CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 182Venous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementCardiovascular and Diving-Related ComplicationsVascular anomalies and interventions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Vena caval filters for the prevention of pulmonary embolism

Open access
Young, Tim, Tang, Hangwi, Hughes, Rodney·2010·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006212.pub4PMC PMC7387443
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary emboli (PE), or blood clots in the lungs,can be potentially fatal. Anticoagulation is the first line therapy to prevent PE. In some instances anticoagulation fails to prevent more emboli, or cannot be given because the person has a high risk of bleeding. Inferior vena caval filters (VCFs) are metal alloy devices that mechanically trap fragmented emboli from the deep leg veins en route to the pulmonary circulation. Retrievable filters are designed to be introduced and removed percutaneously. Although their deployment seems of theoretical benefit, their clinical efficacy and adverse event profile is unclear. This is the third update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007. OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence for the effectiveness and safety of vena caval filters (VCFs) in preventing pulmonary embolism (PE). SEARCH METHODS: For this review update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (last searched 10 September 2019) and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2019, Issue 8) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online. The CIS also searched MEDLINE Ovid, EMBASE Ovid, CINAHL, and AMED (1 January 2017 to 10 September 2019) and trials registries to 10 September 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that examined the efficacy of VCFs in preventing PE. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For this update, studies were assessed and data extracted independently. We assessed study quality with Cochrane's 'Risk of bias' tool and used the GRADE approach to assess the overall certainty of the evidence. The outcomes of interest were PE, mortality, lower limb venous thrombosis, filter-related complications and major bleeding. MAIN RESULTS: We identified four new studies for this update, bringing the total to six included studies involving 1388 participants. The six studies were clinically heterogeneous and we were unable to carry out meta-analysis. Only two studies were considered to be both applicable in current clinical settings and of good methodological quality. One was a randomised open-label trial studying the effect of a retrievable inferior vena caval filter plus anticoagulation versus anticoagulation alone on risk of recurrent pulmonary embolism (PE) in 399 participants over three months. There was no evidence of a difference in the rates of PE, death, lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT), or bleeding at three and six months after the intervention (moderate-certainty evidence). A filter was inserted in 193 people, but could only be successfully retrieved from 153. Minor filter complications were noted at six months. The second clinically relevant study was a randomised open-label trial of 240 participants who had sustained multiple traumatic injuries, allocated to a filter or no filter, three days after injury, in conjunction with anticoagulation and intermittent pneumatic compression. Prophylactic anticoagulation was initiated in both groups when it was thought safe to do so. There was no evidence of a difference in symptomatic PE, death, or lower limb venous thrombosis rates (moderate-certainty evidence). The only major filter complication was that one person required surgical removal of the filter. We are unable to draw any conclusions from the remaining four included studies. One study showed an increased incidence of long-term lower extremity DVT at eight years. Three studies are no longer clinically applicable because they utilised permanent filters which are seldom used now, or they did not use routine prophylactic anticoagulation which is current standard practice. The fourth study compared two filter types and was terminated prematurely as one filter group had a higher rate of thrombosis compared to the other filter type. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Two of the six identified studies were relevant for current clinical settings. One showed no evidence of a benefit of retrievable filters in acute PE for the outcomes of PE, death, DVT and bleeding during the initial three months in people who can receive anticoagulation (moderate-certainty evidence). The other study did not show any benefit for prophylactic filter insertion in people who sustained multiple traumatic injuries, with respect to symptomatic PE, mortality, or lower extremity venous thrombosis (moderate-certainty evidence). We can draw no firm conclusions regarding filter efficacy in the prevention of PE from the remaining four RCTs identified in this review. Further trials are needed to assess vena caval filter effectiveness and safety, and clinical differences between various filter types.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd006212.pub4

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 47 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Decousus, 2003, Eight-year follow-up of a randomized trial investigating vena cava filters in the prevention of PE in patients presenting a proximal DVT: The PREPIC trial, Journal of Thrombosis & Haemostasis, 1, Abstract OC440
  2. Higgins, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.2 [updated September 2009], The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–178 of 178

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Young, T., Tang, H., & Hughes, R.
Affiliations
  • Department of Respiratory and Sleep Medicine; PO Box M103 Missenden Road Camperdown New South Wales Australia 2050
  • Princess Alexandra Hospital (AU)
  • Royal Hallamshire Hospital (GB)
ORCID
Hughes, Rodney
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-02-17
Volume
10
Issue
2
Pages
CD006212-CD006212
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
DOI
10.1002/14651858.cd006212.pub4
PMC
PMC7387443
OpenAlex
W2058979696
Cited by
182
References
47
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 15
FWCI
4.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
new_version (2020-10-07)
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Internal Medicine › Venous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Cardiovascular and Diving-Related Complications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Vascular anomalies and interventions
Keywords
pulmonary embolism prevention, deep vein thrombosis, filter complications, mortality, anticoagulation
MeSH terms
Humans, Pulmonary Embolism, Vena Cava, Inferior, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Vena Cava Filters, Venous Thrombosis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review