Key result
Vena cava filters are used in ~11% of VTE admissions, linked to high-risk comorbidities.
Why the study?
There is wide variation in the use of vena cava filters in patients with deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, and factors associated with their use are not fully characterized.
Observational (n=81,922)
Yes
There is significant variation in vena cava filter utilization for DVT/PE, driven by both patient comorbidities (such as older age and bleeding risk) and hospital-level factors.
Variation in vena cava filter use for DVT/PE should not yet change practice; leaves open optimal indications in high-risk patients.
INTRODUCTION: There is a wide variation in the use of vena cava filter (VCF). OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the hospital and patient characteristics associated with VCF use in deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). METHODS: Inpatient discharge data from all acute care hospitals with DVT/PE during 2008-2014 in Kentucky were used. Hierarchical logistic regression models were used to evaluate the relationships of study variables with VCF use. RESULTS: During the study period, 81,922 discharges for DVT/PE were observed and 10.5% of these received a VCF. This included 12,083 cases of PE+DVT, 18,571 cases of PE only, and 51,268 cases of DVT only. VCF use among these groups was 22.7%, 6.0%, and 7.8%, respectively. In adjusted analyses, VCF use was associated with increasing age, indicating that those over age 65 were twice as likely to receive a filter compared with the reference (21-25 y old) group. Significant comorbidities associated with VCF use included cancer, liver disease, cerebrovascular disease, atrial fibrillation, anemia, and concurrent bleeding. Lower extremity, proximal DVTs, and patients receiving thrombolytic therapy or embolectomy, those having surgery, and those who were unstable or had trauma, were also more likely to receive a filter. Among cancer types, brain and metastatic tumors were significantly associated with VCF use. Between-hospital variation after controlling for all covariates was 7.1%. CONCLUSIONS: There was high variation in the use of VCFs. Several high-risk subgroups were more likely to use VCFs including older adults and those with cancer and concurrent bleeding.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Brown et al. (2016) conducted an observational in Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) (n=81,922). High-risk patient characteristics (e.g., older age, cancer, bleeding) vs. Reference patient groups was evaluated on Vena cava filter (VCF) use. Vena cava filters were utilized in 10.5% of 81,922 inpatient discharges for DVT or PE, with higher use associated with older age, cancer, concurrent bleeding, and other high-risk comorbidities.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: