Home > DARE Reviews > Pulmonary embolism prophylaxis with...

PubMed Health. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet]. York (UK): Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK); 1995-.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet].

Pulmonary embolism prophylaxis with inferior vena cava filters in trauma patients: a systematic review using the meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines

Review published: 2011.

Bibliographic details: Rajasekhar A, Lottenberg R, Lottenberg L, Liu H, Ang D.  Pulmonary embolism prophylaxis with inferior vena cava filters in trauma patients: a systematic review using the meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis 2011; 32(1): 40-46. [PubMed: 21221716]

Abstract

Prophylactic inferior vena cava filters (pIVCFs) for the prevention of pulmonary embolism (PE) are controversial. Current practice guidelines (EAST and ACCP) are based on the critical appraisal of observational studies. As a result, their recommendations are conflicting and may account for practice pattern variation. The purpose of this study is to critically review the available literature and ascertain the level of evidence both for and against the use of pIVCFs for PE prophylaxis in trauma patients. We searched PubMed and Web of Science for publications from 1950 until July 2010 that assessed the efficacy of PE prevention with pIVCFs in the trauma population. We followed the MOOSE (Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) guidelines for design, implementation, and reporting. The Newcastle-Ottawa Score was used for quality and comparability assessment. Seven observational studies met inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis, representing 1,900 patients. Only one study was published in this decade. The rate of PE was statistically lower in the IVCF group compared to a matched control group without IVCFs (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.09-0.49). There was no significant difference in DVT. Using the MOOSE criteria these results show a decreased likelihood of PE among trauma patients who receive pIVCFs. Although these results could favor the placement of pIVCFs, the lack of contemporary use of pharmacologic prophylaxis across studies does not allow us to make firm conclusions either for or against the routine use of pIVCFs. Prospective randomized trials are needed to determine the role of pIVCFs in high-risk trauma patients.

CRD has determined that this article meets the DARE scientific quality criteria for a systematic review.

Copyright © 2014 University of York.

PMID: 21221716

PubMed Health Blog...

read all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...