CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 316–324 | Cite as

The Need for Anticoagulation Following Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement: Systematic Review

Clinical Investigation

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Anticoagulation Evidence-based medicine IVC filters Venous interruption 

Reference

  1. 1.
    Decousus H, Leizorovicz, Parent F, et al. (1998) A clinical trial of vena caval filters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism in subjects with proximal deep-vein thrombosis. N Engl J Med 338:409–415PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maher MM, McNamara AM, MacEneaney PM, et al. (2003) Abdominal aortic aneurysms: Elective endovascular repair versus conventional surgery: Evaluation with evidence-based medicine techniques. Radiology 228:647–658PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR, Sheldon TA, Song F (2000) Methods for meta-analysis in medical research. Wiley, New York, pp 58–63Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Greenfield LJ (1984) Current indications for and results of Greenfield filter placement. J Vasc Surg 1:502–504PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Greenfield LJ, Michna BA (1988) Twelve-year clinical experience with the Greenfield vena caval filter. Surgery 104:706–712PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Crochet DP, Stora O, Ferry D, et al. (1993) Vena Tech-LGM filter: Long-term results of a prospective study. Radiology 188:857–860PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Greenfield LJ, Proctor MC (2001) Recurrent thromboembolism in subjects with vena cava filters. J Vasc Surg 33:510–514PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Crochet DP, Brunel P, Trogrlic S, Grossetete R, Auget JL, Dary C (1999) Long-term follow-up of Vena Tech-LGM filter: predictors and frequency of caval occlusion. J Vasc Interv Radiol 10:137–142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    The PREPIC Study Group (2005) Eight-year follow-up of subjects with permanent vena cava filters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism. The PREPIC (Prevention du Risque d’Embolie Pulmonaire par Interruption Cave) Randomized Study. Circulation 112:416–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fobbe F, Dietzel M, Korth R, et al. (1988) Günther vena cava filter: Results of long-term follow-up. AJR Am J Roentgenol 151:1031–1034PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jones B, Fink JA, Donovan DL, Sharp WV (1989) Analysis of benefit of anticoagulation after placement of Kimray-Greenfield filter. Surg Gynecol Obstet 169:400–402PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lang W, Schweiger H, Hofmann-Preiss K (1992) Results of long-term venacavography study after placement of a Greenfield vena caval filter. J Cardiovasc Surg 33:573–578Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harris EJ, Kinney EV, Olcott C, Zarins C (1995) Phlegmasia complicating prophylactic percutaneous inferior vena caval interruption: A word of caution. J Vasc Surg 22:606–611PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tardy B, Mismetti P, Page Y, et al. (1996) Symptomatic inferior vena cava filter thrombosis: Clinical study of 30 consecutive cases. Eur Respir J 9:2012–2016PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ortega M, Gahtan V, Roberts A, Matsumoto T, Kerstein M (1998) Efficacy of anticoagulation post-inferior vena caval filter placement. Am Surg 64:419–424PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Poletti PA, Becker CD, Prina L, et al. (1998) Long-term results of the Simon nitinol inferior vena cava filter. Eur Radiol 8:289–294PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Blebea J, Wilson R, Waybill P, et al. (1999) Deep venous thrombosis after percutaneous insertion of vena caval filters. J Vasc Surg 30:821–829PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nicholson AA, Ettles DF, Paddon AJ, Dyet JF (1999) Long-term follow-up of the Bird’s Nest IVC filter. Clin Radiol 54:759–764PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yazu T, Fujioka H, Nakamura M, et al. (2000) Long-term results of inferior vena cava filters: Experiences in a Japanese population. Intern Med 39:707–714PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dovrish Z, Hadary R, Blickstein D, Shilo L, Ellis MH (2006) Retrospective analysis of the use of inferior vena cava filters in routine hospital practice. Postgrad Med J 82:150–153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yale SH, Mazza JJ, Glurich I, Peters T, Mukesh BN (2006) Recurrent venous thromboembolism in subjects with and without anticoagulation after inferior vena caval filter placement. Int Angiol 25:60–66PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ansell J (2005) Vena cava filters. Do we know all that we need to know? Circulation 112:298–299PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ballew KA, Philbrick JT, Becker DM (1993) Vena cava filter devices. Clin Chest Med 16:295–305Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Becker DM, Philbrick JT, Selby JB (1992) Inferior vena cava filters. Indications, safety, effectiveness. Arch Intern Med 152:1985–1994PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gomes MPV, Kaplan KL, Deitcher SR (2003) Subjects with inferior vena caval filters should receive chronic thromboprophylaxis. Med Clin North Am 87:1189–1203PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schleich JM, Moria O, Laurent M, Langella B, Chaperon J, Almange C (2001) Long-term follow-up of percutaneous vena cava filters: A prospective study in 100 consecutive subjects. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 21:450–457PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cho KJ, Greenfield LJ, Proctor MC, et al. (1997) Evaluation of a new percutaneous stainless steel Greenfield filter. J Vasc Interv Radiol 8:181–187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Greenfield LJ, Proctor MC (1995) Twenty-year clinical experience with the Greenfield filter. Cardiovasc Surg 3:199–205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dorfman GS (1992) Evaluating the roles and function of vena caval filters: Will data be available before or after these devices are removed from the market? Radiology 185:15–17PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hicks ME, Middleton WD, Picus D, Darcy MD, Kleinhoffer MA (1990) Prevalence of local venous thrombosis after transfemoral placement of a Bird’s Nest vena caval filter. J Vasc Interv Radiol 1:63–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Castellani L, Nicaise H, Peietri J, Quilliet L, Desvaux B, Alison D (1987) Transvenous interruption of the inferior vena cava: New model of vena cava filter. Preliminary results in 35 cases. Int Angiol 6:299–306Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Greenfield LJ, Peyton R, Crute S, Barnes R (1981) Greenfield vena caval filter experience: Late results in 156 subjects. Arch Surg 116:1451–1456PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Aswad MA, Sandager GP, Pais SO (1996) Early duplex scan evaluation of four vena caval interruption devices. J Vasc Surg 24:809–818PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Molgaard CP, Yucel EK, Geller SC, Knox TA, Waltman AC (1992) Access-site thrombosis after placement of inferior vena cava filters with 12–14-F delivery sheaths. Radiology 185:257–261PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Palaretti G, Leali N, Coccheri S, et al. (1996) Bleeding complications of oral anti-coagulation treatment: An inception cohort, prospective collaborative study (ISCOAT). Italian study on complications of oral anticoagulant therapy. Lancet 348:423–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mant MJ, Thong KL, Birtwhistle RV, et al. (1977) Hemorrhagic complication of heparin therapy. Lancet I:1133–1135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Coon WW, Cugell DW (1993) Vena caval filters and anticoagulants for pulmonary emboli. JAMA 270:1867–1868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Fink JA, Jones BT (1991) The Greenfield filter as the primary means of therapy in venous thromboembolic disease. Surg Gynecol Obstet 172:253–256PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Levine MN, Raskob G, Hirsch J (1986) Hemorrhagic complications of long-term anticoagulant therapy. Chest 89:16S–25SPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sandercock P, Mielke O, Liu M, Counsell C (2006) Anticoagulants for preventing recurrence following presumed non-cardioembolic ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2:1–31Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Colorado Denver and Health Sciences CenterDenverUSA
  2. 2.Department of Clinical ScienceUniversity of Colorado Denver and Health Sciences CenterDenverUSA
  3. 3.Department of Radiology – Mail Stop C276University of Colorado Denver and Health Sciences CenterAuroraUSA
  4. 4.Division of General Internal MedicineUniversity of Colorado Health Sciences CenterDenverUSA
  5. 5.Department of Ambulatory CareDenver VA Medical CenterDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations