Inferior vena cava filter use and patient safety: legacy or science?

Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2017 Dec 8;2017(1):686-692. doi: 10.1182/asheducation-2017.1.686.

Abstract

There has been a dramatic increase in vena cava filter (VCF) use over the past 20 years in the absence of evidence that filters provide a net patient benefit or are required in most cases. This increase is largely attributable to the availability of retrievable filters and expanded indications, particularly as primary prophylaxis in patients thought to be at high risk of pulmonary embolism. Substantial variability in VCF use, unrelated to patient clinical factors, has been shown between hospitals, from region to region, and among various countries. Despite the lack of direct evidence for the benefit of VCFs for any indication, it is appropriate to insert a retrievable VCF in patients with a recent proximal deep vein thrombosis and an absolute contraindication to therapeutic anticoagulation and then to remove the filter once the bleeding risk decreases and the patient has been anticoagulated. Unfortunately, a high proportion of retrievable filters are not removed, even after the reason for their placement has long passed. Retrievable filters are associated with substantial rates of complications if they are not removed, including penetration of the vena caval wall, fracture and embolization of filter fragments, and caval occlusion. Patient safety priorities and medical-legal concerns mandate careful selection of patients for VCF placement and removal shortly after anticoagulation has been initiated.

Publication types

  • Review

MeSH terms

  • Anticoagulants / therapeutic use*
  • Humans
  • Pulmonary Embolism / etiology
  • Pulmonary Embolism / prevention & control
  • Safety*
  • Vena Cava Filters*
  • Vena Cava, Inferior*
  • Venous Thrombosis / therapy*

Substances

  • Anticoagulants