FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2984728172> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2984728172 endingPage "1157" @default.
• W2984728172 startingPage "1157" @default.
• W2984728172 abstract "Background: Retrievable inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) were developed to address the adverse events associated with permanent IVCF. However, this benefit cannot be fully appreciated if filters are not removed in a timely manner and when appropriate. Although there are clinical scenarios when permanent placement is desired, studies show that these situations are far outweighed by scenarios of medically inappropriate non-retrieval. There is substantial evidence describing adverse events related to IVCF such as filter thrombosis, DVT, fracture, perforation, and migration. Furthermore, evidence supporting the benefit of IVCF to prevent the development or progression of pulmonary embolism remains controversial. Therefore, indications for IVCF placement are not standardized at most centers. Specialty societies, such as radiology and cardiology, have differing recommendations for filter placement. IVCF placement is not uncommon (of 130,643 patients hospitalized at 263 hospitals with acute venous thromboembolism [VTE], 15% had IVCF placed) and retrieval rates of non-permanent filters remain low (18-41%). Methods: This study assesses IVCF indications, removal rate, complications, and practice patterns at a multi-center institution via retrospective chart review. Procedure codes and associated diagnosis codes were used to identify 626 adult patients who had IVCF placed over a span of 5 years by either interventional radiology, vascular surgery, or interventional cardiology. Of note, patients were excluded from analysis if they had a documented death within 60 days of filter placement. Descriptive statistics, chi-squared tests, and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used for statistical analysis. All IVCF evaluated were retrievable filters. Results: Most IVCF were placed by interventional radiology (77%) as expected. Retrieval rate was 27%. No significant difference was found in retrieval rates among the procedural specialties. Also, retrieval rate was not significantly different between specialty groups that followed the patient after filter placement, including radiology, vascular surgery, or hematology (p value: 0.5382). Overall, 58% of IVCF were unmanaged after placement and, as expected, this was associated with a higher rate of non-retrieval (p value: 0.0001). There was no significant difference in retrieval rate among inpatient or outpatient procedures (p value: 0.2067). Patients in the retrieval group had a lower Charlson Comorbidity Index score than those in the non-retrieval group (p value: 0.0001). The most common indications for placement were acute VTE with contraindication to anticoagulation (40%) and anticoagulation failure (21%). The most common filter complication was filter thrombus (2%). Primary care providers were the most common ordering provider group that requested filter placement (51% of filter placement requests). Interestingly, patients with Medicare/Medicaid had a lower rate of retrieval than patients with any other coverage, including no coverage (20% versus 35%, p value <0.0001). Recurrent VTE occurred in 44 patients (not including filter thrombus) and 9 of those events occurred after filter removal. 62% of patients received anticoagulation therapy during or after filter placement. Conclusion: Lack of follow-up and filter non-removal continues to remain a problem since the emergence and use of IVCF. Surprisingly, our study didn't show that retrieval rates were different based on inpatient or outpatient status, or by follow-up specialty. We did not expect to find that retrieval rates would be lowest in patients with Medicare/Medicaid, or that the most frequently ordering provider group would be primary care providers (over pulmonologists or hematologists, for example). Even after excluding patient deaths within 60 days of filter placement, we still found retrieval rates to be low. As a retrospective study, we can only show association and there may be unique characteristics of our centers that affect external validity. Also, in some clinical scenarios permanent filter placement may be indicated. Regardless, this analysis challenges assumptions regarding the factors involved with filter placement and persistently low rates of retrieval. It also proposes new targetable areas for collaboration and improvement. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare." @default.
• W2984728172 created "2019-11-22" @default.
• W2984728172 creator A5013985547 @default.
• W2984728172 creator A5016854610 @default.
• W2984728172 creator A5034961010 @default.
• W2984728172 creator A5036580442 @default.
• W2984728172 creator A5082834414 @default.
• W2984728172 date "2019-11-13" @default.
• W2984728172 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2984728172 title "Characteristics of Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement, Management, and Retrieval at a Multi-Center Institution" @default.
• W2984728172 doi "https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2019-124856" @default.
• W2984728172 hasPublicationYear "2019" @default.
• W2984728172 type Work @default.
• W2984728172 sameAs 2984728172 @default.
• W2984728172 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2984728172 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2984728172 hasAuthorship W2984728172A5013985547 @default.
• W2984728172 hasAuthorship W2984728172A5016854610 @default.
• W2984728172 hasAuthorship W2984728172A5034961010 @default.
• W2984728172 hasAuthorship W2984728172A5036580442 @default.
• W2984728172 hasAuthorship W2984728172A5082834414 @default.
• W2984728172 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W2984728172 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2984728172 hasConcept C2776265017 @default.
• W2984728172 hasConcept C2778959117 @default.
• W2984728172 hasConcept C2780011451 @default.
• W2984728172 hasConcept C2780828045 @default.
• W2984728172 hasConcept C2780868729 @default.
• W2984728172 hasConcept C2910216633 @default.
• W2984728172 hasConcept C513090587 @default.
• W2984728172 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2984728172 hasConceptScore W2984728172C126838900 @default.
• W2984728172 hasConceptScore W2984728172C141071460 @default.
• W2984728172 hasConceptScore W2984728172C2776265017 @default.
• W2984728172 hasConceptScore W2984728172C2778959117 @default.
• W2984728172 hasConceptScore W2984728172C2780011451 @default.
• W2984728172 hasConceptScore W2984728172C2780828045 @default.
• W2984728172 hasConceptScore W2984728172C2780868729 @default.
• W2984728172 hasConceptScore W2984728172C2910216633 @default.
• W2984728172 hasConceptScore W2984728172C513090587 @default.
• W2984728172 hasConceptScore W2984728172C71924100 @default.
• W2984728172 hasIssue "Supplement_1" @default.
• W2984728172 hasLocation W29847281721 @default.
• W2984728172 hasOpenAccess W2984728172 @default.
• W2984728172 hasPrimaryLocation W29847281721 @default.
• W2984728172 hasRelatedWork W2067393795 @default.
• W2984728172 hasRelatedWork W2126095206 @default.
• W2984728172 hasRelatedWork W2352976444 @default.
• W2984728172 hasRelatedWork W2383158841 @default.
• W2984728172 hasRelatedWork W2978115577 @default.
• W2984728172 hasRelatedWork W3031791182 @default.
• W2984728172 hasRelatedWork W3032065286 @default.
• W2984728172 hasRelatedWork W3111527613 @default.
• W2984728172 hasRelatedWork W4313544693 @default.
• W2984728172 hasRelatedWork W3029963180 @default.
• W2984728172 hasVolume "134" @default.
• W2984728172 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2984728172 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2984728172 magId "2984728172" @default.
• W2984728172 workType "article" @default.