory failure (19.5% vs. 29.7%; NNT = 9.76, 95% CI 8.67-11.16, E-value = 2.38), shock (30.7% vs. 47.1%; NNT = 6.08, 95% CI 5.73-6.47, E-value = 2.43), and with the use of thrombolytics (7% vs. 12.9 %; NNT 17.1, 95% CI 14.88-20.12, E-value = 3.01) (p < 0.001 for all). Conclusion: Inferior vena cava filter placement in pulmonary embolism complicated with acute myocardial infarction, acute respiratory failure, shock, or requiring thrombolytic therapy was associated with reduced mortality.
Authors: Michael R Jaff; M Sean McMurtry; Stephen L Archer; Mary Cushman; Neil Goldenberg; Samuel Z Goldhaber; J Stephen Jenkins; Jeffrey A Kline; Andrew D Michaels; Patricia Thistlethwaite; Suresh Vedantham; R James White; Brenda K Zierler Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-03-21 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Kristian Thygesen; Joseph S Alpert; Allan S Jaffe; Maarten L Simoons; Bernard R Chaitman; Harvey D White; Hugo A Katus; Bertil Lindahl; David A Morrow; Peter M Clemmensen; Per Johanson; Hanoch Hod; Richard Underwood; Jeroen J Bax; Robert O Bonow; Fausto Pinto; Raymond J Gibbons; Keith A Fox; Dan Atar; L Kristin Newby; Marcello Galvani; Christian W Hamm; Barry F Uretsky; Ph Gabriel Steg; William Wijns; Jean-Pierre Bassand; Phillippe Menasché; Jan Ravkilde; E Magnus Ohman; Elliott M Antman; Lars C Wallentin; Paul W Armstrong; Maarten L Simoons; James L Januzzi; Markku S Nieminen; Mihai Gheorghiade; Gerasimos Filippatos; Russell V Luepker; Stephen P Fortmann; Wayne D Rosamond; Dan Levy; David Wood; Sidney C Smith; Dayi Hu; José-Luis Lopez-Sendon; Rose Marie Robertson; Douglas Weaver; Michal Tendera; Alfred A Bove; Alexander N Parkhomenko; Elena J Vasilieva; Shanti Mendis Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-08-24 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: David Jiménez; Drahomir Aujesky; Lisa Moores; Vicente Gómez; José Luis Lobo; Fernando Uresandi; Remedios Otero; Manuel Monreal; Alfonso Muriel; Roger D Yusen Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2010-08-09
Authors: Vibhor Wadhwa; Narendra B Gutta; Premal S Trivedi; Kshitij Chatterjee; Osman Ahmed; Robert K Ryu; Sanjeeva P Kalva Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2018-07-17 Impact factor: 3.959