We have located links that may give you full text access.
Role of Vena Cava Filter in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism in Injured Adult Patients: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Practice Management Guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma.
Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 2024 March 9
BACKGROUND: Injured patients are at an increased risk of developing deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters have been used in injured patients to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE), but current evidence-based guidelines are lacking.
METHODS: Questions regarding IVC filter use in injured patients with clearly defined Population(s), Intervention(s), Comparison(s), and appropriately selected Outcomes (PICO) were formulated. The study sought to understand the evidence behind use of ultra short term IVC filters and use of IVC filters in injured patients with and without known VTE who are unable to receive therapeutic anticoagulation and chemoprophylaxis, respectively. A literature search and review was conducted, followed by meta-analysis. The quality of evidence was assessed per Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.
RESULTS: There were twenty-one studies that were analyzed. Three studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), three were observational studies, and fifteen studies were retrospective studies. In injured patients without known acute VTE who cannot receive chemoprophylaxis, we recommend against placement of an IVC filter due to associated higher rate of mortality, DVT, PE, and length of stay. The quality of evidence was assessed to be low. In injured patients with known DVT who cannot receive chemoprophylaxis we conditionally recommend against placement of an IVC filter. The quality of evidence was assessed to be very low. No recommendations can be made with respect to placement of ultra short term IVC filters based upon available data.
CONCLUSION: IVC filters should not be placed routinely for prophylaxis in injured adult patients without known VTE who cannot receive chemoprophylaxis. The taskforce conditionally recommends against the placement of IVC filter in injured adult patients with known DVT who cannot receive chemoprophylaxis.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Guideline; Systematic review/meta-analysis, level IV.
METHODS: Questions regarding IVC filter use in injured patients with clearly defined Population(s), Intervention(s), Comparison(s), and appropriately selected Outcomes (PICO) were formulated. The study sought to understand the evidence behind use of ultra short term IVC filters and use of IVC filters in injured patients with and without known VTE who are unable to receive therapeutic anticoagulation and chemoprophylaxis, respectively. A literature search and review was conducted, followed by meta-analysis. The quality of evidence was assessed per Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.
RESULTS: There were twenty-one studies that were analyzed. Three studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), three were observational studies, and fifteen studies were retrospective studies. In injured patients without known acute VTE who cannot receive chemoprophylaxis, we recommend against placement of an IVC filter due to associated higher rate of mortality, DVT, PE, and length of stay. The quality of evidence was assessed to be low. In injured patients with known DVT who cannot receive chemoprophylaxis we conditionally recommend against placement of an IVC filter. The quality of evidence was assessed to be very low. No recommendations can be made with respect to placement of ultra short term IVC filters based upon available data.
CONCLUSION: IVC filters should not be placed routinely for prophylaxis in injured adult patients without known VTE who cannot receive chemoprophylaxis. The taskforce conditionally recommends against the placement of IVC filter in injured adult patients with known DVT who cannot receive chemoprophylaxis.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Guideline; Systematic review/meta-analysis, level IV.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Revascularization Strategy in Myocardial Infarction with Multivessel Disease.Journal of Clinical Medicine 2024 March 27
Intravenous infusion of dexmedetomidine during the surgery to prevent postoperative delirium and postoperative cognitive dysfunction undergoing non-cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.European Journal of Medical Research 2024 April 19
The Tricuspid Valve: A Review of Pathology, Imaging, and Current Treatment Options: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 26
Consensus Statement on Vitamin D Status Assessment and Supplementation: Whys, Whens, and Hows.Endocrine Reviews 2024 April 28
Management of Diverticulitis: A Review.JAMA Surgery 2024 April 18
Interstitial Lung Disease: A Review.JAMA 2024 April 23
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app