Notice: Users may be experiencing issues with displaying some pages on stanfordhealthcare.org. We are working closely with our technical teams to resolve the issue as quickly as possible. Thank you for your patience.
 

Learn about the flu shot, COVID-19 vaccine, and our masking policy »

Stanford Health Care

Are temporary inferior vena cava filters really temporary? 57th Annual Meeting of the Southwestern-Surgical-Congress Kirilcuk, N. N., Herget, E. J., Dicker, R. A., Spain, D. A., Hellinger, J. C., Brundage, S. I. EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC. 2005: 858–63

Abstract

Despite significant risk for venous thromboembolism, severely injured trauma patients often are not candidates for prophylaxis or treatment with anticoagulation. Long-term inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are associated with increased risk of postphlebitic syndrome. Retrievable IVC filters potentially offer a better solution, but only if the filter is removed; our hypothesis is that the most of them are not.This retrospective study queried a level I trauma registry for IVC filter insertion from September 1997 through June 2004.One IVC filter was placed before the availability of retrievable filters in 2001. Since 2001, 27 filters have been placed, indicating a change in practice patterns. Filters were placed for prophylaxis (n = 11) or for therapy in patients with pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis (n = 17). Of 23 temporary filters, only 8 (35%) were removed.Surgeons must critically evaluate indications for IVC filter insertion, develop standard criteria for placement, and implement protocols to ensure timely removal of temporary IVC filters.

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.08.009

View details for Web of Science ID 000233759800007

View details for PubMedID 16307934