Risk-group targeted inferior vena cava filter placement in gastric bypass patients

Efficacy and safety of pre-operative insertion of inferior vena cava filter in patients undergoing bariatric surgery: a systematic review

Prophylactic placement of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters prior to performing bariatric surgery is an intervention of unclear safety and efficacy with disagreement between current practice guidelines. To better characterize the risk and benefit of IVC filter insertion prior to bariatric surgery based on the current evidence. A systematic review of the literature of patients with prophylactic IVC filter insertion prior to bariatric surgery was performed and 32 studies were identified for inclusion into the review, of which none were randomized controlled trials. Meta-analysis was performed including the high-quality included studies. Seven high quality studies reported thrombotic events in patients undergoing bariatric surgery who had an IVCF and a control group which allowed for meta-analysis. The pooled odds ratio of venous thrombotic events in the IVC filter population versus the group without IVC filters was 1.57 (95%CI 0.89, 2.76). Among high quality studies 5 reported major bleeding with a rate of 0.76% and 6 reported on IVC filter complications with a rate of 0.67%. Overall no significant reduction in the rate of venous thrombosis was found with prophylactic IVC filter insertion. Use of IVC filters for prophylaxis remains a concern given the lack of clear efficacy in this setting and a small but present complication risk.

American Society of Hematology 2019 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: prevention of venous thromboembolism in surgical hospitalized patients

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common source of perioperative morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) intend to support decision making about preventing VTE in patients undergoing surgery.

METHODS

ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline-development process, including performing systematic reviews. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on 30 recommendations, including for major surgery in general (n = 8), orthopedic surgery (n = 7), major general surgery (n = 3), major neurosurgical procedures (n = 2), urological surgery (n = 4), cardiac surgery and major vascular surgery (n = 2), major trauma (n = 2), and major gynecological surgery (n = 2).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients undergoing major surgery in general, the panel made conditional recommendations for mechanical prophylaxis over no prophylaxis, for pneumatic compression prophylaxis over graduated compression stockings, and against inferior vena cava filters. In patients undergoing total hip or total knee arthroplasty, conditional recommendations included using either aspirin or anticoagulants, as well as for a direct oral anticoagulant over low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). For major general surgery, the panel suggested pharmacological prophylaxis over no prophylaxis, using LMWH or unfractionated heparin. For major neurosurgery, transurethral resection of the prostate, or radical prostatectomy, the panel suggested against pharmacological prophylaxis. For major trauma surgery or major gynecological surgery, the panel suggested pharmacological prophylaxis over no prophylaxis.

Prophylactic IVC filter placement in bariatric surgery patients: results from a prospective filter registry

Background

Bariatric surgery patients are at increased risk for VTE, but potential risks versus benefits of IVC filters in this group remain unclear. Indwelling filters may increase risk of VTE, and removal of filters in obese patients can be challenging. This study evaluated the incidence of VTE in select bariatric patients receiving prophylactic IVC filters, their risk of filter-related complications, and outcomes from attempted filter retrieval.

Results

Postsurgical DVT occurred in 3 patients within 3 months postoperatively (3%)(95%CI:1-9%), and 1 patient(1%)(95%CI:0-5%) developed acute low-risk PE at 31 days postoperatively, prior to filter removal. All VTE patients were successfully managed with therapeutic anticoagulation alone except one who required thrombolysis. Median filter dwell time was 54 days (range:22-1548), and there were no major filter-related complications (0%)(95%CI:0-3%). Retrieval was attempted in 104 cases (97%)(95%CI:92-99%) and successful in 104 cases (100%)(95%CI:97-100%). Thirty-three patients (32%)(95%CI:23-42%) required advanced techniques for filter removal, and there were no major procedural complications (0%)(95%CI:0-3%). Median follow-up occurred at 344 days (range:3-1570) days after filter retrieval.

