Removal of a Günther Tulip retrievable inferior vena cava filter after 147 days in a pediatric patient

A Multicenter Cohort Study of Inferior Vena Cava Filter Use in Children

BACKGROUND

To describe inferior vena cava (IVC) filter use in pediatric patients admitted to U.S. children's hospitals and to determine factors associated with prophylactic placement.

PROCEDURE

This retrospective multicenter cohort study utilized data from the Pediatric Health Information Systems (PHIS) administrative database, with 44 participating children's hospitals. Subjects included for analysis were less than 21 years of age, admitted to a PHIS hospital between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2012 and had a procedure code for IVC filter placement. ICD-9-CM discharge codes were used to identify subjects with a venous thromboembolism (VTE). Pharmaceutical billing codes were used to identify anticoagulation use.

RESULTS

During this 9-year-study period, 276 subjects met the inclusion criteria. The median age of subjects was 15 years (range 1 month-20 years). Subjects had an ICD-9-CM code for VTE 76% of the time and were started on anticoagulation after IVC filter placement 77% of the time. The mean number of IVC filters placed per year was 6 per 100,000 admissions (SD-1.4), which was constant throughout the study period (P = 0.12). The median number of filters placed by center was 4.5 (range 0-32). In multivariate analysis, subjects undergoing orthopedic surgery were more likely to have prophylactic placement of an IVC filter (OR 4.5; 95%CI 1.8-11).

CONCLUSIONS

IVC filter placement in pediatric patients remains a rare event and is most common in adolescents. Unlike in adults, pediatric IVC filter placement does not appear to be increasing over time and is predominantly used in the setting of a venous thrombotic event.

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters in children: A 10-year single center experience

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is an increasingly recognized problem among children and adolescents. Although inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement for pulmonary embolism prevention is well reported in adults, data regarding safety and efficacy in the pediatric age group are lacking.

PROCEDURE

At a large university hospital with a level I trauma center, medical records of children and adolescents who underwent IVC filter insertion were reviewed. Appropriateness of referral for retrieval was assessed in each case.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine children and adolescents (mean age 16 years) successfully underwent IVC filter insertion. All filters placed were retrievable. In 47 patients (79.7%), prophylactic filters were placed in the absence of acute VTE in the setting of trauma. In eight patients (13.5%), filters were placed due to contraindication to anticoagulation therapy with concomitant lower extremity deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. Filters were successfully retrieved in only 12 patients (20.3%), although an attempt at removal was appropriate and feasible in over 90% of cases. Mean duration of follow-up was 2.1 (range 0.4-7.3) years. A significantly higher retrieval rate was found in patients followed at our thrombosis clinic (P < 0.01). Ten patients (17%) experienced at least one filter-related complication.

CONCLUSIONS

Although in most cases, IVC filters were placed for prophylactic indications, the evidence to support their role in this setting is limited. Their low retrieval rate and high filter-related complication rate question their extensive utilization in children. Dedicated follow-up is necessary to detect complications and to ensure that an attempt at retrieval is made when feasible.

Extensive thrombotic complications after inferior vena cava filter placement in 2 adolescents with spinal cord injury: a cautionary tale and review

We report extensive thrombotic complications of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters that were placed for primary prophylaxis in 2 pediatric trauma patients with spinal cord injuries. Although thrombosis is a known common complication in adults with IVC filters, we were unable to find any reports in the literature of this complication in children. These cases highlight a significant problem with the use of prophylactic IVC filters that are not subsequently retrieved, particularly in young trauma patients with decades to live. The overall reported complications of IVC filters in the pediatric literature are also reviewed.

Antithrombotic therapy in neonates and children: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines

BACKGROUND

Neonates and children differ from adults in physiology, pharmacologic responses to drugs, epidemiology, and long-term consequences of thrombosis. This guideline addresses optimal strategies for the management of thrombosis in neonates and children.

