Related Experiment Videos
The need for anticoagulation following inferior vena cava filter placement: systematic review
Charles E Ray1, Allan Prochazka
1Department of Radiology, University of Colorado Denver and Health Sciences Center, Denver, Colorado, USA. charles.ray@uchsc.edu
Insights
Anticoagulation after inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement does not significantly reduce venous thromboembolism (VTE) rates. Patients can receive IVC filters without increased VTE risk, even if anticoagulation is not possible.
Area of Science:
- Vascular Surgery
- Interventional Radiology
- Cardiology
Background:
- Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are used to prevent pulmonary embolism in patients at high risk.
- The role of anticoagulation in preventing VTE after IVC filter placement is not well-defined.
Purpose of the Study:
- To systematically review and meta-analyze the effect of anticoagulation on VTE rates following IVC filter placement.
Main Methods:
- A comprehensive literature search identified 14 studies.
- Data from 9 studies (1,369 patients) were included in the meta-analysis.
- VTE rates were compared between patients with and without post-filter anticoagulation.
Main Results:
- The odds ratio for VTE with anticoagulation was 0.639 (p=0.141), indicating no statistically significant effect.
- A trend towards decreased VTE rates (12.3% vs. 15.8%) was observed with anticoagulation, but did not reach statistical significance.
- Significant heterogeneity was noted among the included studies.
Conclusions:
- IVC filters can be safely placed in patients who cannot receive anticoagulation.
- These patients are not at a significantly higher risk of developing VTE.
- The findings support the use of IVC filters even in the absence of anticoagulation therapy.
Purpose:
To perform a systemic review to determine the effect of anticoagulation on the rates of venous thromboembolism (pulmonary embolus, deep venous thrombosis, inferior vena cava (IVC) filter thrombosis) following placement of an IVC filter.
Methods:
A comprehensive computerized literature search was performed to identify relevant articles. Data were abstracted by two reviewers. Studies were included if it could be determined whether or not subjects received anticoagulation following filter placement, and if follow-up data were presented. A meta-analysis of patients from all included studies was performed. A total of 14 articles were included in the final analysis, but the data from only nine articles could be used in the meta-analysis; five studies were excluded because they did not present raw data which could be analyzed in the meta-analysis. A total of 1,369 subjects were included in the final meta-analysis.
Results:
The summary odds ratio for the effect of anticoagulation on venous thromboembolism rates following filter deployment was 0.639 (95% CI 0.351 to 1.159, p = 0.141). There was significant heterogeneity in the results from different studies [Q statistic of 15.95 (p = 0.043)]. Following the meta-analysis, there was a trend toward decreased venous thromboembolism rates in patients with post-filter anticoagulation (12.3% vs. 15.8%), but the result failed to reach statistical significance.
Conclusion:
Inferior vena cava filters can be placed in patients who cannot receive concomitant anticoagulation without placing them at significantly higher risk of development of venous thromboembolism.
Related Concept Videos
Venous Thrombosis III: Interprofessional Care
Pulmonary Embolism II: Diagnostic Studies and Interprofessional Care
Venous Thrombosis IV: Nursing Management
Anticoagulant Drugs: Low-Molecular-Weight Heparins
Venous Thrombosis II: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies
Cardiac Catheterization I: Pre-Procedure Overview