Conclusions

No cases of life-threatening post-op PE occurred in this cohort of high-risk bariatric surgery patients receiving prophylactic IVC filters in combination with mechanical and chemoprophylaxis. The risk of filter-related complications was low and retrieval success was high with adjunctive use of advanced techniques.

Clinical trial registration

NCT01158482.

Are too many inferior vena cava filters used? Controversial evidences in different clinical settings: a narrative review

The use of inferior vena cava filters to prevent pulmonary embolism is increasing mainly because of indications that appear to be unclearly codified and recommended. The evidence supporting this approach is often heterogeneous, and mainly based on observational studies and consensus opinions, while the insertion of an IVC filter exposes patients to the risk of complications and increases health care costs. Thus, several proposed indications for an IVC filter placement remain controversial. We attempt to review the proof on the efficacy and safety of IVC filters in several "special" clinical settings, and assess the robustness of the available evidence for any specific indication to place an IVC filter.

Medical literature, vena cava filters and evidence of efficacy

Up to 15% of all patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) receive an inferior vena cava filter, and prophylactic placements are increasing. To determine whether current use of filters is based on robust evidence, a global review of the recent (2001–2012) literature on filters was undertaken. The MEDLINE database was searched for articles related to filters appearing during the period 2001–2012, updating a prior search of literature from 1975–2001. All retrieved articles were analysed, classified into predetermined categories and compared to the prior analysis; randomised and large (>100 patients with a filter) comparative non-randomised clinical studies were read in full. The 651 articles, vs 568 in the period 1975–2000, consisted mainly of retrospective series (37.8%), case reports (31.7%), reviews (14.7%, vs 6.7%, p<0.001), animal and/or in vitro studies (7.5%, vs 12.9%, p=0.002), and prospective series or trials (4.9%, vs 7.4%, p=0.07). Of 4 new randomised trials (RCT), none were designed to test the efficacy of the device; to date, only one RCT has attempted to ascertain efficacy, occurring during the period 1975–2000. Eleven large non-randomised studies compared clinical outcomes of patients with and without filters, in VTE patients (n=5) or prophylactic indications (n=6); two studies found statistically significant relationships between filter use and lower mortality rates, though none could demonstrate a causal relationship. Hence, the plethoric literature on filters parallels growing experience with these devices, but still fails to provide reliable evidence that filter use improves relevant clinical outcomes. No indication for filter placement is based on appropriate scientific evidence.

Prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing bariatric surgery

Bariatric surgical procedures are now a common method of obesity treatment with established effectiveness. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) events, which include deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, are an important source of postoperative morbidity and mortality among bariatric surgery patients. Due to an understanding of the frequency and seriousness of these complications, bariatric surgery patients typically receive some method of VTE prophylaxis with lower extremity compression, pharmacologic prophylaxis, or both. However, the optimal approach in these patients is unclear, with multiple open questions. In particular, strategies of adjusted-dose heparins, postdischarge anticoagulant prophylaxis, and the role of vena cava filters have been evaluated, but only to a limited extent. In contrast to other types of operations, the literature regarding VTE prophylaxis in bariatric surgery is notable for a dearth of prospective, randomized clinical trials, and current professional guidelines reflect the uncertainties in this literature. Herein, we summarize the available evidence after systematic review of the literature regarding approaches to VTE prevention in bariatric surgery. Identification of risk factors for VTE in the bariatric surgery population, analysis of the effectiveness of methods used for prophylaxis, and an overview of published guidelines are presented.

Strut penetration: local complications, breakthrough pulmonary embolism, and retrieval failure in patients with Celect vena cava filters

PURPOSE

To investigate strut penetration in patients with Celect filters, specifically local complications and association with breakthrough pulmonary embolism (PE) or retrieval failure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective single-center study was conducted to evaluate patients who received Celect filters between January 2007 and May 2013. A total of 595 filters were placed during the study period. Primary indications included thromboembolic disease (93%) and primary surgical prophylaxis (7%). Complications and retrieval data were assessed by computed tomography (CT) and electronic medical records.

