FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2000857439> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2000857439 endingPage "234" @default.
• W2000857439 startingPage "229" @default.
• W2000857439 abstract "While contrast venography is considered the gold standard for imaging prior to inferior vena cava (IVC) filter insertion, bedside placement via transabdominal duplex ultrasound (DUS) has been recognized as a safe and effective alternative. To date, there has been no direct comparison of the efficacy of both imaging modalities for IVC filter placement. A concurrent cohort of patients who underwent IVC filter placement at a single institution over a 7-year period with either contrast venography or transabdominal DUS performed at bedside was retrospectively reviewed. Patient demographics, venous thromboembolism risk factors, indications, technical success, and procedural complications were compared. Of 439 patients initially imaged with transabdominal DUS, IVC filter placement was determined to be technically feasible in 382 patients (87%). The procedural technical success rate for IVC filter placement using transabdominal DUS when IVC visualization was adequate was 97.4% (n = 382 patients), compared to 99.7% (n = 318 patients) for contrast venography (p = 0.018). Patients undergoing IVC filter placement with transabdominal DUS more commonly required IVC filter for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (81.1% vs. 27.8%, p < 0.001), had increased incidence of multiple traumatic injuries (28% vs. 10%, p < 0.001), and had increased risk from immobilization (91.3% vs. 34.1%, p < 0.001). Overall complication rates were 0.6% for venography and 1.8% for transabdominal DUS (p = NS). When IVC visualization was adequate, contrast venography and transabdominal duplex uitrasound both had high rates of success and a low incidence of complications. A technical success advantage was observed for contrast venography; this difference in technical success must be weighed against the bedside insertion advantage offered by DUS, which may be especially important in the immobilized or critically ill patient. Transabdominal DUS remains our preferred technique when feasible, especially when bedside placement is desired. While contrast venography is considered the gold standard for imaging prior to inferior vena cava (IVC) filter insertion, bedside placement via transabdominal duplex ultrasound (DUS) has been recognized as a safe and effective alternative. To date, there has been no direct comparison of the efficacy of both imaging modalities for IVC filter placement. A concurrent cohort of patients who underwent IVC filter placement at a single institution over a 7-year period with either contrast venography or transabdominal DUS performed at bedside was retrospectively reviewed. Patient demographics, venous thromboembolism risk factors, indications, technical success, and procedural complications were compared. Of 439 patients initially imaged with transabdominal DUS, IVC filter placement was determined to be technically feasible in 382 patients (87%). The procedural technical success rate for IVC filter placement using transabdominal DUS when IVC visualization was adequate was 97.4% (n = 382 patients), compared to 99.7% (n = 318 patients) for contrast venography (p = 0.018). Patients undergoing IVC filter placement with transabdominal DUS more commonly required IVC filter for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (81.1% vs. 27.8%, p < 0.001), had increased incidence of multiple traumatic injuries (28% vs. 10%, p < 0.001), and had increased risk from immobilization (91.3% vs. 34.1%, p < 0.001). Overall complication rates were 0.6% for venography and 1.8% for transabdominal DUS (p = NS). When IVC visualization was adequate, contrast venography and transabdominal duplex uitrasound both had high rates of success and a low incidence of complications. A technical success advantage was observed for contrast venography; this difference in technical success must be weighed against the bedside insertion advantage offered by DUS, which may be especially important in the immobilized or critically ill patient. Transabdominal DUS remains our preferred technique when feasible, especially when bedside placement is desired." @default.
• W2000857439 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2000857439 creator A5007395289 @default.
• W2000857439 creator A5014201377 @default.
• W2000857439 creator A5027389286 @default.
• W2000857439 creator A5052547403 @default.
• W2000857439 creator A5056655399 @default.
• W2000857439 date "2005-03-01" @default.
• W2000857439 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2000857439 title "Comparison of Bedside Transabdominal Duplex Ultrasound versus Contrast Venography for Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement: What Is the Best Imaging Modality?" @default.
• W2000857439 cites W1970962319 @default.
• W2000857439 cites W1991883122 @default.
• W2000857439 cites W2017745693 @default.
• W2000857439 cites W2019886287 @default.
• W2000857439 cites W2024961428 @default.
• W2000857439 cites W2028593097 @default.
• W2000857439 cites W2036242010 @default.
• W2000857439 cites W2043733908 @default.
• W2000857439 cites W2060880406 @default.
