Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 931

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Eight-Year Follow-Up of Patients With Permanent Vena Cava Filters in the Prevention of Pulmonary Embolism: The PREPIC (Prévention du Risque d’Embolie Pulmonaire par Interruption Cave) Randomized Study

The PREPIC Study Group·2005·Circulation

Abstract

Background— In a randomized trial in patients with proximal deep-vein thrombosis, permanent vena cava filters reduced the incidence of pulmonary embolism but increased that of deep-vein thrombosis at 2 years. An 8-year follow-up was performed to assess their very long-term effect. Methods and Results— Four hundred patients with proximal deep-vein thrombosis with or without pulmonary embolism were randomized either to receive or not receive a filter in addition to standard anticoagulant treatment for at least 3 months. Data on vital status, venous thromboembolism, and postthrombotic syndrome were obtained once a year for up to 8 years. All documented events were reviewed blindly by an independent committee. Outcome data were available in 396 patients (99%). Symptomatic pulmonary embolism occurred in 9 patients in the filter group (cumulative rate 6.2%) and 24 patients (15.1%) in the no-filter group ( P =0.008). Deep-vein thrombosis occurred in 57 patients (35.7%) in the filter group and 41 (27.5%) in the no-filter group ( P =0.042). Postthrombotic syndrome was observed in 109 (70.3%) and 107 (69.7%) patients in the filter and no-filter groups, respectively. At 8 years, 201 (50.3%) patients had died (103 and 98 patients in the filter and no-filter groups, respectively). Conclusions At 8 years, vena cava filters reduced the risk of pulmonary embolism but increased that of deep-vein thrombosis and had no effect on survival. Although their use may be beneficial in patients at high risk of pulmonary embolism, systematic use in the general population with venous thromboembolism is not recommended.

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 · 10.1161/circulationaha.104.512834

Cites

5 of 5 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

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 5 references

Cited by

See all 931

Metadata

Authors
The PREPIC Study Group
Venue
Circulation
Published
2005-07-19
Volume
112
Issue
3
Pages
416-422
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W4255679514
Cited by
931
References
5
FWCI
24.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Eight-Year Follow-Up of Patients With Permanent Vena Cava Filters in the Prevention of Pulmonary Embolism: The PREPIC (Prévention du Risque d’Embolie Pulmonaire par Interruption Cave) Randomized Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circulationaha.104.512834
The paper
The PREPIC Study Group. (2005). Eight-Year Follow-Up of Patients With Permanent Vena Cava Filters in the Prevention of Pulmonary Embolism: The PREPIC (Prévention du Risque d’Embolie Pulmonaire par Interruption Cave) Randomized Study. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.104.512834

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.