RESULTS

A total of 193 patients underwent follow-up abdominal CT at a mean follow-up interval of 176.2 days (range, 0-1,739 d). The rate of strut penetration more than 3 mm outside the caval wall was 28.5% (n = 55). One patient had CT evidence of clinically major strut penetration (1.8%) with strut compression of the right ureter causing hydronephrosis. Indwelling filter time longer than 100 days was associated with strut penetration (P < .001). Age, sex, and history of thromboembolic disease were not associated with strut penetration (P = .51, P = .81, and P = .89). Sixty-three patients presented for follow-up CT pulmonary angiography at a mean of 128.1 days (range, 1-895 d). The rate of breakthrough PE was 12.7%. The overall retrieval success rate was 96.7% (n = 150). Strut penetration was not associated with breakthrough PE or retrieval failure (P = .49 and P = .22).

CONCLUSIONS

Although strut penetration is a common complication with Celect filters, there is no association with breakthrough PE or retrieval failure. CT evidence of local complications associated with strut penetration is rare.

Abdominal wall reconstruction in the obese: an assessment of complications from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program datasets

BACKGROUND

This study utilizes the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database to better understand the impact of obesity on perioperative surgical morbidity in abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR).

METHODS

We reviewed the 2005 to 2010 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program databases, identifying cases of AWR and examining early complications in the context of obesity (body mass index > 30, World Health Organization classes 1 to 3).

RESULTS

Of 1,695 patients undergoing AWR, 1,078 (63.2%) patients were obese (mean body mass index = 37.6 kg/m(2)). Major surgical complications (15.3% vs 10.1%, P = .003), wound complications (12.5% vs 8.1%, P = .006), medical complications (16.2% vs 11.2%, P = .005) and return to the operating room (9.1% vs 5.4%, P = .006) were significantly increased, while renal complications (1.9% vs .8%, P = .09) neared significance. On logistic regression, obesity only directly led to a significantly increased odds of having a renal complication (odds ratio = 4.4, P = .04). Complications were still noted to increase with World Health Organization classification, including a concerning incidence of venous thromboembolism.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the incidence of complications increased with obesity, obesity itself does not appear to increase the odds of perioperative morbidity. Specific care should be given to VTE prophylaxis and to preventing renal complications.

Clinical review: inferior vena cava filters in the age of patient-centered outcomes

Inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) use continues to increase in the United States (US) despite questionable clinical benefit and increasing concerns over long-term complications. For this review we comprehensively examine the randomized, prospective data on IVC filter efficacy, compare relative rates of IVCF placement in the US and Europe, compare commonly considered guidelines for IVCF indications, and the current data on IVCF complications. Searches of MEDLINE and Cochrane databases were conducted for randomized prospective IVCF studies. Only three randomized prospective studies for IVCFs were identified. Commonly cited IVCF guidelines were reviewed with attention to their evolution over time. No evidence has shown a survival benefit with IVCF use. Despite this, continued rising utilization, especially for primary prophylactic indications, is concerning, given increasing evidence of long-term filter-related complications. This is particularly noted in the US where IVCF placements for 2012 are projected to be 25 times that of an equivalent population in Europe (224,700 versus 9,070). Pending much-needed randomized controlled trials that also evaluate long-term safety, we support the more stringent American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) guidelines for IVCF placement indications and advocate a close, structured follow-up of retrievable IVCFs to improve filter retrieval rates.