METHODS

The methods of this guideline follow those described in the Methodology for the Development of Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis Guidelines: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines.

RESULTS

We suggest that where possible, pediatric hematologists with experience in thromboembolism manage pediatric patients with thromboembolism (Grade 2C). When this is not possible, we suggest a combination of a neonatologist/pediatrician and adult hematologist supported by consultation with an experienced pediatric hematologist (Grade 2C). We suggest that therapeutic unfractionated heparin in children is titrated to achieve a target anti-Xa range of 0.35 to 0.7 units/mL or an activated partial thromboplastin time range that correlates to this anti-Xa range or to a protamine titration range of 0.2 to 0.4 units/mL (Grade 2C). For neonates and children receiving either daily or bid therapeutic low-molecular-weight heparin, we suggest that the drug be monitored to a target range of 0.5 to 1.0 units/mL in a sample taken 4 to 6 h after subcutaneous injection or, alternatively, 0.5 to 0.8 units/mL in a sample taken 2 to 6 h after subcutaneous injection (Grade 2C).

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence supporting most recommendations for antithrombotic therapy in neonates and children remains weak. Studies addressing appropriate drug target ranges and monitoring requirements are urgently required in addition to site- and clinical situation-specific thrombosis management strategies.

Inferior vena cava filters in children: our experience and suggested guidelines

Although use of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters for prophylaxis against pulmonary embolism (PE) is well reported in adults, long-term studies in children are lacking. We performed retrospective review of imaging and clinical database of IVC filters for the last 12 years. Thirty-five patients (mean age: 15.5 y) underwent filter placement and/or retrieval. Indications for placement were contraindication to anticoagulation with known deep venous thrombosis (DVT) (18) or high risk of venous thromboembolism (5), recurrent DVT despite anticoagulation (1), and prophylaxis before endovascular thrombolysis (8). All filter placements were technically successful without any complications. Filter retrieval was successful in 15 of 19 attempted (79%) at a mean of 42 days. Two complications occurred during retrieval: IVC stenosis successfully treated with angioplasty and contained IVC perforation. Endothelialization of filter prevented retrieval in 4 patients. Mean follow-up was 29.3 months. No patients had IVC thrombosis, breakthrough pulmonary embolism, filter fracture, or embolism. Two patients had recurrent DVT. Our results indicate that IVC filters can be successfully placed and retrieved in children with minimal procedural complications; follow-up demonstrates acceptable complication rate owing to presence of filters. Prophylactic IVC filter placement may be considered before endovascular thrombolysis for lower extremity DVT. Retrievable filters should be used in children for appropriate indications.

A prospective observational study of IVC filters in pediatric patients

BACKGROUND

The use of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters to prevent pulmonary embolism (PE) has increased with the advent of retrievable filters (Crowther: Am J Med 120: S13-S17, 2007). Both permanent and retrievable filters have been used in the pediatric population, though reports describing such patients and their outcomes are limited.

PROCEDURE

Our center has established a longitudinal prospective cohort study of consecutive patients with acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) at our pediatric tertiary care institution. Data collection in this study includes medical history, risk factors, radiologic and laboratory studies, therapy, and follow-up.

RESULTS

Two hundred ten patients were enrolled into this cohort from January 2003 to January 2007. IVC filters were percutaneously placed into 11 patients, ranging in age from 6.8 to 23.4 years. The primary reason for filter placement was a VTE and a contraindication to anticoagulation. Nine patients had retrievable filters placed and two received permanent filters. Seven of the nine retrievable filters were removed 21-97 days (median 37 days) after placement. In the remaining two patients, thrombus prevented removal in one, and the filter was electively retained in the other. One patient with a permanent filter died from malignancy. The three patients who are alive and well with IVC filters have had them for 25-60 months. No patient with an IVC filter developed a subsequent PE.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 5% of patients in this pediatric thrombosis cohort received an IVC filter. The placement and removal of these devices is technically feasible in children.