Article

Impact of Vena Cava Filters on In-hospital Case Fatality Rate from Pulmonary Embolism Reply

Department of Research, St. Mary Mercy Hospital, Livonia, MI 48154, USA.
The American journal of medicine (Impact Factor: 5.3). 02/2012; 125(5):478-84. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2011.05.025
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The effects of vena cava filters on case fatality rate are not clear, although they are used increasingly in patients with pulmonary embolism. The purpose of this investigation is to determine categories of patients with pulmonary embolism in whom vena cava filters reduce in-hospital case fatality rate.
In-hospital all-cause case fatality rate according to the use of vena cava filters was determined in patients with pulmonary embolism discharged from short-stay hospitals throughout the United States using data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample.
In-hospital case fatality rate was marginally lower in stable patients who received a vena cava filter: 21,420 of 297,700 (7.2%) versus 135,240 of 1,712,800 (7.9%) (P<.0001). Filters did not improve in-hospital case fatality rate if deep venous thrombosis was diagnosed in stable patients. A few stable patients (1.4%) received thrombolytic therapy. Such patients who received a vena cava filter had a lower case fatality rate than those who did not: 550 of 8550 (6.4%) versus 2950 of 19,050 (15%) (P<.0001). Unstable patients who received thrombolytic therapy had a lower in-hospital case fatality rate with vena cava filters than those who did not: 505 of 6630 (7.6%) versus 2600 of 14,760 (18%) (P<.0001). Unstable patients who did not receive thrombolytic therapy also had a lower in-hospital case fatality rate with a vena cava filter: 4260 of 12,850 (33%) versus 19,560 of 38,000 (51%) (P<.0001).
At present, it seems prudent to consider a vena cava filter in patients with pulmonary embolism who are receiving thrombolytic therapy and in unstable patients who may not be candidates for thrombolytic therapy. Future prospective study is warranted to better define in which patients a filter is appropriate.

0 Followers
 · 
115 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Comité de la ESC para la elaboración de Guías de Práctica Clínica (CPG): José Luis Zamorano (Presidente) (España), Stephan Achenbach (Alemania), Helmut Baumgartner (Alemania), Jeroen J. Bax (Países Bajos), Héctor Bueno (España), Veronica Dean (Francia), Christi Deaton (Reino Unido), Çetin Erol (Turquía), Robert Fagard (Bélgica), Roberto Ferrari (Italia), David Hasdai (Israel), Arno Hoes (Países Bajos), Paulus Kirchhof (Alemania/Reino Unido), Juhani Knuuti (Finlandia), Philippe Kolh (Bélgica), Patrizio Lancellotti (Bélgica), Ales Linhart (República Checa), Petros Nihoyannopoulos (Reino Unido), Massimo F. Piepoli (Italia), Piotr Ponikowski (Polonia), Per Anton Sirnes (Noruega), Juan Luis Tamargo (España), Michal Tendera (Polonia), Adam Torbicki (Polonia), William Wijns (Bélgica), Stephan Windecker (Suiza)
    Revista Espa de Cardiologia 01/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.recesp.2014.12.002 · 3.34 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a potentially fatal condition and includes deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. The novel oral anticoagulants, which include the direct thrombin and factor Xa inhibitors, have been shown to be safe and effective for the treatment of VTE. Additional interventions include thrombolysis and the use of inferior vena cava filters. The purpose of this article is to provide a contemporary review of the treatment of VTE. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Cardiology Clinics 11/2014; 33(1). DOI:10.1016/j.ccl.2014.09.007 · 1.06 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite growing evidence of complications, inferior vena cava filters are increasingly being used in patients with venous thromboembolism based on limited efficacy data. In such a controversial situation, the effectiveness of filter use on mortality as an adjuvant to antithrombotic therapy for pulmonary embolism remains uncertain.Methods Using the Diagnosis Procedure Combination database in Japan, we identified patients hospitalized with pulmonary embolism who received anticoagulation or thrombolytic therapy from the day of admission. We compared the in-hospital mortality between patients who received a filter and patients who did not, using propensity score and instrumental variable methods.ResultsOf 13,125 eligible patients, 3,948 received a filter and 9,177 did not receive a filter. The propensity score-matched analysis showed that filter use was significantly associated with lower in-hospital mortality than non-use (2.6% vs. 4.7%, P<0.001; risk ratio, 0.55, 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.43 to 0.71; risk difference, −2.1%, 95% CI, −3.0% to −1.2%; number needed to treat, 48, 95% CI, 34 to 82). We obtained similar results in the inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis. The instrumental variable analysis confirmed that filter use was associated with a decreased risk of in-hospital mortality with adjustment for all measured variables (risk difference, −2.5%, 95% CI, −4.6% to −0.4%).Conclusions This study suggested that filter use was potentially effective for reducing in-hospital mortality in patients with pulmonary embolism. Prospective studies are needed to confirm the effectiveness observed in our results and to define which subpopulations of patients would benefit most from filters.
    The American Journal of Medicine 11/2014; 128(3). DOI:10.1016/j.amjmed.2014.10.034 · 5.30 Impact Factor