Mortality Reduction with Vena Cava Filters

Original Title: Outcomes after Vena Cava Filter Use in Non-Cancer Patients with Acute Venous Thromboembolism: A Population-Based Study. Reference: Richard H. White et al. Circulation. 2016 Apr 5. Epub ahead of print.
The evidence on the benefits of vena cava filters is limited. This retrospective study analyzed all patients with baseline oncological processes admitted to several centers for venous thromboembolism between 2005 and 2010.

The analysis was stratified according to the presence/absence of counterindication to anticoagulation (active bleeding/recent major surgery).

Primary end point was death at 30/90 days after admission and thromboembolism recurrence manifested as pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis.

Propensity score was used to compare the populations given the systematic differences in baseline characteristics between patients receiving the filter and those who were not.

In 80697 patients with no anticoagulation counterindication, the use of vena cava filters (n=7762, 9.6%) did not significantly reduce mortality at 30 days (HR 1.12; IC 95% 0.98 a 1.28).

Among the 3017 patients with anticoagulation counterindication for active bleeding, the use of vena cava filters (N=1095, 36.3%) reduced mortality at 30 days in 32% (HR 0.68; CI 95% 0.52 a 0.88) and to 90 days a 27% (HR 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59-0.90).

The use of vena cava filters did not reduce mortality in 1445 patients receiving the filter in the context of venous thrombosis and after major surgery (HR 1.1; IC 95% 0.71 a 1.77).

The filter did not reduce thromboembolism subsequent risk of pulmonary embolism in any patient subgroup.

Deep ben thrombosis risk increased 50% in patients that could receive anticoagulation and 135% in those with active bleeding.

Conclusion
The implantation of vena cava filters significantly reduce mortality only in patients with vein thrombosis and anticoagulation counterindication for active bleeding.

More articles by this author

TCT 2024 | SIRONA: Randomized Study Comparing Sirolimus-Coated vs Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon Angioplasty in Femoropopliteal Disease

This prospective, randomized, multicenter, investigator-initiated non-inferiority study compared the use of sirolimus-coated balloon (MagicTouch) vs paclitaxel-coated balloon in endovascular treatment.  The primary objective was to...

TCT 2024 | PEERLESS: Mechanical Thrombectomy with FlowTriever vs Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis in Intermediate Risk PTE

Pulmonary embolism (PE) continues to be the third cause of cardiovascular mortality. The current clinical guidelines recommend anticoagulation in intermediate risk patients presenting right...

Atherosclerotic Renal Artery Stenosis: To Revascularize or Not

At long term, atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis (RAS) can lead to hypertension, chronic kidney disease, and cardiac failure. Historically, these patients have been referred...

Endovascular Management of Chronic TEPH: Is Coronary Management Extrapolatable in This Scenario?

Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) is a condition that causes significant functional limitation. Its surgical treatment, known as pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA), has improved the...

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

SOLACI Sessionsspot_img

Recent Articles

TCT 2024 | FAVOR III EUROPA

The study FAVOR III EUROPA, a randomized trial, included 2,000 patients with chronic coronary syndrome, or stabilized acute coronary syndrome, and intermediate lesions. 1,008...

TCT 2024 | TRISCEND II

This randomized study included 400 patients; 267 were treated with EVOQUE valve and 133 with optimal medical treatment (OMT). After one-year follow-up, there were no...

TCT 2024 – ACCESS-TAVI: Comparing Percutaneous Access Closure Strategies After TAVI

Vascular access complications following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remain common. However, few studies compare vascular access closure methods.  Based on the CHOICE-CLOSURE and MASH...