Pulmonary embolism and fatal stroke in a patient with severe factor XI deficiency after bariatric surgery

We report the case of a 40-year-old woman with a severe factor XI (FXI) deficiency who died from a stroke due to bilateral internal carotid arteries occlusion after a laparoscopic gastric bypass (bariatric surgery). This stroke was probably secondary to a pulmonary embolism with a paradoxical embolism through a previously unknown foramen ovale. This woman who had one severe episode of bleeding before the bypass received for the intervention a single infusion of 27 U/kg of FXI concentrate. A careful evaluation of the bleeding and thrombotic risk was performed before surgery, and despite all preventive measures, this tragic event occurred. The aim of this report is to alert medical teams to carefully balance the benefit-risk of such an intervention in a patient with a severe FXI deficiency.

Decision analysis of retrievable inferior vena cava filters in patients without pulmonary embolism

BACKGROUND

Retrievable filters are increasingly implanted for prophylaxis in patients without pulmonary embolism (PE) but who may be at transient risk. These devices are often not removed after the risk of PE has diminished. This study employs decision analysis to weigh the risks and benefits of retrievable filter use as a function of the filter's time in situ.

METHODS

Medical literature on patients with inferior vena cava (IVC) filters and a transient risk of PE were reviewed. Weights reflecting relative severity were assigned to each adverse event. The risk score was defined as weight × occurrence rate and combines the frequency and severity for each type of adverse event. The value function in the decision model combines the following risks: (1) risk in situ; (2) risk of removal, and (3) relative risk without filters. A decreasing net risk score represents a net expected benefit, and an increasing net risk score indicates the expected harm outweighs the expected benefit.

RESULTS

The net risk score reaches its minimum between day 29 and 54 postimplantation. This is consistent with an increasing net risk associated with continued use of retrievable IVC filters in patients with transient, reversible risk of PE. The results were insensitive to reasonable variations in the assessed weights and adverse event occurrence rates.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with retrievable IVC filters in whom the transient risk of PE has passed, quantitative decision analysis suggests the benefit/risk profile begins to favor filter removal between 29 and 54 days after implantation.

Risks and benefits of prophylactic inferior vena cava filters in patients undergoing bariatric surgery

BACKGROUND

The United States Food and Drug Administration recently issued a warning about adverse events in patients receiving inferior vena cava (IVC) filters.

OBJECTIVE

To assess relationships between IVC filter insertion and complications while controlling for differences in baseline patient characteristics and medical venous thromboembolism prophylaxis.

DESIGN

Propensity-matched cohort study.

SETTING

The prospective, statewide, clinical registry of the Michigan Bariatric Surgery Collaborative.

PATIENTS

Bariatric surgery patients (n=35,477) from 32 hospitals during the years 2006 through 2012.

INTERVENTION

Prophylactic IVC filter insertion.

MEASUREMENTS

Outcomes included the occurrence of complications (pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and overall combined rates of complications by severity) within 30 days of bariatric surgery.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics among the 1,077 patients with IVC filters and in 1,077 matched control patients. Patients receiving IVC filters had higher rates of pulmonary embolism (0.84% vs 0.46%; odds ratio [OR], 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6-6.5; P=0.232), deep vein thrombosis (1.2% vs 0.37%; OR, 3.3; 95% CI, 1.1-10.1; P=0.039), venous thromboembolism (1.9% vs 0.74%; OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.1-6.3, P=0.027), serious complications (5.8% vs 3.8%; OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.0-2.4; P=0.031), permanently disabling complications (1.2% vs 0.37%; OR, 4.3; 95% CI, 1.2-15.6; P=0.028), and death (0.7% vs 0.09%; OR, 7.0; 95% CI, 0.9-57.3; P=0.068). Of the 7 deaths among patients with IVC filters, 4 were attributable to pulmonary embolism and 2 to IVC thrombosis/occlusion.

CONCLUSIONS

We have identified no benefits and significant risks to the use of prophylactic IVC filters among bariatric surgery patients and believe that their use should be discouraged.

Inferior vena cava filters for primary prophylaxis: when are they indicated?

Over the past several years there has been a rapid increase in the number of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters placed for primary thromboprophylaxis. Increased use has occurred in settings where other methods of thromboprophylaxis are viewed to be inadequate, technically challenging, or that place patients at an unacceptably high bleeding risk. These clinical services include trauma, bariatric surgery, neurosurgery, cancer, intensive care unit populations, and patients with a relative contraindication to anticoagulation. We review the studies to date addressing filter placement for these indications. Although preliminary data are promising, the patient populations most likely to benefit from prophylactic IVC filter placement have not been well defined, and randomized studies demonstrating efficacy have not been conducted. Moving forward, it will be critical to accomplish these two tasks if IVC filters are to continue to have a role in primary thromboprophylaxis.

The Role for Prophylaxis Inferior Vena Cava Filters in Patients Undergoing Bariatric Surgery: Replacing Anecdote with Evidence

The number of patients choosing surgical alternatives for weight reduction continues to increase. Despite common thromboembolic preventive methods, which include perioperative subcutaneous heparin injections, early mobilization, and sequential compression devices, postoperative deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism remains a devastating complication after bariatric surgery. The role prophylactic inferior vena cava (IVC) filters may play in bariatric surgery remains controversial, and this article aims to address the risks and benefits of prophylactic IVC filters in high-risk bariatric patients and suggest an evidence-based algorithm for their use.

Optimizing perioperative care in bariatric surgery patients

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs have been shown to minimise morbidity in other types of surgery, but comparatively less data exist investigating ERAS in bariatric surgery. This article reviews the existing literature to identify interventions which may be included in an ERAS program for bariatric surgery. A narrative literature review was conducted. Search terms included 'bariatric surgery', 'weight loss surgery', 'gastric bypass', 'ERAS', 'enhanced recovery', 'enhanced recovery after surgery', 'fast-track surgery', 'perioperative care', 'postoperative care', 'intraoperative care' and 'preoperative care'. Interventions recovered by the database search, as well as interventions garnered from clinical experience in ERAS, were used as individual search terms. A large volume of evidence exists detailing the role of multiple interventions in perioperative care. However, efficacy and safety for a proportion of these interventions for ERAS in bariatric surgery remain unclear. This review concludes that there is potential to implement ERAS programs in bariatric surgery.

Central Venous Line Placement prior to Gastric Bypass Improves Operating Room Efficiency

Background. Bariatric surgery has increased across America. Venous access is difficult in these patients. Anesthesiologists often utilize valuable operating room (OR) time acquiring reliable intravenous lines. Our objective was to determine if outpatient central venous line (CVL) placement improves OR efficiency and professional reimbursement for CVL insertion. Methods. In our bariatric practice, selected surgery patients have outpatient CVLs placed during prophylactic vena cava filter placement. In a cohort of 268 gastric bypass patients operated between 1/01 and 11/06, we compared time-to-incision between 106 with pre-established CVLs and 162 without. In addition, we determined professional compensation rates for CVLs placed outpatient versus CVLs inserted in the OR. Results. Patients with preoperative (outpatient) CVLs required 35.6 ± 12.5 minutes to skin incision compared with 42.5 ± 13.9 minutes for controls (P < 0.0001), and 34.9% had skin incision in <30 minutes compared with 16.4% of controls. Radiologists collected 28.2% of outpatient billings for CPT code 36556, compared with anesthesiologists who collected <1% when placing CVLs in the OR. Conclusions. Outpatient CVLs prior to gastric bypass improve efficiency in the OR with earlier skin incision. Professional reimbursement is better for outpatient CVLs than intraoperative inpatient CVLs.

Management of the metabolic/bariatric surgery patient

There is currently a global pandemic of obesity and obesity-engendered comorbidities; in particular, certain major chronic metabolic diseases (eg, type 2 diabetes) which markedly reduce life expectancy and quality of life. This review is predicated on the fact that management of the obese patient is a primary concern of all physicians and health care providers, and that metabolic/bariatric surgery is a highly successful therapeutic option for this disease.

