Joseph Kallini1, Jonathan Steinberger1, H Gabriel Lipshutz1, Marc L Friedman1, Richard J Van Allan2. 1. Section of Interventional Radiology, Department of Imaging, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, Calif. 2. Section of Interventional Radiology, Department of Imaging, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, Calif. Electronic address: Richard.Vanallan@cshs.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In the present study, we sought to determine whether early pre-emptive scheduling of inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) removal during the preoperative IVCF placement visit would affect the IVCF removal rate. METHODS: All electronically documented IVCF placements at a single institution were reviewed from April 2015 to July 2019. The baseline characteristics included age, the clinical indications for IVCF placement, inpatient/outpatient status, and type of IVCF placed. Statistical analysis was performed using the χ2 for discrete variables and the two-tailed paired t test for continuous variables. RESULTS: A total of 599 patients (mean age, 68 years; 273 women and 326 men) had undergone technically successful IVCF placement. During the preoperative consent process for placement, 232 patients had been scheduled for IVCF removal within 3 months after placement. However, 367 patients had not been scheduled for removal at the preoperative consent process. The indications for placement included failure of anticoagulation, a contraindication to anticoagulation (eg, bleeding), preoperative prophylaxis, and others. Of the 232 patients scheduled for IVCF removal during preoperative consent for IVCF placement, 103 (44%) had undergone successful IVCF removal (mean interval from placement, 107 ± 100 days). Of the 367 nonscheduled patients, 89 (24%) had undergone successful IVCF removal (mean time, 184 ± 215 days). We found a significant improvement in the IVCF removal rate between the scheduled and nonscheduled patients (P < .0001). Three patients (all from the scheduled group) had a clot burden within the IVCF, which meant they were inappropriate for removal. These patients were rescheduled and had eventually undergone uncomplicated removal. CONCLUSIONS: Scheduling IVCF removal during the placement encounter significantly increased the IVCF removal rate. This approach could be a viable option for institutions where clinic time and/or resources are limited or unavailable and for patients who have difficulty traveling for clinical evaluations.
OBJECTIVE: In the present study, we sought to determine whether early pre-emptive scheduling of inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) removal during the preoperative IVCF placement visit would affect the IVCF removal rate. METHODS: All electronically documented IVCF placements at a single institution were reviewed from April 2015 to July 2019. The baseline characteristics included age, the clinical indications for IVCF placement, inpatient/outpatient status, and type of IVCF placed. Statistical analysis was performed using the χ2 for discrete variables and the two-tailed paired t test for continuous variables. RESULTS: A total of 599 patients (mean age, 68 years; 273 women and 326 men) had undergone technically successful IVCF placement. During the preoperative consent process for placement, 232 patients had been scheduled for IVCF removal within 3 months after placement. However, 367 patients had not been scheduled for removal at the preoperative consent process. The indications for placement included failure of anticoagulation, a contraindication to anticoagulation (eg, bleeding), preoperative prophylaxis, and others. Of the 232 patients scheduled for IVCF removal during preoperative consent for IVCF placement, 103 (44%) had undergone successful IVCF removal (mean interval from placement, 107 ± 100 days). Of the 367 nonscheduled patients, 89 (24%) had undergone successful IVCF removal (mean time, 184 ± 215 days). We found a significant improvement in the IVCF removal rate between the scheduled and nonscheduled patients (P < .0001). Three patients (all from the scheduled group) had a clot burden within the IVCF, which meant they were inappropriate for removal. These patients were rescheduled and had eventually undergone uncomplicated removal. CONCLUSIONS: Scheduling IVCF removal during the placement encounter significantly increased the IVCF removal rate. This approach could be a viable option for institutions where clinic time and/or resources are limited or unavailable and for patients who have difficulty traveling for clinical evaluations.