Updated Trends in Inferior Vena Cava Filter Use by Indication in the United States After Food and Drug Administration Safety Warnings: A Decade Analysis From 2010 to 2019

Abstract

Background:

Overall inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) utilization has decreased in the United States since the 2010 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) safety communication. The FDA renewed this safety warning in 2014 with additional mandates on reporting IVCF-related adverse events. We evaluated the impact of the FDA recommendations on IVCF placements for different indications from 2010 to 2019 and further assessed utilization trends by region and hospital teaching status.

Methods:

Inferior vena cava filter placements between 2010 and 2019 were identified in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database using the associated International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification, and Tenth Revision codes. Inferior vena cava filter placements were categorized by indication for venous thromboembolism (VTE) “treatment” in patients with VTE diagnosis and contraindication to anticoagulation and “prophylaxis” in patients without VTE. Generalized linear regression was used to analyze utilization trends.

Results:

A total of 823 717 IVCFs were placed over the study period, of which 644 663 (78.3%) were for VTE treatment and 179 054 (21.7%) were for prophylaxis indications. The median age for both categories of patients was 68 years. The total number of IVCFs placed for all indications decreased from 129 616 in 2010 to 58 465 in 2019, with an aggregate decline rate of −8.4%. The decline rate was higher between 2014 and 2019 than between 2010 and 2014 (−11.6% vs −7.2%). From 2010 to 2019, IVCF placement for VTE treatment and prophylaxis trended downward at rates of −7.9% and −10.2%, respectively. Urban nonteaching hospitals saw the highest decline for both VTE treatment (−17.2%) and prophylactic indications (−18.0%). Hospitals located in the Northeast region had the highest decline rates for VTE treatment (−10.3%) and prophylactic indications (−12.5%).

Conclusion:

The higher decline rate in IVCF placements between 2014 and 2019 compared with 2010 and 2014 suggests an additional impact of the renewed 2014 FDA safety indications on national IVCF utilization. Variations in IVCF use for VTE treatment and prophylactic indications existed across hospital teaching types, locations, and regions.

Clinical Impact

Inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) are associated with medical complications. The 2010 and 2014 FDA safety warnings appeared to have synergistically contributed to a significant decline in IVCF utilization rates from 2010 – 2019 in the US. IVC filter placements in patients without venous thromboembolism (VTE) declined at a higher rate than VTE. However, IVCF utilization varied across hospitals and geographical locations, likely due to the absence of universally accepted clinical guidelines on IVCF indications and use. Harmonization of IVCF placement guidelines is needed to standardize clinical practice, thereby reducing the observed regional and hospital variations and potential IVC filter overutilization.

Keywords

inferior vena cava filters Food and Drug Administration prophylaxis trends venous thromboembolism

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Kaufman

Barnes

Chaer

, et al. Society of Interventional radiology clinical practice guideline for inferior vena cava filters in the treatment of patients with venous thromboembolic disease: developed in collaboration with the American College of Cardiology, American College of Chest P. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2020;31(10):1529–1544. doi:10.1016/j.jvir.2020.06.014.

Kearon

Akl

Comerota

, et al. Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2012;141(suppl 2):e419S–e496S. doi:10.1378/chest.11-2301.

Kearon

Akl

Ornelas

, et al. Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest. 2016;149(2):315–352. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2015.11.026.

Konstantinides

Meyer

Bueno

, et al. 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism developed in collaboration with the European respiratory society (ERS). Eur Heart J. 2020;41(4):543–603. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz405.

Kidane

Madani

Vogt

, et al. The use of prophylactic inferior vena cava filters in trauma patients: a systematic review. Injury. 2012;43(5):542–547. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2012.01.020.

Sarosiek

Crowther

Sloan

JM.

Indications, complications, and management of inferior vena cava filters: the experience in 952 patients at an academic hospital with a level I trauma center. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(7):513–517. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.343.

Pryor

2nd Singleton

Lin

, et al. Practice patterns in high-risk bariatric venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(3):843–848. doi:10.1007/s00464-012-2521-z.

