Vena cava filters for management of venous thromboembolism: A clinical review

Rajasekhar, Anita; Streiff, Michael B.

doi:10.1016/j.blre.2013.07.001

Cited by 51 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 245 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Marked predisposition to use VCF in high risk neurosurgical patients resulted in increased mortality in the filter group but this does not signify that these deaths were due to VCF, neurological sequelae or related complications. This predisposition was probably caused by the awareness of the surgeon about the risks of a permanent filter (25)(26)(27).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Vena cava filters are not superior to low molecular weight heparin in venous thromboembolism prophylaxis: a study on long term immobilized neurosurgical patients

Akmangit¹,

Dağlıoğlu²,

Uyanık³

et al. 2014

Turkish Neurosurgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AIm: Deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) are the most frequent surgical problems and associated with high morbidity and mortality. Neurosurgical patients constitute a unique group where prophylaxis with anticoagulant and antiaggregant agents are relatively contraindicated due to the natural course of vascular problems such as aneurysms, hemorrhagic tumors or hematomas or increased vulnerability to complex spinal surgeries and trauma. mAterIAl and methOds: We included 67 patients predicted to be immobilized for 2 or more months in this retrospective analysis. A vena cava filter was inserted between the first and seventh postoperative day in 40 patients in a prophylactic manner whereas 27 patients received low dose heparin for the same purpose. The patients were evaluated for symptomatic DVT or PE.results: Percutaneous insertion was performed for all filters without any complication. DVT occurred in two patients of the filter group and 1 patient of the heparin group. There was no PE recorded in any patient of either group. Patients were followed up for 22 months in the filter and 16 months in the heparin group. COnClusIOn:We conclude that prophylactic filter use in high risk neurosurgical patients is not beneficial and not superior to low-molecularweight heparin use. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to prevent PE in patients with proven DVT who have no contraindication for anticoagulant drugs.KeywOrds: Deep venous thrombosis, Venous thromboembolism, Vena cava filter, Low molecular weight heparin, Pulmoner embolism prophylaxis, Neurosurgical patients ÖZ AmAÇ: Derin ven trombozu ve pulmoner embolizm yüksek morbidite ve mortaliteyle seyreden en sık cerrahi problemler arasında yer alır. Anevrizma gibi vasküler problemler, hemorajik tümörler, hematom, kompleks spinal cerrahi ve travma gibi nöroşirürjiye ait hastalıklar antiagregan ve antikoagülan tedavinin göreceli olarak kontrendike olduğu özel bir grubu oluşturmaktadır. yÖntem ve GereÇler: Bu retrospektif çalışmada, 2 ay veya daha uzun süre immobilize olması beklenen 67 hastanın analizi yapılmıştır. Vena kava filtreleri 40 hastada postoperatif bir ile yedinci günde proflaktik amaçla yerleştirildi. 27 hastada ise aynı amaçla düşük moleküler ağırlıklı heparin kullanıldı. Hastalar yattıkları süreçte ve izlemde semptomatik derin ven trombozu (DVT) ve pulmoner emboli (PE) açısından takip edildi.BulGulAr: Bütün filtreler perkütan yolla yerleştirildi ve işleme ait herhangi bir komplikasyon gelişmedi. Filtre grubunda 2, heparin grubunda 1 hastada DVT gelişti. Her iki grupta PE saptanmadı. Hastalar filtre grubunda ortalama 22 ay, heparin grubunda 16 ay süreyle takip edildi. sOnuÇ: Yüksek riskli nöroşirürji hastalarında prolaktik filtre kullanımının düşük moleküler ağırlıklı heparin kullanımına üstün olmadığı düşünüldü. Buna rağmen DVT'si kanıtlanmış ve antikoagülan ilaçların kontrendike olduğu durumlarda PE'yi önlemede etkin olduğu açıktır.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, complications such as filter migration, vena cava perforation, and vena cava thrombosis are still reported. The incidence of complications is reported to be 0-69% in the literature (25)(26)(27).…”

Section: Akmangit I Et Al: Vena Cava Filter Versus Low Molecular Weimentioning

confidence: 99%

Vena cava filters are not superior to low molecular weight heparin in venous thromboembolism prophylaxis: a study on long term immobilized neurosurgical patients

Akmangit¹,

Dağlıoğlu²,

Uyanık³

et al. 2014

Turkish Neurosurgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, there is no strong evidence that use of a IVCF prevents either death or further pulmonary embolism (PE) [1][2][3]. Rather, observational studies of VTE patients treated with a IVCF in conjunction with anticoagulant therapy have reported numerous thrombotic and embolic complications [4][5][6][7][8][9].…”

Section: Thrombosis Research J O U R N a L H O M E P A G E : W W W mentioning

confidence: 99%

Inferior vena cava filters in patients with cancer and venous thromboembolism (VTE): patterns of use and outcomes

Brunson¹,

Ho²,

White

et al. 2016

Thrombosis Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Pulmonary Embolism (PE) is diagnosed in over 355,000 patients per year and results in approximately 244,000 deaths [1]. Indications for VTE prevention and IVC filter insertion in orthopedic patients are clearly written in the 9 th edition of the ACCP Guidelines published in 2012, include; contraindications to anticoagulation, failure of ongoing anticoagulant therapy with a known PE or deep vein thrombosis (DVT), high risk trauma, free floating venous thrombus, pulmonary thromboendarterectomy for chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension, thombolytic therapy for DVT [2]. However despite these guidelines, there has been an increase in the number of IVC filters inserted, largely due to the advent and development of the retrievable or removable filter [3].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inferior Vena Cava Filter Fragmentation, Embolization and Erosion through the Vessel Wall: An Unusual Complication

Cisternino¹

2014

J Vasc Med Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pulmonary embolism is a frequently fatal form of venous thromboembolism that is often avoided with the placement of an Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) filter. Although these filters have low complication rates, filter migration, caval occlusion, and filter fragmentation can occur. Filter strut perforation of the IVC lumen is a frequent occurrence and is typically asymptomatic. We report a case of filter fragmentation with subsequent strut migration and perforation, extending out of the IVC lumen and penetrating into the surrounding vascular and connective tissues as well as into the inferomedial aspect of the left lower lung lobe and the right atrium causing significant abdominal and back pain. The patient underwent operative retrieval of the filter.

show abstract

Vena cava filters for management of venous thromboembolism: A clinical review

Cited by 51 publications

References 245 publications

Vena cava filters are not superior to low molecular weight heparin in venous thromboembolism prophylaxis: a study on long term immobilized neurosurgical patients

Vena cava filters are not superior to low molecular weight heparin in venous thromboembolism prophylaxis: a study on long term immobilized neurosurgical patients

Inferior vena cava filters in patients with cancer and venous thromboembolism (VTE): patterns of use and outcomes

Inferior Vena Cava Filter Fragmentation, Embolization and Erosion through the Vessel Wall: An Unusual Complication

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About