Related Experiment Videos
[Very long-term outcome of 68 vena cava filters percutaneously implanted]
Insights
Vena caval filters are effective for preventing pulmonary embolism but have significant long-term complications. Their use should be limited to patients with contraindications to anticoagulation.
Area of Science:
- Vascular Surgery
- Interventional Radiology
- Cardiology
Context:
- Percutaneous vena caval filter implantation is a procedure to prevent pulmonary embolism.
- The study evaluated long-term outcomes and complications of vena caval filters.
Purpose:
- To assess the efficacy and safety of vena caval filters in patients with deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism.
- To identify predictive factors for mortality and filter-related complications.
Summary:
- 68 patients received vena caval filters, with a mean follow-up of 4.9 years.
- Mortality was 53%, with factors including contraindication to anticoagulation and malignancy.
- Recurrence rates were 5.8% for pulmonary embolism and 26.1% for deep vein thrombosis; 25% experienced filter thrombosis.
Impact:
- Findings suggest vena caval filters should be reserved for specific indications due to high complication rates.
- Further prospective randomized trials are needed to evaluate other indications for filter implantation.
Abstract:
Between January 1987 and December 1991, 68 consecutive patients aged 71.5 +/- 12.0 years underwent percutaneous implantation of a vena caval filter, mainly the LGM (N = 64). Fifty seven patients had pulmonary embolism, 61 had deep vein thrombosis of the lower limbs. The average follow-up interval was 4.9 +/- 3.3 years (7.0 +/- 2.7 years for the patients still alive). The follow-up included a telephonic enquiry to determine the date and cause of death, recurrent deep vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism; surviving patients underwent clinical examination, plain abdominal X-ray with a lateral decubitus view and duplex ultrasonography of the lower limb veins to assess the patency of the filter. Fifty three per cent of the patients died. Four predictive factors for mortality were identified: a contra-indication to anticoagulant therapy, chronic post-embolic cor pulmonale, an indication of prophylactic implantation in the elderly and the presence of underlying malignant disease. There were 5.8% recurrences of pulmonary embolism, 26.1% of lower limb deep vein thrombosis and 25% of filter thrombosis. The only predictive factor of thrombosis was a proximal venous thrombus and was associated in 50% of filter thrombosis. Seventy per cent of the plain abdominal X-rays were abnormal with 9 displacements. 9 migrations and 10 closures of the filters. There was a significant correlation between closure on plain abdominal X-ray and caval thrombosis and between recurrent deep vein thrombosis and caval thrombosis. The frequency of long-term complications after implantation of a caval filter in this study suggests that interruption of the vena cava should be reserved for the only validated indications in the presence of a formal contra-indication to or failure of anticoagulant therapy. Other indications require evaluation with prospective randomised trials.