Stevens

Woller

Kreuziger

, et al. Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: second update of the CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest. 2021;160(6):e545–e608. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2021.07.055.

Jaff

McMurtry

Archer

, et al. Management of massive and submassive pulmonary embolism, iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis, and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2011;123(16):1788–1830. doi:10.1161/CIR.0b013e318214914f.

10.

Minocha

Smith

Kapoor

, et al. ACR appropriateness criteria® radiologic management of venous thromboembolism-inferior vena cava filters. J Am Coll Radiol. 2019;16(5):S214–S226. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2019.02.010.

11.

Kaufman

Kinney

Streiff

, et al. Guidelines for the use of retrievable and convertible vena cava filters: report from the Society of Interventional Radiology multidisciplinary consensus conference. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2006;17(3):449–459. doi:10.1097/01.RVI.0000203418-39769.0D.

12.

Angel

Tapson

Galgon

, et al. Systematic review of the use of retrievable inferior vena cava filters. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2011;22(11):1522–1530.e3. doi:10.1016/j.jvir.2011.08.024.

13.

US FDA. Removing retrievable inferior vena cava filters: initial communication. 2010. Accessed May 23, 2022. https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20161022180008/ https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm221676.htm.IVC-filter-warning-FDA-August-2010.pdf.

14.

US Food and Drug Administration. Removing retrievable inferior vena cava filters: FDA safety communication. 2014. Accessed May 23, 2022. https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170111070016/http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm396377.htm

15.

Wadhwa

Trivedi

Chatterjee

, et al. Decreasing utilization of inferior vena cava filters in post-FDA warning era: insights from 2005 to 2014 nationwide inpatient sample. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14(9):1144–1150. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2017.04.022.

16.

Ahmed

Patel

, et al. Declining national annual IVC filter utilization: an analysis on the impact of societal and governmental communications. Chest. 2017;151(6):1402–1404. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2017.03.038.

17.

Reddy

Lakhter

Zack

, et al. Association between contemporary trends in inferior vena cava filter placement and the 2010 US Food and Drug Administration Advisory. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(9):1373–1374. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.2719.

18.

Cook

Gross

Osler

, et al. Vena cava filter use in trauma and rates of pulmonary embolism, 2003-2015. JAMA Surg. 2017;152:724–732. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2017.1018.

19.

Decousus

Leizorovicz

Parent

, et al. A clinical trial of vena caval filters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism in patients with proximal deep-vein thrombosis. N Engl J Med. 1998;338(7):409–416. doi:10.1056/nejm199802123380701.

20.

Stein

Matta

Lawrence

, et al. Importance of early insertion of inferior vena cava filters in unstable patients with acute pulmonary embolism. Am J Med. 2018;131(9):1104–1109. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2018.05.023.

21.

Decousus

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. 2005;112(3):416–422. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.104.512834.

22.

Zuin

Rigatelli

Zonzin

, et al. Inferior vena cava filters in hemodynamically unstable patients with acute pulmonary embolism: how often are they used? data from multicenter prospective registries on acute pulmonary embolism. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2019;42(8):1073–1079.

23.

Chung

Owen

RJT

. Using inferior vena cava filters to prevent pulmonary embolism. Can Fam Physician. 2008;54:49–55. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2017.07.775.

24.

Turner

Saeed

Novak

, et al. Association of inferior vena cava filter placement for venous thromboembolic disease and a contraindication to anticoagulation with 30-day mortality. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1(3):e180452. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0452.

25.

Bikdeli

Chatterjee

Desai

, et al. Inferior vena cava filters to prevent pulmonary embolism: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70(13):1587–1597. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2017.07.775.

26.

Bikdeli

Ross

Krumholz

HM.

Data desert for inferior vena caval filters: limited evidence, supervision, and research. JAMA Cardiol. 2017;2(1):3–4. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2016.3764.

27.

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Nationwide inpatient sample (NIS). Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/nisoverview.jsp. Published 2022. Accessed February 2, 2023.

