Key result
IVC filters placed in ~13% of acute VTE cases, with only half deemed appropriate.
Why the study?
The frequency, indications, and outcomes of inferior vena cava filter placement in patients with acute venous thromboembolism were not well described in a population-based setting.
What is the frequency and appropriateness of IVC filter placement in patients with acute VTE?
Observational (n=1,547)
Yes
What is the frequency and appropriateness of IVC filter placement in patients with acute VTE?
In a community-based cohort, IVC filters were frequently used for acute VTE, but nearly half of the placements were deemed inappropriate or debatable by thrombosis specialists.
May warrant closer scrutiny of IVC filter indications in acute VTE; leaves open optimal criteria and outcomes impact.
BACKGROUND: Our study objective was to describe the frequency, indications, and outcomes after inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement in a population-based sample of residents of the Worcester, Massachusetts, metropolitan area who had been diagnosed as having acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) in 1999, 2001, and 2003. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of inpatient and outpatient medical records was conducted. Recorded indication(s) for IVC filter placement was determined among a subset of cases from 3 Worcester tertiary care hospitals. Three thrombosis specialists assessed the appropriateness of IVC filter placement. RESULTS: Of 1547 greater Worcester residents with validated acute VTE and without a prior IVC filter, 203 (13.1%) had an IVC filter placed after acute VTE. Patients with an IVC filter were older, had more comorbidities, and had a higher mortality rate during 3 years of follow-up. There was unanimous agreement by panel members that the use of an IVC filter was appropriate in 51% of cases and inappropriate in 26% of cases, with no consensus in the remaining 23%. CONCLUSIONS: In this community-based study, IVC filters were frequently used in the treatment of patients with acute VTE. Placement was deemed to be appropriate in approximately 50% of the patients but was not appropriate or debatable in the remaining cases. Given the increasing use of IVC filters, prospective studies are clearly needed to better define the indications for, and efficacy of, IVC filter placement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Spencer et al. (2010) conducted an observational in Acute Venous Thromboembolism (n=1,547). Inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement vs. No IVC filter was evaluated on Frequency of IVC filter placement. Among patients with acute VTE, 13.1% received an inferior vena cava filter, a placement deemed appropriate by specialists in only 51% of cases.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: