Review of indications and practices of vena caval filters at a large university hospital

Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2012 Jan;46(1):21-5. doi: 10.1177/1538574411422274. Epub 2011 Dec 8.

Abstract

Background: Vena caval filter (VCF) use has been increasing in recent years. Prophylactic VCF placement has been applied liberally in high-risk patients.

Methods: Consecutive patients with VCF placement over a 2-year period at a university hospital were reviewed.

Results: A total of 244 patients underwent VCF placement in 2 years. Of all, 54% of the patients had the VCF placed for an absolute indication, 14% for a relative indication, and 32% for prophylaxis. Only 14 (9%) of the retrievable filters were removed. Eight patients had a complication of VCF placement; there were no complications of filter retrieval. Vena caval filter placement for prophylaxis alone was 57% from the division of trauma and surgical critical care, 18.3% from interventional radiology department, and 5.2% from the division of vascular surgery.

Conclusions: This study indicates that many VCFs are placed for prophylaxis. A low percentage of VCFs was retrieved. This may be the practice at many other large university-based hospitals, necessitating strategies for reducing their placement.

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Aged
  • Aged, 80 and over
  • Device Removal
  • Female
  • Guideline Adherence
  • Hospitals, University / statistics & numerical data*
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • New York
  • Practice Guidelines as Topic
  • Practice Patterns, Physicians' / statistics & numerical data*
  • Prosthesis Design
  • Prosthesis Implantation / adverse effects
  • Prosthesis Implantation / instrumentation*
  • Prosthesis Implantation / statistics & numerical data*
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Time Factors
  • Treatment Outcome
  • Vena Cava Filters / adverse effects
  • Vena Cava Filters / statistics & numerical data*
  • Venous Thromboembolism / prevention & control*
  • Venous Thromboembolism / therapy*