Back to Search Start Over

Practice patterns and outcomes of retrievable vena cava filters in trauma patients: an AAST multicenter study.

Authors :
Karmy-Jones R
Jurkovich GJ
Velmahos GC
Burdick T
Spaniolas K
Todd SR
McNally M
Jacoby RC
Link D
Janczyk RJ
Ivascu FA
McCann M
Obeid F
Hoff WS
McQuay N Jr
Tieu BH
Schreiber MA
Nirula R
Brasel K
Dunn JA
Gambrell D
Huckfeldt R
Harper J
Schaffer KB
Tominaga GT
Vinces FY
Sperling D
Hoyt D
Coimbra R
Rosengart MR
Forsythe R
Cothren C
Moore EE
Haut ER
Hayanga AJ
Hird L
White C
Grossman J
Nagy K
Livaudais W
Wood R
Zengerink I
Kortbeek JB
Source :
The Journal of trauma [J Trauma] 2007 Jan; Vol. 62 (1), pp. 17-24; discussion 24-5.
Publication Year :
2007

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study is to describe practice patterns and outcomes of posttraumatic retrievable inferior vena caval filters (R-IVCF).<br />Methods: 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.<br />Results: 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).<br />Conclusion: 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.

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
0022-5282
Volume :
62
Issue :
1
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
The Journal of trauma
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
17215729
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e31802dd72a