• W2000857439 cites W2072117067 @default.
• W2000857439 cites W2073386104 @default.
• W2000857439 cites W2082271946 @default.
• W2000857439 cites W2094984161 @default.
• W2000857439 cites W2101822313 @default.
• W2000857439 cites W2123738568 @default.
• W2000857439 cites W2166754162 @default.
• W2000857439 cites W2168197184 @default.
• W2000857439 cites W2170074079 @default.
• W2000857439 cites W2312814626 @default.
• W2000857439 cites W2403088410 @default.
• W2000857439 cites W2417290741 @default.
• W2000857439 doi "https://doi.org/10.1007/s10016-004-0163-x" @default.
• W2000857439 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15782272" @default.
• W2000857439 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W2000857439 type Work @default.
• W2000857439 sameAs 2000857439 @default.
• W2000857439 citedByCount "31" @default.
• W2000857439 countsByYear W20008574392012 @default.
• W2000857439 countsByYear W20008574392013 @default.
• W2000857439 countsByYear W20008574392014 @default.
• W2000857439 countsByYear W20008574392015 @default.
• W2000857439 countsByYear W20008574392016 @default.
• W2000857439 countsByYear W20008574392017 @default.
• W2000857439 countsByYear W20008574392018 @default.
• W2000857439 countsByYear W20008574392019 @default.
• W2000857439 countsByYear W20008574392020 @default.
• W2000857439 countsByYear W20008574392021 @default.
• W2000857439 countsByYear W20008574392022 @default.
• W2000857439 countsByYear W20008574392023 @default.
• W2000857439 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2000857439 hasAuthorship W2000857439A5007395289 @default.
• W2000857439 hasAuthorship W2000857439A5014201377 @default.
• W2000857439 hasAuthorship W2000857439A5027389286 @default.
• W2000857439 hasAuthorship W2000857439A5052547403 @default.
• W2000857439 hasAuthorship W2000857439A5056655399 @default.
• W2000857439 hasConcept C120665830 @default.
• W2000857439 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2000857439 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W2000857439 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2000857439 hasConcept C143753070 @default.
• W2000857439 hasConcept C2778269268 @default.
• W2000857439 hasConcept C2780868729 @default.
• W2000857439 hasConcept C2910216633 @default.
• W2000857439 hasConcept C54355233 @default.
• W2000857439 hasConcept C552990157 @default.
• W2000857439 hasConcept C61511704 @default.
• W2000857439 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2000857439 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2000857439 hasConcept C99611785 @default.
• W2000857439 hasConceptScore W2000857439C120665830 @default.
• W2000857439 hasConceptScore W2000857439C121332964 @default.
• W2000857439 hasConceptScore W2000857439C126838900 @default.
• W2000857439 hasConceptScore W2000857439C141071460 @default.
• W2000857439 hasConceptScore W2000857439C143753070 @default.
• W2000857439 hasConceptScore W2000857439C2778269268 @default.
• W2000857439 hasConceptScore W2000857439C2780868729 @default.
• W2000857439 hasConceptScore W2000857439C2910216633 @default.
• W2000857439 hasConceptScore W2000857439C54355233 @default.
• W2000857439 hasConceptScore W2000857439C552990157 @default.
• W2000857439 hasConceptScore W2000857439C61511704 @default.
• W2000857439 hasConceptScore W2000857439C71924100 @default.
• W2000857439 hasConceptScore W2000857439C86803240 @default.
• W2000857439 hasConceptScore W2000857439C99611785 @default.
• W2000857439 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2000857439 hasLocation W20008574391 @default.
• W2000857439 hasLocation W20008574392 @default.
• W2000857439 hasOpenAccess W2000857439 @default.
• W2000857439 hasPrimaryLocation W20008574391 @default.
• W2000857439 hasRelatedWork W2092406346 @default.
• W2000857439 hasRelatedWork W2114704386 @default.
• W2000857439 hasRelatedWork W2123899179 @default.
• W2000857439 hasRelatedWork W2123980418 @default.
• W2000857439 hasRelatedWork W2131661417 @default.
• W2000857439 hasRelatedWork W2168197184 @default.
• W2000857439 hasRelatedWork W2176204406 @default.
• W2000857439 hasRelatedWork W2283584536 @default.
• W2000857439 hasRelatedWork W2437692324 @default.
• W2000857439 hasRelatedWork W2441288697 @default.

• next