BACKGROUND: Pulmonary emboli (PE), or blood clots in the lungs,can be potentially fatal. Anticoagulation is the first line therapy to prevent PE. In some instances anticoagulation fails to prevent more emboli, or cannot be given because the person has a high risk of bleeding. Inferior vena caval filters (VCFs) are metal alloy devices that mechanically trap fragmented emboli from the deep leg veins en route to the pulmonary circulation. Retrievable filters are designed to be introduced and removed percutaneously. Although their deployment seems of theoretical benefit, their clinical efficacy and adverse event profile is unclear. This is the third update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence for the effectiveness and safety of vena caval filters (VCFs) in preventing pulmonary embolism (PE).
SEARCH METHODS: For this review update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (last searched 10 September 2019) and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2019, Issue 8) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online. The CIS also searched MEDLINE Ovid, EMBASE Ovid, CINAHL, and AMED (1 January 2017 to 10 September 2019) and trials registries to 10 September 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that examined the efficacy of VCFs in preventing PE.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For this update, studies were assessed and data extracted independently. We assessed study quality with Cochrane's 'Risk of bias' tool and used the GRADE approach to assess the overall certainty of the evidence. The outcomes of interest were PE, mortality, lower limb venous thrombosis, filter-related complications and major bleeding.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified four new studies for this update, bringing the total to six included studies involving 1388 participants. The six studies were clinically heterogeneous and we were unable to carry out meta-analysis. Only two studies were considered to be both applicable in current clinical settings and of good methodological quality. One was a randomised open-label trial studying the effect of a retrievable inferior vena caval filter plus anticoagulation versus anticoagulation alone on risk of recurrent pulmonary embolism (PE) in 399 participants over three months. There was no evidence of a difference in the rates of PE, death, lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT), or bleeding at three and six months after the intervention (moderate-certainty evidence). A filter was inserted in 193 people, but could only be successfully retrieved from 153. Minor filter complications were noted at six months. The second clinically relevant study was a randomised open-label trial of 240 participants who had sustained multiple traumatic injuries, allocated to a filter or no filter, three days after injury, in conjunction with anticoagulation and intermittent pneumatic compression. Prophylactic anticoagulation was initiated in both groups when it was thought safe to do so. There was no evidence of a difference in symptomatic PE, death, or lower limb venous thrombosis rates (moderate-certainty evidence). The only major filter complication was that one person required surgical removal of the filter. We are unable to draw any conclusions from the remaining four included studies. One study showed an increased incidence of long-term lower extremity DVT at eight years. Three studies are no longer clinically applicable because they utilised permanent filters which are seldom used now, or they did not use routine prophylactic anticoagulation which is current standard practice. The fourth study compared two filter types and was terminated prematurely as one filter group had a higher rate of thrombosis compared to the other filter type.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Two of the six identified studies were relevant for current clinical settings. One showed no evidence of a benefit of retrievable filters in acute PE for the outcomes of PE, death, DVT and bleeding during the initial three months in people who can receive anticoagulation (moderate-certainty evidence). The other study did not show any benefit for prophylactic filter insertion in people who sustained multiple traumatic injuries, with respect to symptomatic PE, mortality, or lower extremity venous thrombosis (moderate-certainty evidence). We can draw no firm conclusions regarding filter efficacy in the prevention of PE from the remaining four RCTs identified in this review. Further trials are needed to assess vena caval filter effectiveness and safety, and clinical differences between various filter types.
OBJECTIVES: To perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of inferior vena cava filters in patients with deep vein thrombosis for preventing pulmonary embolism.
METHOD: Relevant randomized controlled trials of inferior vena cava filters for the prevention of pulmonary embolism were identified by searching electronic databases updated in February 2016. Relative risks of recurrent pulmonary embolism, recurrent deep vein thrombosis, and mortality at three months were analyzed.
RESULTS: Three published randomized controlled trials were included involving a total of 863 deep vein thrombosis patients. No significant differences were detected with inferior vena cava filters placement with regard to the incidence of recurrent pulmonary embolism or fatal pulmonary embolism. There were also no significant differences in the incidence of recurrent deep vein thrombosis or mortality with inferior vena cava filters placement at three months.
CONCLUSIONS: Inferior vena cava filter in addition to anticoagulation was not associated with a reduction in the incidence of recurrent pulmonary embolism as compared with anticoagulation alone in patients with deep vein thrombosis in the short term.
