Key result
Vena cava filter use reduced 30-day mortality only in patients with active bleeding (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.52-0.88), but not in those without contraindications to anticoagulation.
Why the study?
Does vena cava filter use reduce mortality or recurrent venous thromboembolism in noncancer patients with acute venous thromboembolism?
Population
85,159 noncancer patients admitted to nonfederal California hospitals for acute venous thromboembolism from…
Comparison
Vena cava filter (VCF) placement vs No vena cava filter
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
Up to 1 year
Authors
Loading...
Supports restricting IVC filters to acute VTE with active bleeding; leaves open randomized confirmation of mortality benefit.
Cohort (n=85,159)
Yes
Does vena cava filter use reduce mortality or recurrent venous thromboembolism in noncancer patients with acute venous thromboembolism?
Hazard Ratio: 1.12 (95% CI 0.98–1.28)
Vena cava filters reduce short-term mortality only in acute VTE patients with active bleeding, while increasing the risk of subsequent DVT, supporting guidelines that restrict their use to patients who cannot receive anticoagulation.
White et al. (2016) conducted a cohort in Acute venous thromboembolism (n=85,159). Vena cava filter vs. No vena cava filter was evaluated on 30-day risk of death in patients with no contraindication to anticoagulation (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98-1.28). Vena cava filter use reduced 30-day mortality only in patients with active bleeding (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.52-0.88), but not in those without contraindications to anticoagulation.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: