Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Apr;25(4):321-5.
doi: 10.1007/s11606-009-1227-y. Epub 2010 Jan 20.

Rates and predictors of plans for inferior vena cava filter retrieval in hospitalized patients

Affiliations

Rates and predictors of plans for inferior vena cava filter retrieval in hospitalized patients

John F Mission et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2010 Apr.

Abstract

Background: Use of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters has been increasing over time. However, because of the increased risk of deep vein thrombosis with permanent filters, placement of retrievable filters has been recommended. Little is known about the factors associated with planned retrieval of IVC filters.

Objective: To describe rates and predictors of plans to retrieve IVC filters in hospitalized patients.

Design: We identified all IVC filter placements from 2001-2006 at an academic medical center and reviewed medical charts to obtain data about patient characteristics, filter retrieval plans, and retrieval success rates. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of planned filter retrieval in patients with retrievable filters.

Results: Out of 240 patients who underwent placement of retrievable IVC filters, only 73 (30.4%) had documented plans for filter retrieval. Factors associated with lower rates of planned filter retrieval included a history of cancer [adjusted odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval 0.2 (0.1-0.5)] and not being discharged on anticoagulants [OR 0.1 (0.1-0.3)]. In addition, 36 (21.6%) of patients without retrieval plans had no contraindications to retrieval. Of the 62 patients who underwent attempted filter retrieval, 25.8% of filters could not be successfully removed.

Conclusions: Only 30.4% of patients who underwent placement of a retrievable IVC filter had documented plans for filter removal. Although most patients had justifiable reasons for filter retention, 21.6% of patients had no clear contraindications to filter removal. Efforts to improve rates of filter retrieval in appropriate patients may help reduce the long-term complications of IVC filters.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Anderson RC, Bussey HI. Retrievable and permanent inferior vena cava filters: selected considerations. Pharmacotherapy. 2006;26:1595–1600. doi: 10.1592/phco.26.11.1595. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Crowther MA. Inferior vena cava filters in the management of venous thromboembolism. Am J Med. 2007;120:S13–S17. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2007.07.015. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Imberti D, Ageno W, Carpenedo M. Retrievable vena cava filters: a review. Curr Opin Hematol. 2006;13:351–356. doi: 10.1097/01.moh.0000239707.63168.ee. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Baglin TP, Brush J, Streiff M. Guidelines on use of vena cava filters. Br J Haematol. 2006;134:590–595. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2006.06226.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Decousus H, Leizorovicz A, Parent F, et al. A clinical trial of vena caval filters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism in patients with proximal deep-vein thrombosis. Prevention du Risque d’Embolie Pulmonaire par interruption cave study group. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:409–415. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199802123380701. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types