Effect of post-filter anticoagulation on mortality in patients with cancer-associated pulmonary embolism
- 88 Downloads
Malignancy is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism. Inferior vena cava filters are a viable alternative when anticoagulation is infeasible because of the risk of bleeding. Although the current guidelines recommend that all patients with a vena cava filter be treated with anticoagulation treatment when the risk of bleeding is reduced, studies concerning the role of concomitant anticoagulation after vena cava filter insertion in high-risk patients are scarce. Since many cancer patients suffer from a high risk of hemorrhagic complications, we aimed to determine the effect of post-filter anticoagulation on mortality in patients with a malignant solid tumor.
A retrospective cohort study of patients with pulmonary embolism was performed between January 2010 and May 2016. Patients with a solid tumor and vena cava filter inserted because of pulmonary embolism were included. Using Cox proportional hazards model, the prognostic effect of clinical variables was analyzed.
A total of 180 patients were analyzed, with 143 patients receiving and 37 patients not receiving post-filter anticoagulation treatment. Mortality was not significantly different between the two groups. The presence of metastatic cancer and that of pancreatobiliary cancer were significant risk factors for mortality. However, post-filter anticoagulation did not show significant effect on mortality regardless of the stage of cancer.
In patients with cancer-associated pulmonary embolism, the effect of post-filter anticoagulation on mortality may not be critical, especially in patients with a short life expectancy.
KeywordsPulmonary embolism Venous thromboembolism Vena cava filters Anticoagulation
This study was supported by University of Ulsan College of Medicine.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 2.Cronin-Fenton DP, Sondergaard F, Pedersen LA et al (2010) Hospitalisation for venous thromboembolism in cancer patients and the general population: a population-based cohort study in Denmark, 1997–2006. Br J Cancer 103(7):947–953. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6605883 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 5.Kaufman JA, Kinney TB, Streiff MB et al (2006) Guidelines for the use of retrievable and convertible vena cava filters: report from the Society of Interventional Radiology multidisciplinary consensus conference. J Vasc Interv Radiol 17(3):449–459. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.rvi.0000203418.39769.0d CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.Group PS (2005) Eight-year follow-up of patients 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(3):416–422. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.104.512834 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Kearon C, Akl EA, American College of Chest P et al (2012) Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th edn: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest 141(2 Suppl):e419S-494S. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.11-2301 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Ray CE, Mitchell E, Zipser S et al (2006) Outcomes with retrievable inferior vena cava filters: a multicenter study. J Vasc Interv Radiol 17(10):1595–1604. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.rvi.0000239102.02956.65 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Kroll MH, Pemmaraju N, Oo TH et al (2014) Mortality from cancer-associated venous thromboembolism. Blood 124(21):4829–4829Google Scholar