Use of Emboli-Blocking Filters Increases, But Rigorous Data Are Lacking

Brender, Erin

doi:10.1001/jama.295.9.989

Cited by 15 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Vena Cava Filters: Vena cava filters are indicated for the prevention of PE in patients who cannot be anticoagulated because of an absolute contraindication to therapeutic anticoagulation or complications from anticoagulation. [126][127][128][129][130] However, placement of an IVC filter does not prevent DVT and has been associated with an increased risk of recurrent DVT. 126,131,132 A randomized, controlled trial has assessed the efficacy and safety of IVC filters in conjunction with anticoagulation compared with anticoagulant therapy alone in the treatment of acute VTE.…”

Section: Mechanical Devicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Venous Thromboembolic Disease

Streiff¹,

Bockenstedt²,

Cataland³

et al. 2013

J Natl Compr Canc Netw

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OverviewVenous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common and life-threatening condition in patients with cancer.1,2 Results from a retrospective study of hospitalized adult patients with cancer with neutropenia (N=66,106) showed that approximately 3% to 12% of these patients, depending on the type of malignancy, experienced VTE during their first hospitalization.1 In a recent health claims database analysis of patients undergoing chemotherapy for solid tumors in the ambulatory setting (N=17,284), VTE NCCN Venous Thromboembolic Disease Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology AbstractVenous thromboembolism (VTE) remains a common and life-threatening complication among patients with cancer. Thromboprophylaxis can be used to prevent the occurrence of VTE in patients with cancer who are considered at high risk for developing this complication. Therefore, it is critical to recognize the various risk factors for VTE in patients with cancer. Risk assessment tools are available to help identify patients for whom discussions regarding the potential benefits and risks of thromboprophylaxis would be appropriate. The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for VTE provide recommendations on risk evaluation, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. (JNCCN 2013;11:1402-1429 NCCN Categories of Evidence and ConsensusCategory 1: Based upon high-level evidence, there is uniform NCCN consensus that the intervention is appropriate. Category 2A: Based upon lower-level evidence, there is uniform NCCN consensus that the intervention is appropriate. Category 2B: Based upon lower-level evidence, there is NCCN consensus that the intervention is appropriate. Category 3: Based upon any level of evidence, there is major NCCN disagreement that the intervention is appropriate. These guidelines are also available on the Internet. For the latest update, visit NCCN.org.

show abstract

Section: Mechanical Devicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Venous Thromboembolic Disease

Streiff¹,

Bockenstedt²,

Cataland³

et al. 2013

J Natl Compr Canc Netw

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Concerns regarding the long-term safety of permanent IVC filters and the problematical management of temporary devices have created significant clinical interest in using retrievable IVC filters to provide temporary protection against pulmonary embolism [49]. The results of our review support the important role of retrievable filters in the management of selected patients with VTE.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 54%

Retrievable vena cava filters: a review

Imberti

Ageno²,

Carpenedo³

2006

Current Opinion in Hematology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…41 Retrievable filters offer the possibility of protection without the risk of longterm complications attributable to permanent filters. The advent of these devices has lead to an increase in overall filter use but also could result in filter placement without FIGURE 3.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrievable vena cava filters: A clinical review

Tschoe

Brotman

Streiff

2009

Journal of Hospital Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vena cava filters were developed as a method of preventing pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) at risk for bleeding from therapeutic anticoagulation. However, the long‐term complications of filter placement, such as caval thrombosis, have mitigated some of the benefits, particularly in those patients with only a temporary contraindication to anticoagulation. Retrievable filters were designed to avoid the long‐term risks of a permanent filter while still providing short‐term protection against PE. As a result, their use has expanded from patients with known thrombosis to those without VTE who are at high risk for developing PE. In this review, we discuss the different types of retrievable filters, indications for their placement, complications that can occur during and after placement, and their use as prophylaxis in surgical patients. Although the use of retrievable filters in patients with known VTE is clear, further studies are needed to establish their prophylactic efficacy in the surgical patient. Until this evidence is available, we recommend that retrievable filters should be used only in patients with acute VTE who are at risk for recurrent thromboembolism and have a transient risk for bleeding. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2009;4:441–448. © 2009 Society of Hospital Medicine.

show abstract

Use of Emboli-Blocking Filters Increases, But Rigorous Data Are Lacking

Cited by 15 publications

References 0 publications

Venous Thromboembolic Disease

Venous Thromboembolic Disease

Retrievable vena cava filters: a review

Retrievable vena cava filters: A clinical review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About