Dataset Information

Midterm follow-up after retrievable inferior vena cava filter placement in venous thromboembolism patients with or without malignancy.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A clear indication and strategy for placement of retrievable inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) have not been established. This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and disadvantages of the retrievable IVCF use particularly in venous thromboembolism (VTE) patients with malignancy.

Hypothesis

Retrievable IVCFs might be safe and useful in VTE patients with malignancy.

Methods

The study population consisted of 56 consecutive patients undergoing IVCF placement at our institution from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2011. Prognostic data were retrospectively reviewed in April 2013.

Results

Mean follow-up period was 584.6 (range, 1-1857) days. Twenty-six of the 56 patients had a malignancy. In 16 of the 30 patients without malignancy, the filter was retrieved, whereas the other 14 patients eventually received permanent implantation. There was no significant difference in the survival rate between the retrieval group and the nonretrieval group in the nonmalignancy patients (1-year survival rates, 94% vs 85%). In patients with malignancy, the nonretrieval group showed a significantly lower survival rate (P < 0.01). The 1-year and 2-year survival rates were 100% vs 46% and 100% vs 18%, respectively. There was no medical record of pulmonary thromboembolism occurrence or recurrence. All deaths in the patients with malignancy were malignancy related. In 4 of 5 malignancy patients who could undergo tumor resection surgery, adequate thrombus regression enabled us to retrieve the IVCF after surgery.

Conclusions

Permanent use of a retrievable IVCF is relatively safe in short- or midterm follow-up regardless of malignancy status. Retrievable filter use might be reasonable in malignancy patients.

SUBMITTER: Myojo M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6711095 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceVenous thromboembolism is the second overall leading cause of death for patients with cancer, and there is an approximately 2-fold increase in fatal pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients with cancer. Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are designed to prevent PE, but defining the appropriate use of IVC filters in patients with cancer remains a substantial unmet clinical need.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association of IVC filters with the development of PE in patients with cancer and deep venous thrombosis (DVT).Design, setting, and participantsA population-based cohort study was conducted using administrative data on 88 585 patients from the state inpatient databases for California (2005-2011) and Florida (2005-2014). Based on diagnostic and procedure codes, patients with cancer and acute lower extremity DVT were identified. All subsequent hospital visits for these patients were evaluated for the placement of an IVC filter, the development of new PE, the development of new DVT, and in-hospital mortality. Data analysis was performed from September 1 to December 1, 2019.ExposuresPlacement of an IVC filter.Main outcomes and measuresThe association of IVC filter placement with rates of new PE and DVT was estimated using a propensity score matching algorithm and competing risk analysis.ResultsThe study cohort comprised 88 585 patients (45 074 male; median age, 71.0 years [range, 1.0-104.0 years]) with malignant neoplasms who presented to a health care institution with a diagnosis of acute lower extremity DVT. Of these patients, 33 740 (38.1%) underwent IVC filter placement; patients with risk factors such as upper gastrointestinal bleeding (odds ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.29-1.37), intracranial hemorrhage (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.19-1.24), and coagulopathy (odds ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.08-1.10) were more likely to receive an IVC filter. A total of 4492 patients (5.1%) developed a new PE after their initial DVT diagnosis. There was a significant improvement in PE-free survival for these patients compared with those who did not receive IVC filters across the full, unbalanced study cohort as well as after propensity score matching and competing risk analysis (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.64-0.75; P < .001). Furthermore, IVC filter placement reduced the development of PE in patients with very high-risk malignant neoplasms (eg, pancreaticobiliary cancer), high-risk malignant neoplasms (eg, lung cancer), and low-risk malignant neoplasms (eg, prostate cancer). After accounting for anticoagulation use and imbalanced risk factors, IVC filter placement did not increase the risk of new DVT development.Conclusions and relevanceThis study suggests that, for patients with cancer and DVT and bleeding risk factors, IVC filter placement is associated with an increased rate of PE-free survival.