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
 · 
126 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Data are sparse and inconsistent regarding whether thrombolytic therapy reduces case fatality rate in unstable patients with acute pulmonary embolism. We tested the hypothesis that thrombolytic therapy reduces case fatality rate in such patients. In-hospital all-cause case fatality rate according to treatment was determined in unstable patients with pulmonary embolism who were discharged from short-stay hospitals throughout the United States from 1999 to 2008 by using data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Unstable patients were in shock or ventilator dependent. Among unstable patients with pulmonary embolism, 21,390 of 72,230 (30%) received thrombolytic therapy. In-hospital all-cause case fatality rate in unstable patients with thrombolytic therapy was 3105 of 21,390 (15%) versus 23,820 of 50,840 (47%) without thrombolytic therapy (P<.0001). All-cause case fatality rate in unstable patients with thrombolytic therapy plus a vena cava filter was 505 of 6630 (7.6%) versus 4260 of 12,850 (33%) with a filter alone (P<.0001). Case fatality rate attributable to pulmonary embolism in unstable patients was 820 of 9810 (8.4%) with thrombolytic therapy versus 1080 of 2600 (42%) with no thrombolytic therapy (P<.0001). Case fatality rate attributable to pulmonary embolism in unstable patients with thrombolytic therapy plus vena cava filter was 70 of 2590 (2.7%) versus 160 of 600 (27%) with a filter alone (P<.0001). In-hospital all-cause case fatality rate and case fatality rate attributable to pulmonary embolism in unstable patients was lower in those who received thrombolytic therapy. Thrombolytic therapy resulted in a lower case fatality rate than using vena cava filters alone, and the combination resulted in an even lower case fatality rate. Thrombolytic therapy in combination with a vena cava filter in unstable patients with acute pulmonary embolism seems indicated.
    The American journal of medicine 02/2012; 125(5):465-70. DOI:10.1016/j.amjmed.2011.10.015 · 5.30 Impact Factor
  • Source
    The American journal of medicine 05/2012; 125(5):429-30. DOI:10.1016/j.amjmed.2011.09.023 · 5.30 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There are insufficient data to assess the potential role of pulmonary embolectomy in patients with acute pulmonary embolism. In-hospital all-cause case fatality rate with pulmonary embolectomy was assessed from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 1999 through 2008. Among unstable patients (in shock or ventilator-dependent), case fatality rate with embolectomy was 380 of 950 (40%). Among stable patients, case fatality rate was lower: 690 of 2820 (24%) (P <.0001). Case fatality rate in unstable patients was 39% in 1999-2003 and 40% in 2004-2008 (not significant), and in stable patients it was 27% in 1999-2003 and 23% in 2004-2008 (P=.01). Case fatality rates were lower in patients with a primary diagnosis of pulmonary embolism and even lower in patients with a primary diagnosis who had none of the comorbid conditions listed in the Charlson Index. Within each stratified group, patients with vena cava filters had a lower case fatality rate. Case fatality rate in unstable patients who underwent pulmonary embolectomy remained at 39%-40% from 1999-2003 to 2004-2008, and in stable patients it decreased only from 27% to 23%. Case fatality rates were lower in those with fewer comorbid conditions and in those who received a vena cava filter. Our data reflect average outcome in the US. It may be that experienced surgeons and an aggressive multidisciplinary team could obtain a lower case fatality rate.
    The American journal of medicine 05/2012; 125(5):471-7. DOI:10.1016/j.amjmed.2011.12.003 · 5.30 Impact Factor