Safety and Outcomes of Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement in Oncology Patients: A Single-Centre Experience
Author:
Kurzyna Paweł1ORCID, Banaszkiewicz Marta1ORCID, Florczyk Michał1ORCID, Kępski Jarosław2, Piłka Michał1ORCID, Kędzierski Piotr1, Mańczak Rafał1ORCID, Szwed Piotr1, Kasperowicz Krzysztof1, Wrona Katarzyna1, Doroszewski Grzegorz3ORCID, Torbicki Adam1ORCID, Kurzyna Marcin1ORCID, Szmit Sebastian2ORCID, Darocha Szymon1
Affiliation:
1. Chair and Department of Pulmonary Circulation, Thromboembolic Diseases and Cardiology, Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education, European Health Centre, ERN-LUNG Member, 05-400 Otwock, Poland 2. Department of Cardio-Oncology, Chair of Haematology and Transfusion Medicine, Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education, 01-813 Warsaw, Poland 3. Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education, Pelvic Injury and Pathology Department, Konarskiego 13, 05-400 Otwock, Poland
Abstract
The risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in the oncology population is significantly higher than in non-cancer patients. Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters may, therefore, be an important part of VTE treatment. In this study, we address the outcomes of placing IVC filters in the oncology population. This single-centre, observational, retrospective study included 62 patients with active malignancy and acute VTE who underwent an IVC filter implantation due to contraindications to anticoagulation during the period 2012–2023. The control group consisted of 117 trauma patients. In both groups, an urgent surgical procedure requiring temporary cessation of anticoagulation was the most noted reason for IVC filter placement—76% in the oncology group vs. 100% in the non-oncology group (p < 0.001). No complications were reported during the IVC filter implantation procedures. There was no recurrence of pulmonary embolism or deep venous thrombosis in the oncology group after filter implantation. The rate of successful filter explantation, median time to retrieval, and abnormal findings during retrieval were not significantly different between both subgroups (64.3% vs. 76.5%, p = 0.334; 77 days vs. 84 days, p = 0.764; 61.5% vs. 54.2%, p = 0.672; respectively). The study showed that IVC filter placement is a safe and effective method of preventing PE in cancer patients with contraindications to anticoagulation. The complication rate following IVC filter implantation in cancer patients is low and similar to that in non-oncology patients.
Funder
Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education
Reference31 articles.
1. Relative impact of risk factors for deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism: A population-based study;Heit;Arch. Intern. Med.,2002 2. Malignancies, prothrombotic mutations, and the risk of venous thrombosis;Blom;JAMA,2005 3. Pietrasik, A., Gąsecka, A., Kurzyna, P., Wrona, K., Darocha, S., Banaszkiewicz, M., Zieliński, D., Zajkowska, D., Smyk, J.M., and Rymaszewska, D. (2022). Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients Consulted by a Multidisciplinary Pulmonary Embolism Response Team: 5-Year Experience. J. Clin. Med., 11. 4. Cancer-associated thrombosis: Comparison of characteristics, treatment, and outcomes in oncologic and nononcologic patients followed by a pulmonary embolism response team;Pietrasik;Pol. Arch. Intern. Med.,2023 5. Systematic review of the use of retrievable inferior vena cava filters;Angel;J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol.,2011
|
|