Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Sep 26;70(13):1587-1597. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.07.775.

Inferior Vena Cava Filters to Prevent Pulmonary Embolism: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Author information

1
Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center/New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York; Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut. Electronic address: bb2813@cumc.columbia.edu.
2
Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
3
Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut; Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
4
Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center/New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York.
5
Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut; Department of Chronic Disease Epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut.
6
Department of Chronic Disease Epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut.
7
Divisions of Cardiology and Hematology & Thromboembolism, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
8
Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Spain.
9
Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
10
Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut; Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut; Department of Health Policy and Management, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are widely used for prevention of pulmonary embolism (PE). However, uncertainty persists about their efficacy and safety.

OBJECTIVES:

The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the published reports on the efficacy and safety of IVC filters.

METHODS:

The authors searched PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov through October 3, 2016, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective controlled observational studies of IVC filters versus none in patients at risk of PE. Inverse variance fixed-effects models with odds ratio (OR) as the effect measure were used for primary analyses. Main outcomes included subsequent PE, PE-related mortality, all-cause mortality, and subsequent deep vein thrombosis (DVT).

RESULTS:

The authors' search retrieved 1,986 studies, of which 11 met criteria for inclusion (6 RCTs and 5 prospective observational studies). Quality of evidence for RCTs was low to moderate. Overall, patients receiving IVC filters had lower risk for subsequent PE (OR: 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.33 to 0.75); increased risk for DVT (OR: 1.70; 95% CI: 1.17 to 2.48); nonsignificantly lower PE-related mortality (OR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.05); and no change in all-cause mortality (OR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.70 to 1.19). Limiting the results to RCTs showed similar results. Findings were substantively similar across a wide range of sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS:

Very few prospective controlled studies, with limited quality of evidence, exist regarding the efficacy and safety of IVC filters. Overall, filters appear to reduce the risk of subsequent PE, increase the risk for DVT, and have no significant effect on overall mortality.

KEYWORDS:

bleed; mortality; prevention; risk; venous thromboembolism

PMID:
28935036
DOI:
10.1016/j.jacc.2017.07.775
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free full text

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center