The Role of Temporary Inferior Vena Cava Filters in Critically Ill Surgical Patients

Offner, Patrick J.; Hawkes, Allison P.; Madayag, Robert; Seale, Fred; Maines, Charles

doi:10.1001/archsurg.138.6.591

Cited by 105 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Patients who subsequently undergo anticoagulant therapy after initial contraindication benefit by having the filter safely removed. Our experience with optional filter systems is comparable with the literature [29][30][31][32]. We had a retrieval technical success of 97.0% with no retrieval-related morbidity.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

Prophylactic Insertion of Optional Vena Cava Filters in High-Risk Trauma Patients

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ab stractBackground: Vena cava interruption is a form of pulmonary embolism prophylaxis that is being used in high-risk patients who do not tolerate pharmacologic prophylaxis. Retrievable prophylactic vena cava filters (VCFs) are of particular interest for severely injured patients where the necessity for VCF is often only temporary. Methods: In a single-institution case series of consecutive patients who received prophylactic VCFs after polytrauma, between 04/1998 and 07/2004, the demographic data, injury pattern and complications were analysed. Results: Ninety-five prophylactic VCFs were placed in polytrauma patients (median ISS of 38). Median age was 38 years (range 16-80 years). Median delay between trauma and filter placement was 1 day (range 0-31 days). No complication was seen related to filter insertion or retrieval. Sixty-five VCFs (68.4%) were retrieved after 4-25 days (median 13 days). One filter migration (1.1%) was observed. Retrieval failed in two patients (3.0%). A total of 30 VCFs (31.6%) were left permanently. One nonfatal PE (1.1%) occurred 21 days after filter retrieval despite prophylaxis with LMWH. DVT developed in two patients (2.1%) including one vena caval occlusion (1.1%). Overall mortality was 7.4%. Conclusions: Early prophylactic placement of VCF in a high-risk trauma patient should be considered when anticoagulation is contraindicated. Filter insertion and retrieval is safe with a low complication rate.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

Prophylactic Insertion of Optional Vena Cava Filters in High-Risk Trauma Patients

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…21 Reported retrieval rates vary from 34% to 84%. [22][23][24][25][26] In the present study, trauma surgeons did not place any IVC filters in 1995, but were responsible for 11.3% of filters in trauma and surgical ICU patients (all of which were retrievable types) by 2005. Interestingly, only 2.4% of potentially retrievable filters were removed in this study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 53%

Changes in inferior vena cava filter placement over the past decade at a large community-based academic health center

Yunus

Tariq

Callahan

et al. 2008

Journal of Vascular Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Technological and practice pattern changes have led to an increase in filters inserted by vascular and trauma surgeons in the operating room and intensive care units. Increased diagnosis of VTE disease and newer low profile delivery systems in patients may also have contributed to the significant increase in filter placement. A shift in indications for placement from absolute toward relative indications and prophylaxis is evident over time and across providers, indicating the need for consensus development of appropriate criteria.

show abstract

“…[1][2][3][4] RFs offer a similar prophylactic benefit without the long-term risks of PFs, and multiple studies have demonstrated that RFs may be inserted and retrieved with low rates of significant complications. 12,[25][26][27][28] At our institution, the perceived change in the risk-tobenefit ratio of filter placement presented by the availability of a RF was associated with a threefold increase in our rate of filter placement in trauma patients. We found a higher rate of DVT in Group II.…”

Section: Retrievable Vena Cava Filters For Trauma Patientsmentioning

confidence: 88%

Retrievable Vena Cava Filters for Preventing Pulmonary Embolism in Trauma Patients: A Cautionary Tale

Antevil

Sise

Sack

et al. 2006

The Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The Role of Temporary Inferior Vena Cava Filters in Critically Ill Surgical Patients

Abstract: Hypothesis: Prophylactic temporary inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are safe and effective in critically ill patients at high risk for venous thromboembolism.

Cited by 105 publications

References 28 publications

Prophylactic Insertion of Optional Vena Cava Filters in High-Risk Trauma Patients

Prophylactic Insertion of Optional Vena Cava Filters in High-Risk Trauma Patients

Changes in inferior vena cava filter placement over the past decade at a large community-based academic health center

Retrievable Vena Cava Filters for Preventing Pulmonary Embolism in Trauma Patients: A Cautionary Tale

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About