Inferior Vena Cava Filters to Prevent Pulmonary Embolism Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY

卷:70

Review

Bikdeli, Behnood^1,2  Chatterjee, Saurav³  Desai, Nihar R.^2,4  Kirtane, Ajay J.¹  Desai, Mayur M.^2,5  Bracken, Michael B.⁵  Spencer, Frederick A.^6,7  Monreal, Manuel⁸  Goldhaber, Samuel Z.^9,10  Krumholz, Harlan M.^2,4,11 

[1] Columbia Univ, Dept Med, Div Cardiol, Med Ctr,New York Presbyterian Hosp, New York, NY USA

[2] Yale New Haven Hosp, Ctr Outcomes Res & Evaluat, 20 York St, New Haven, CT 06504 USA

[3] Temple Univ Hosp & Med Sch, Philadelphia, PA 19140 USA

[4] Yale Sch Med, Dept Internal Med, Sect Cardiovasc Med, New Haven, CT USA

[5] Yale Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Chron Dis Epidemiol, New Haven, CT USA

[6] McMaster Univ, Dept Med, Div Cardiol, Hamilton, ON, Canada

[7] McMaster Univ, Dept Med, Div Hematol & Thromboembolism, Hamilton, ON, Canada

[8] Hosp Univ Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Spain

[9] Brigham & Womens Hosp, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115 USA

[10] Harvard Med Sch, Boston, MA USA

[11] Yale Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Hlth Policy & Management, New Haven, CT USA

关键词: bleed;    mortality;    prevention;    risk;    venous thromboembolism;   

DOI  :  10.1016/j.jacc.2017.07.775

来源: Elsevier

【 摘 要 】

BACKGROUND Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are widely used for prevention of pulmonary embolism (PE). However, uncertainty persists about their efficacy and safety. OBJECTIVES The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the published reports on the efficacy and safety of IVC filters. METHODS The authors searched PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials. gov through October 3, 2016, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective controlled observational studies of IVC filters versus none in patients at risk of PE. Inverse variance fixed-effects models with odds ratio (OR) as the effect measure were used for primary analyses. Main outcomes included subsequent PE, PE-related mortality, all-cause mortality, and subsequent deep vein thrombosis (DVT). RESULTS The authors' search retrieved 1,986 studies, of which 11 met criteria for inclusion (6 RCTs and 5 prospective observational studies). Quality of evidence for RCTs was low to moderate. Overall, patients receiving IVC filters had lower risk for subsequent PE (OR: 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.33 to 0.75); increased risk for DVT (OR: 1.70; 95% CI: 1.17 to 2.48); nonsignificantly lower PE-related mortality (OR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.05); and no change in all-cause mortality (OR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.70 to 1.19). Limiting the results to RCTs showed similar results. Findings were substantively similar across a wide range of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS Very few prospective controlled studies, with limited quality of evidence, exist regarding the efficacy and safety of IVC filters. Overall, filters appear to reduce the risk of subsequent PE, increase the risk for DVT, and have no significant effect on overall mortality. (C) 2017 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

【 授权许可】

Free