Literature DB >> 32549942

Use and Removal of Inferior Vena Cava Filters in Patients With Acute Brain Injury.

Kara Melmed1,2,3, Monica L Chen1,2, Mais Al-Kawaz1,2, Hannah L Kirsch1,2,3, Andrew Bauerschmidt1,2,3, Hooman Kamel1,2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Few data exist regarding the rate of inferior vena cava (IVC) filter retrieval among brain-injured patients.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using inpatient claims between 2009 and 2015 from a nationally representative 5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries. We included patients aged ≥65 years who were hospitalized with acute brain injury. The primary outcome was the retrieval of IVC filter at 12 months and the secondary outcomes were the association with 30-day mortality and 12-month freedom from pulmonary embolism (PE). We used Current Procedural Terminology codes to ascertain filter placement and retrieval and International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes to ascertain venous thromboembolism (VTE) diagnoses. We used standard descriptive statistics to calculate the crude rate of filter placement. We used Cox proportional hazards analysis to examine the association between IVC filter placement and mortality and the occurrence of PE after adjustment for demographics, comorbidities, and mechanical ventilation. We used Kaplan-Meier survival statistics to calculate cumulative rates of retrieval 12 months after filter placement.
RESULTS: Among 44 641 Medicare beneficiaries, 1068 (2.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.3%-2.5) received an IVC filter, of whom 452 (42.3%; 95% CI, 39.3%-45.3) had a diagnosis of VTE. After adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and mechanical ventilation, filter placement was not associated with a reduced risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.0; 95% CI, 0.8-1.3) regardless of documented VTE. The occurrence of pulmonary embolism at 12 months was associated with IVC filter placement (HR, 3.19; 95% CI, 1.3-3.3) in the most adjusted model. The cumulative rate of filter retrieval at 12 months was 4.4% (95% CI, 3.1%-6.1%); there was no significant difference in retrieval rates between those with and without VTE.
CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort of Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized with acute brain injury, IVC filter placement was uncommon, but once placed, very few filters were removed. IVC filter placement was not associated with a reduced risk of mortality and did not prevent future PE.
© The Author(s) 2020.

Entities:  

Keywords:  brain injury; deep venous thrombosis; health services research; inferior vena cava filter; intracranial hemorrhage; neurocritical care; pulmonary embolism

Year:  2020        PMID: 32549942      PMCID: PMC7271624          DOI: 10.1177/1941874420907531

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurohospitalist        ISSN: 1941-8744


  31 in total

1.  Vena cava filter practices of a regional vascular surgery society.

Authors:  Mark L Friedell; Peter R Nelson; Michael L Cheatham
Journal:  Ann Vasc Surg       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 1.466

2.  Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases.

Authors:  R A Deyo; D C Cherkin; M A Ciol
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  Placement and removal of inferior vena cava filters: national trends in the medicare population.

Authors:  Richard Duszak; Laurence Parker; David C Levin; Vijay M Rao
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 5.532

Review 4.  Comparison of laboratory tests, ultrasound, or magnetic resonance elastography to detect fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Guangqin Xiao; Sixian Zhu; Xiao Xiao; Lunan Yan; Jiayin Yang; Gang Wu
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  2017-09-26       Impact factor: 17.425

Review 5.  Restarting Anticoagulant Therapy After Intracranial Hemorrhage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Santosh B Murthy; Ajay Gupta; Alexander E Merkler; Babak B Navi; Pitchaiah Mandava; Costantino Iadecola; Kevin N Sheth; Daniel F Hanley; Wendy C Ziai; Hooman Kamel
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2017-04-17       Impact factor: 7.914

6.  A Multicenter Trial of Vena Cava Filters in Severely Injured Patients.

Authors:  Kwok M Ho; Sudhakar Rao; Stephen Honeybul; Rene Zellweger; Bradley Wibrow; Jeffrey Lipman; Anthony Holley; Alan Kop; Elizabeth Geelhoed; Tomas Corcoran; Philip Misur; Cyrus Edibam; Ross I Baker; Jenny Chamberlain; Claire Forsdyke; Frederick B Rogers
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2019-07-07       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  A comparison of clinical outcomes with retrievable and permanent inferior vena cava filters.

Authors:  Hyun S Kim; Mark J Young; Anand K Narayan; Kelvin Hong; Robert P Liddell; Michael B Streiff
Journal:  J Vasc Interv Radiol       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 3.464

8.  Vena Caval Filter Utilization and Outcomes in Pulmonary Embolism: Medicare Hospitalizations From 1999 to 2010.

Authors:  Behnood Bikdeli; Yun Wang; Karl E Minges; Nihar R Desai; Nancy Kim; Mayur M Desai; John A Spertus; Frederick A Masoudi; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Samuel Z Goldhaber; Harlan M Krumholz
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2016-03-08       Impact factor: 24.094

9.  High variation between hospitals in vena cava filter use for venous thromboembolism.

Authors:  Richard H White; Estella Marie Geraghty; Ann Brunson; Susan Murin; Ted Wun; Fred Spencer; Patrick S Romano
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2013-04-08       Impact factor: 21.873

10.  Outcomes After Vena Cava Filter Use in Noncancer Patients With Acute Venous Thromboembolism: A Population-Based Study.

Authors:  Richard H White; Ann Brunson; Patrick S Romano; Zhongmin Li; Ted Wun
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2016-04-05       Impact factor: 29.690

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.