BACKGROUND: Inferior vena cava filters (IVC) have been used in addition to oral anticoagulation (OC) in patients at high-risk for development of new pulmonary embolism (PE). There is few data comparing the risk-benefit from adding IVC. We sought to compare the clinical outcomes from using IVC combined to OC to OC alone. METHODS: We searched Pub Med and Cochrane trough October 2015 for RCTs that directly compared IVC + OC to OC only in patients at high-risk for new development or recurrence of PE. Primary outcome was development of new PE. Secondary outcomes included recurrence of DVT, major bleeding and death. We used Fixed or Random Effect analysis using the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews and RevMan 5.2 for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Out of 571 articles, four RCTs were included. The pooled data provided 1004 patients; 503 treated with IVC+ OC and 501 with OC. Mean follow up were 3 months. IVC + OC group presented with significant less new PE compared to OC only group (1.3% vs. 3.5%, p=0.03). There was no difference between IVC + OC compared to OC only for new DVT (7.7% vs. 7.7%), major bleeding (4.3% vs. 4.1%) and death (7.3% vs. 5.5%) respectively (Figure 1). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that among patients at high-risk for venous thromboembolic events, IVC use is associated with significant less development of PE. It is yet to be determined if this benefit is sustained at long-term follow and associated with survival benefit. Therefore further randomized trials are warranted.
Pulmonary emboli (PE), or blood clots in the lungs,can be potentially fatal. Anticoagulation is the first line therapy to prevent PE. In some instances anticoagulation fails to prevent more emboli, or cannot be given because the person has a high risk of bleeding. Inferior vena caval filters (VCFs) are metal alloy devices that mechanically trap fragmented emboli from the deep leg veins en route to the pulmonary circulation. Retrievable filters are designed to be introduced and removed percutaneously. Although their deployment seems of theoretical benefit, their clinical efficacy and adverse event profile is unclear. This is the third update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007.
OBJECTIVES:
To assess the evidence for the effectiveness and safety of vena caval filters (VCFs) in preventing pulmonary embolism (PE).
SEARCH METHODS:
For this review update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (last searched 10 September 2019) and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2019, Issue 8) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online. The CIS also searched MEDLINE Ovid, EMBASE Ovid, CINAHL, and AMED (1 January 2017 to 10 September 2019) and trials registries to 10 September 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that examined the efficacy of VCFs in preventing PE.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
For this update, studies were assessed and data extracted independently. We assessed study quality with Cochrane's 'Risk of bias' tool and used the GRADE approach to assess the overall certainty of the evidence. The outcomes of interest were PE, mortality, lower limb venous thrombosis, filter-related complications and major bleeding.
MAIN RESULTS:
We identified four new studies for this update, bringing the total to six included studies involving 1388 participants. The six studies were clinically heterogeneous and we were unable to carry out meta-analysis. Only two studies were considered to be both applicable in current clinical settings and of good methodological quality. One was a randomised open-label trial studying the effect of a retrievable inferior vena caval filter plus anticoagulation versus anticoagulation alone on risk of recurrent pulmonary embolism (PE) in 399 participants over three months. There was no evidence of a difference in the rates of PE, death, lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT), or bleeding at three and six months after the intervention (moderate-certainty evidence). A filter was inserted in 193 people, but could only be successfully retrieved from 153. Minor filter complications were noted at six months. The second clinically relevant study was a randomised open-label trial of 240 participants who had sustained multiple traumatic injuries, allocated to a filter or no filter, three days after injury, in conjunction with anticoagulation and intermittent pneumatic compression. Prophylactic anticoagulation was initiated in both groups when it was thought safe to do so. There was no evidence of a difference in symptomatic PE, death, or lower limb venous thrombosis rates (moderate-certainty evidence). The only major filter complication was that one person required surgical removal of the filter. We are unable to draw any conclusions from the remaining four included studies. One study showed an increased incidence of long-term lower extremity DVT at eight years. Three studies are no longer clinically applicable because they utilised permanent filters which are seldom used now, or they did not use routine prophylactic anticoagulation which is current standard practice. The fourth study compared two filter types and was terminated prematurely as one filter group had a higher rate of thrombosis compared to the other filter type.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
Two of the six identified studies were relevant for current clinical settings. One showed no evidence of a benefit of retrievable filters in acute PE for the outcomes of PE, death, DVT and bleeding during the initial three months in people who can receive anticoagulation (moderate-certainty evidence). The other study did not show any benefit for prophylactic filter insertion in people who sustained multiple traumatic injuries, with respect to symptomatic PE, mortality, or lower extremity venous thrombosis (moderate-certainty evidence). We can draw no firm conclusions regarding filter efficacy in the prevention of PE from the remaining four RCTs identified in this review. Further trials are needed to assess vena caval filter effectiveness and safety, and clinical differences between various filter types.