28.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. International classification of diseases, (ICD-10-CM/PCS) transition—background. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/icd/icd10cm_pcs_background.htm. Published 2015. Accessed February 2, 2023.

29.

Liebel

Daugherty

Kirsch

, et al. Using the FDA MAUDE and medical device recall databases to design better devices. Biomed Instrum Technol. 2020;54(3):178–188. doi:10.2345/0899-8205-54.3.178.

30.

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. HCUP fast stats: Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/overview.jsp#:~:text=About,-HCUP&text=The%20Healthcare%20Cost%20and%20Utilization,Research%20and%20Quality%20(AHRQ). Published 2022. Accessed February 2, 2023.

31.

D’Hoore

Bouckaert

Tilquin

Practical considerations on the use of the Charlson comorbidity index with administrative data bases. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49(12):1429–1433. doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(96)00271-5.

32.

Beyrer

Manjelievskaia

Bonafede

, et al. Validation of an international classification of disease, 10th revision coding adaptation for the Charlson Comorbidity Index in United States healthcare claims data. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2021;30(5):582–593. doi:10.1002/pds.5204.

33.

Sutton

Washington

Fingar

, et al. Characteristics of Safety-Net Hospitals, 2014. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2016.

34.

Nicholson

Tolerico

, et al. Prevalence of fracture and fragment embolization of Bard retrievable vena cava filters and clinical implications including cardiac perforation and tamponade. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(20):1827–1831. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2010.316.

35.

Glocker

TerBush

Hill

, et al. Bundling of reimbursement for inferior vena cava filter placement resulted in significantly decreased utilization between 2012 and 2014. Ann Vasc Surg. 2017;38:172–176. doi:10.1016/j.avsg.2016.10.007.

36.

Wadhwa

Trivedi

Chatterjee

, et al. Identifying patient and hospital characteristics resulting in higher use of inferior vena cava filters among inpatients with venous thromboembolic disease: analysis of the 2014 nationwide inpatient sample. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2018;29(8):1206–1208. doi:10.1016/j.jvir.2018.03.011.

37.

Shahian

Liu

Meyer

, et al. Comparing teaching versus nonteaching hospitals: the association of patient characteristics with teaching intensity for three common medical conditions. Acad Med. 2014;89(1):94–106. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000000050.

38.

White

Geraghty

Brunson

, et al. High variation between hospitals in vena cava filter use for venous thromboembolism. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(7):506–512. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.2352.

39.

Gyang

Zayed

Harris

, et al. Factors impacting follow-up care after placement of temporary inferior vena cava filters. J Vasc Surg. 2013;58(2):440–445. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2012.12.085.

40.

Salei

Raborn

Manapragada

, et al. Effect of a dedicated inferior vena cava filter retrieval program on retrieval rates and number of patients lost to follow-up. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2020;26(1):40–44. doi:10.5152/dir.2019.18579.

41.

Kuy

Dua

Lee

, et al. National trends in utilization of inferior vena cava filters in the United States, 2000-2009. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2014;2(1):15–20. doi:10.1016/j.jvsv.2013.08.007.

42.

Meltzer

Graham

Kim

, et al. Clinical, demographic, and medicolegal factors associated with geographic variation in inferior vena cava filter utilization: an interstate analysis. Surgery. 2013;153(5):683–688. doi:10.1016/j.surg.2012.11.005.

43.

Haut

Garcia

Shihab

, et al. The effectiveness of prophylactic inferior vena cava filters in trauma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Surg. 2014;149(2):194–202. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2013.3970.

44.

Rao

Honeybul

, et al. A multicenter trial of vena cava filters in severely injured patients. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(4):328–337. doi:10.1056/nejmoa1806515.

45.

Gillespie

Spies

Siami

, et al. Predicting the safety and effectiveness of inferior vena cava filters study: design of a unique safety and effectiveness study of inferior vena cava filters in clinical practice. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2020;8(2):187–194. doi:10.1016/j.jvsv.2019.07.009.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.17 MB