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
 · 
120 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: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common cause of inpatient and outpatient morbidity and mortality. While anticoagulant therapy is considered the primary means of prevention and treatment of VTE, inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) are often used as an alternative or adjunct to anticoagulation. With the advent of retrievable filters indications have liberalized, to include placement for primary prophylaxis in high-risk patients. However, this practice is based on limited evidence supporting their efficacy in preventing clinically relevant outcomes. Since indiscriminate use of IVCFs can be associated with net patient harm and increased health care costs, knowledge of the literature surrounding IVCF utilization is critical for providers to adopt best practices. In this review, we will provide an overview of the literature as it relates to specific clinical questions that arise when considering IVCF utilization in the prevention and treatment of VTE. Practice-based recommendations will be reviewed to provide the clinician with guidance on challenging clinical scenarios.
    Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis 02/2015; 39(3). DOI:10.1007/s11239-015-1187-5 · 2.04 Impact Factor