These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Prophylactic vena caval filters in trauma: the rest of the story.
    Author: Greenfield LJ, Proctor MC, Michaels AJ, Taheri PA.
    Journal: J Vasc Surg; 2000 Sep; 32(3):490-5; discussion 496-7. PubMed ID: 10957655.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe outcomes for patients with trauma who had vena caval filters placed in the absence of venous thromboembolic disease (group P) and compare them with outcomes for patients with trauma who had filters placed after either deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (group T). DESIGN: The study is a case series of consecutive patients who received vena caval filters after traumatic injury. Data were collected prospectively at the time of filter placement from reports of diagnostic studies obtained for clinical indications and during the annual follow-up examinations. Event rate findings are based on objective tests. Data were obtained from the Michigan Vena Cava Filter Registry. RESULTS: Filters were placed in 385 patients with trauma; 249 of these filters were prophylactic (group P). Event rates were similar in the two groups. New pulmonary embolism was diagnosed in 1.5% of the patients in group P and 2% of the patients in group T. Caval occlusion rates were 3.5% for group P and 2.3% for group T. In all, 15.6% of the patients in group P had deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism after placement. The frequencies of lower extremity swelling and use of support hose were higher in group T than in group P (43% vs 25% and 25% vs 3.5%, respectively; P <.005). Outcomes were comparable in the two groups with respect to mechanical stability of the filter. CONCLUSIONS: The prophylactic indication for vena caval filter placement in patients with trauma is associated with a low incidence of adverse outcomes while providing protection from fatal pulmonary embolism. The current challenge is to limit the number of unnecessary placements through improved methods of risk stratification.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]