Difficulties in managing the surgical patient who is morbidly obese

Managing patients who are morbidly obese in the intensive care unit is associated with a variety of problems uncommonly experienced with the those who are not morbidly obese. Clinicians experience a myriad of unique problems and circumstances, from the need for special beds and lifts to unusual and unknown volumes of distribution resulting in unclear drug dosing. This review examines several issues including sedation, invasive monitoring, venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, surgical infections, nutritional support, and other complications that may be of particular importance to the critically ill patient who is morbidly obese. In many cases, care is altered based on the complicating issues surrounding morbid obesity. In other cases, the presence of obesity suggests no alterations in our routine critical care delivery. A comprehensive review of the literature is undertaken, data are critically considered, and overall opinion is rendered based on the available peer-reviewed literature. In many cases, data are not available that address the specific patient population in question, so related papers (like gastric bypass data) are considered. Many issues do not have definitive answers based on randomized controlled trials, and much is left to treating clinician opinion and local practice patterns. Where good data exist, however, one should consider carefully and individually deviation from the evidence-based approach.

Inferior vena caval filter insertion prior to bariatric surgery: a systematic review of the literature

Placement of inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) is considered in many patients undergoing bariatric surgery. Their placement is driven by a high rate of pulmonary embolism (PE), uncertainty as to the effectiveness of pharmacologic prophylaxis, and a lack of alternate methods to prevent pulmonary embolism. We performed a systematic review of the literature to evaluate the evidence supporting placement of IVCFs in patients undergoing bariatric surgery. Eleven studies were identified; none were randomized trials. Descriptive analysis suggests that IVCFs reduced PE; however, the strength of this observation is tempered by the lack of use of effective forms of prophylaxis and the failure to account for complications of IVCF placement. We conclude, pending the results of controlled studies, that the use of IVCFs cannot be recommended for routine patients undergoing bariatric surgery.

Prevalence of thrombophilias in patients presenting for bariatric surgery

BACKGROUND

The rise in bariatric surgery has driven an increased number of complications from venous thromboembolism (VTE). Evidence supports obesity as an independent risk factor for VTE, but the specific derangements underlying the hypercoagulability of obesity are not well defined. To better characterize VTE risk for the purpose of tailoring prophylactic strategies, we developed a protocol for thrombophilia screening in patients presenting for bariatric surgery at our institution.

METHODS

Between April 2004 and April 2006, 180 bariatric surgery candidates underwent serologic screening for inherited thrombophilias (Factor V-Leiden mutation, low Protein C activity, low Protein S activity, Free Protein S deficiency) and acquired thrombophilias (D-Dimer elevation, Fibrinogen elevation, elevation of coagulation factors VIII, IX, and XI, elevation of Lupus anticoagulants and homocysteine level, and Antithrombin III deficiency). Prevalence rate of each thrombophilia in the subject group was compared to the actual prevalence rate of the general population.

RESULTS

Most plasma markers of both inherited and acquired thrombophilias were identified in higher than expected proportions, including D-Dimer elevation in 31%, Fibrinogen elevation in 40%, Factor VIII elevation in 50%, Factor IX elevation in 64%, Factor XI elevation in 50%, and Lupus anticoagulant in 13%.

CONCLUSIONS

Obesity is a well-described demographic risk factor for VTE. In bariatric surgery candidates routinely screened for serologic markers, both inherited and acquired thrombophilias occurred more frequently than in the general population, and may therefore prove to be useful for individualized VTE risk assessment and prophylaxis.

ASH evidence-based guidelines: what is the role of inferior vena cava filters in the perioperative prevention of venous thromboembolism in bariatric surgery patients?

A 38-year-old morbidly obese male (BMI > 50 kg/m(2)) presents for an elective gastric bypass surgery. He has no personal or family history of venous thromboembolism or hypercoaguability. You are asked by his primary team whether he should receive a retrievable inferior vena cava filter preoperatively for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis.