Key result
Adjunctive IVC filters show uncertain benefit for recurrent PE prevention in anticoagulation-eligible patients.
Why the study?
The role of inferior vena cava filters in patients with venous thromboembolism who are candidates for anticoagulation is controversial due to limited and conflicting data.
Does inferior vena cava (IVC) filter use prevent recurrent pulmonary embolism in patients with venous thromboembolism?
Does inferior vena cava (IVC) filter use prevent recurrent pulmonary embolism in patients with venous thromboembolism?
This review highlights the controversial role and limited data regarding the efficacy and risks of adjunctive IVC filters for preventing recurrent PE in patients eligible for anticoagulation.
Clinicians should avoid routine adjunctive IVC filter use; leaves open the need for RCTs to resolve efficacy in anticoagulated patients.
Although inferior vena cava (IVC) filters have a clear role in preventing recurrent pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients with venous thromboembolism who cannot be anticoagulated, the role of filters in patients who are candidates for anticoagulation is controversial. With limited and conflicting data, practitioners often have to make an educated patient-specific decision when encountering this scenario. This article reviews the available data on the efficacy and risks associated with adjunctive IVC filter use to prevent recurrent PE.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kishore et al. (2018) conducted a review in Venous thromboembolism and recurrent pulmonary embolism. Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters was evaluated. Adjunctive inferior vena cava filter use to prevent recurrent pulmonary embolism in patients eligible for anticoagulation remains controversial due to limited and conflicting data.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: