Key result
IVC filter placement was associated with significantly increased odds of anticoagulant use at 3 months for both prophylactic (OR 3.403) and therapeutic (OR 1.356) indications compared to matched controls.
Why the study?
Does inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement improve clinical outcomes or reduce healthcare utilization compared to matched controls without filter placement?
Cohort (n=9,622)
Does inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement improve clinical outcomes or reduce healthcare utilization compared to matched controls without filter placement?
Odds Ratio: 3.403 (95% CI 1.912–6.059)
Absolute Event Rate: 48.05% vs 20.92%
p-value: p=<0.001
In a managed care population, IVC filter placement was associated with increased anticoagulant use, higher healthcare utilization, and low retrieval rates, highlighting the need for more appropriate patient selection.
May warrant more selective IVC filter use to limit added exposure and utilization; leaves open net outcome benefit in observational data.
The role of inferior vena cava filter (IVC) filters for prevention of pulmonary embolism (PE) is controversial. This study evaluated outcomes of IVC filter placement in a managed care population. This retrospective cohort study evaluated data for individuals with Humana healthcare coverage 2013-2014. The study population included 435 recipients of prophylactic IVC filters, 4376 recipients of therapeutic filters, and two control groups, each matched to filter recipients. Patients were followed for up to 2 years. Post-index anticoagulant use, mortality, filter removal, device-related complications, and all-cause utilization. Adjusted regression analyses showed a positive association between filter placement and anticoagulant use at 3 months: odds ratio (ORs) 3.403 (95% CI 1.912-6.059), prophylactic; OR, 1.356 (95% CI 1.164-1.58), therapeutic. Filters were removed in 15.67% of prophylactic and 5.69% of therapeutic filter cases. Complication rates were higher with prophylactic procedures than with therapeutic procedures and typically exceeded 2% in the prophylactic group. Each form of filter placement was associated with increases in all-cause hospitalization (regression coefficient 0.295 [95% CI 0.093-0.498], prophylactic; 0.673 [95% CI 0.547-0.798], therapeutic) and readmissions (OR 2.444 [95% CI 1.298-4.602], prophylactic; 2.074 [95% CI 1.644-2.616], therapeutic). IVC filter placement in this managed care population was associated with increased use of anticoagulants and greater healthcare utilization compared to controls, low rates of retrieval, and notable rates of device-related complications, with effects especially pronounced in assessments of prophylactic filters. These findings underscore the need for appropriate use of IVC filters.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Everhart et al. (2017) conducted a cohort in Venous thromboembolism risk (IVC filter placement) (n=9,622). Inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement vs. Matched controls (no IVC filter) was evaluated on Anticoagulant use at 3 months (prophylactic filter vs control) (OR 3.403, 95% CI 1.912-6.059, p=<0.001). IVC filter placement was associated with significantly increased odds of anticoagulant use at 3 months for both prophylactic (OR 3.403) and therapeutic (OR 1.356) indications compared to matched controls.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: