Key result
Inferior vena cava filter implantation for severe pulmonary hypertension yielded a number needed to treat of 6 for a positive outcome, while implantation for embologenic thrombosis had a number needed to harm of 18.
Why the study?
The study was conducted to assess the validity of indications for inferior vena cava filter implantation in patients with venous thromboembolism.
Does IVC filter implantation for additional indications (emboligenic thrombosis or severe pulmonary hypertension) improve outcomes in patients with VTE compared to absolute indications?
Cohort (n=317)
Does IVC filter implantation for additional indications (emboligenic thrombosis or severe pulmonary hypertension) improve outcomes in patients with VTE compared to absolute indications?
IVC filter placement for severe pulmonary hypertension with emboligenic thrombosis is beneficial (NNT=6), but placement solely for emboligenic thrombosis may increase adverse outcomes like filter thrombosis (NNH=18).
May support IVC filter use in severe pulmonary hypertension but caution against sole use for embologenic thrombosis; leaves open need for randomized trials.
No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zolotukhin et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Venous thromboembolism (n=317). Inferior vena cava filter implantation for additional indications (embologenic thrombosis and/or severe pulmonary hypertension) vs. Inferior vena cava filter implantation for absolute indications (impossibility or ineffectiveness of anticoagulant therapy) was evaluated on Positive outcome (embolism in the IVC filter) and adverse outcome (IVC filter thrombosis without embolic occlusion) (NNT 6 (for positive outcome) / NNH 18 (for adverse outcome)). Inferior vena cava filter implantation for severe pulmonary hypertension yielded a number needed to treat of 6 for a positive outcome, while implantation for embologenic thrombosis had a number needed to harm of 18.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: