Practice Patterns and Outcomes of Retrievable Vena Cava Filters in Trauma Patients: An AAST Multicenter Study
- 1 January 2007
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health
- Vol. 62 (1) , 17-25
- https://doi.org/10.1097/ta.0b013e31802dd72a
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to describe practice patterns and outcomes of posttraumatic retrievable inferior vena caval filters (R-IVCF). A retrospective review of R-IVCFs placed during 2004 at 21 participating centers with follow up to July 1, 2005 was performed. Primary outcomes included major complications (migration, pulmonary embolism [PE], and symptomatic caval occlusion) and reasons for failure to retrieve. Of 446 patients (69% male, 92% blunt trauma) receiving R-IVCFs, 76% for prophylactic indications and 79% were placed by interventional radiology. Excluding 33 deaths, 152 were Gunter-Tulip (G-T), 224 Recovery (R), and 37 Optease (Opt). Placement occurred 6 ± 8 days after admission and retrieval at 50 ± 61 days. Follow up after discharge (5.7 ± 4.3 months) was reported in 51%. Only 22% of R-IVCFs were retrieved. Of 115 patients in whom retrieval was attempted, retrieval failed as a result of technical issues in 15 patients (10% of G-T, 14% of R, 27% of Opt) and because of significant residual thrombus within the filter in 10 patients (6% of G-T, 4% of R, 46% Opt). The primary reason R-IVCFs were not removed was because of loss to follow up (31%), which was sixfold higher (6% to 44%, p = 0.001) when the service placing the R-IVCF was not directly responsible for follow up. Complications did not correlate with mechanism, injury severity, service placing the R-IVCF, trauma volume, use of anticoagulation, age, or sex. Three cases of migration were recorded (all among R, 1.3%), two breakthrough PE (G-T 0.6% and R 0.4%) and six symptomatic caval occlusions (G-T 0, R 1%, Opt 11%) (p < 0.05 Opt versus both G-T and R). Most R-IVCFs are not retrieved. The service placing the R-IVCF should be responsible for follow up. The Optease was associated with the greatest incidence of residual thrombus and symptomatic caval occlusion. The practice patterns of R-IVCF placement and retrieval should be re-examined.Keywords
This publication has 35 references indexed in Scilit:
- Timing of Pulmonary Emboli after Trauma: Implications for Retrievable Vena Cava FiltersPublished by Wolters Kluwer Health ,2006
- Retrievable Vena Cava Filters for Preventing Pulmonary Embolism in Trauma Patients: A Cautionary TalePublished by Wolters Kluwer Health ,2006
- Thrombosis and Coagulation: Deep Vein Thrombosis and Pulmonary Embolism ProphylaxisSurgical Clinics of North America, 2005
- Are temporary inferior vena cava filters really temporary?The American Journal of Surgery, 2005
- The role of vena caval filters in the management of venous thromboembolismBlood Reviews, 2005
- Venous thromboembolism after traumaCurrent Opinion in Critical Care, 2004
- Venous Thromboembolism in Trauma: A Local Manifestation of Systemic Hypercoagulability?Published by Wolters Kluwer Health ,2003
- Practice Management Guidelines for Trauma from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of TraumaThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care, 1998
- Timing of the Occurrence of Pulmonary Embolism in Trauma PatientsArchives of Surgery, 1997
- A Prospective Study of Venous Thromboembolism after Major TraumaNew England Journal of Medicine, 1994