Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders · 2020
Effect of scheduling inferior vena cava filter removal during the placement encounter on filter removal rate.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kallini Joseph, Steinberger Jonathan, Lipshutz H Gabriel, Friedman Marc L, Van Allan Richard J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: In the present study, we sought to determine whether early pre-emptive scheduling of inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) removal during the preoperative IVCF placement visit would affect the IVCF removal rate.
METHODS: All electronically documented IVCF placements at a single institution were reviewed from April 2015 to July 2019. The baseline characteristics included age, the clinical indications for IVCF placement, inpatient/outpatient status, and type of IVCF placed. Statistical analysis was performed using the χ2 for discrete variables and the two-tailed paired t test for continuous variables.
RESULTS: A total of 599 patients (mean age, 68 years; 273 women and 326 men) had undergone technically successful IVCF placement. During the preoperative consent process for placement, 232 patients had been scheduled for IVCF removal within 3 months after placement. However, 367 patients had not been scheduled for removal at the preoperative consent process. The indications for placement included failure of anticoagulation, a contraindication to anticoagulation (eg, bleeding), preoperative prophylaxis, and others. Of the 232 patients scheduled for IVCF removal during preoperative consent for IVCF placement, 103 (44%) had undergone successful IVCF removal (mean interval from placement, 107 ± 100 days). Of the 367 nonscheduled patients, 89 (24%) had undergone successful IVCF removal (mean time, 184 ± 215 days). We found a significant improvement in the IVCF removal rate between the scheduled and nonscheduled patients (P < .0001). Three patients (all from the scheduled group) had a clot burden within the IVCF, which meant they were inappropriate for removal. These patients were rescheduled and had eventually undergone uncomplicated removal.
CONCLUSIONS: Scheduling IVCF removal during the placement encounter significantly increased the IVCF removal rate. This approach could be a viable option for institutions where clinic time and/or resources are limited or unavailable and for patients who have difficulty traveling for clinical evaluations.
METHODS: All electronically documented IVCF placements at a single institution were reviewed from April 2015 to July 2019. The baseline characteristics included age, the clinical indications for IVCF placement, inpatient/outpatient status, and type of IVCF placed. Statistical analysis was performed using the χ2 for discrete variables and the two-tailed paired t test for continuous variables.
RESULTS: A total of 599 patients (mean age, 68 years; 273 women and 326 men) had undergone technically successful IVCF placement. During the preoperative consent process for placement, 232 patients had been scheduled for IVCF removal within 3 months after placement. However, 367 patients had not been scheduled for removal at the preoperative consent process. The indications for placement included failure of anticoagulation, a contraindication to anticoagulation (eg, bleeding), preoperative prophylaxis, and others. Of the 232 patients scheduled for IVCF removal during preoperative consent for IVCF placement, 103 (44%) had undergone successful IVCF removal (mean interval from placement, 107 ± 100 days). Of the 367 nonscheduled patients, 89 (24%) had undergone successful IVCF removal (mean time, 184 ± 215 days). We found a significant improvement in the IVCF removal rate between the scheduled and nonscheduled patients (P < .0001). Three patients (all from the scheduled group) had a clot burden within the IVCF, which meant they were inappropriate for removal. These patients were rescheduled and had eventually undergone uncomplicated removal.
CONCLUSIONS: Scheduling IVCF removal during the placement encounter significantly increased the IVCF removal rate. This approach could be a viable option for institutions where clinic time and/or resources are limited or unavailable and for patients who have difficulty traveling for clinical evaluations.